Adventure Game Studio

It's not exactly "original", but there is a school of thought that true objectivity can never truly exist. As human beings it is in our nature to allow our emotions and past experience to influence our thinking. This makes objectivity seem like an unobtainable goal.

Seeing as the discussion is going in that direction anyway, we may as well make this about religion. If someone (read as: me) was raised in a home with general Christian beliefs, is it possible for them to make an objective decision in favor of Christian beliefs? Or would the only truly objective decision be to abandon the traditions and turn to atheism or perhaps another religion? Of course there's also the possibility that you're all going to say no one could objectively choose religion to begin with, but that would be to entirely discount personal experience. What, personal experience can't be objective? Wouldn't that mean that all observation and scientific research is completely bunk anyway?

Well, guess I'd better stick to religion then.

Science is, partially at least, the study of removing bias and subjectivity. We try to *measure* things rather than make judgments on things. We don't say the world isnt 6000 years old because we think thats about right. We say that because all our measurements tell us so.

Epistomologically though, no. Humans can never be objective because we don't have an objective lens through which to view reality. We are, and will forever be, fundamentally disconnected from the universe. Science accepts this fact and does the best it can to mitigate it's effects. This is not a plus for the abrahamic religions though because they make actual claims about the nature of reality (all powerful god and creation and so forth) rather than some other religions which merely advise us on how to deal with our relationship to the underlying reality from which we shall forever be oblivious.

Raising a kid in a religious household is like brainwashing them. Children cannot tell the difference between advice based on reality and advice based on the specific religion of the household. Even if true objectivity were possible, those children are the least likely to make objective decisions about faith. If everybody you have ever known for the first fifteen years of your life thinks hell is a real place, why wouldn't you? And psychologists will tell you that the constant reinforcements of those beliefs, the endless repetition in church and your social life, will cement them in your mind.
If you actually think that at some point, you objectively chose religion, you're doubly wrong. You didn't choose, much less objectively.
Unless of course you have just told us that if you had grown up in Iraq, in a muslim household, at some point you'd have made an objective decision to be a Mormon. Is this actually what you believe? Don't forget that the Joseph Smith story is obviously a cheap scam to everybody who wasn't raised Mormon.

Parents who understand atheism and critical thinking don't try to raise atheists by indoctrinating them, they try to raise free thinkers, skeptics, rational people. They try to give them the proper tools to come up with their own conclusions. Religious people simply don't do this. After all, they're protecting their kid from going to hell.
Science is the closest we can come to objectivity.

QuoteWell, guess I'd better stick to religion then.

Sounds like you're conceding that NOMA is bullshit. Be consistent though: please give up all technology, don't get any more vaccinations or other medical care, and go live in a hut without power or phone lines.

Maybe it's true that there's no real objectivity, at least not for us humans. Everything gets filtered through my senses and my brain. So what I see and what I feel isn't necessarily true. But that doesn't mean that science is nonsense, because there's a little more to science than looking at things and guessing. And obviously science has got a few things right - otherwise we wouldn't be sitting in front of our computers to discuss these things on a web forum. ;)

So instead of trying to be objective, you say it's better to trust:
A) a bunch of people who have over history been proven to have done awful things with motivation of greed and personal gain, by butchering, starting wars, burning people alive, stealing, promoting actions that cause the spread of STD-s etc. Not to mention all the riches they've gathered over the centuries by taxing states and poor people to build giant monuments to God while all around them people died in poverty?
B) a book that has it's origin in about 1500 years and contains stories passed on from generations of sheep herders who were mostly illiterate. A book containing stories of magic and floods and miracles that all not seem to have happened in the last 1000 years even though much worse things have? A book that has more ambiguous interpretations through that party from section A, than anything else in the history of mankind...

Choosing that and so much more decide what is right and wrong instead of thinking for yourself, because you have doubt about your objectivity!? Is that what God or Jesus or whatever authority or higher being would have wanted? Man, if you could have rational discussion with religious people, then really there would be no religious people. :smiley:

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Fri 07/06/2013 07:36:56We don't say the world isnt 6000 years old because we think thats about right. We say that because all our measurements tell us so.

Right. I don't believe that I ever said the Earth is only 6000 years old. The Bible doesn't either.

Quote from: Khris on Fri 07/06/2013 11:47:20If everybody you have ever known for the first fifteen years of your life thinks hell is a real place, why wouldn't you?

Interesting argument to use against someone who doesn't believe in "Hell" in the traditional sense.

Quote from: Khris on Fri 07/06/2013 11:47:20And psychologists will tell you that the constant reinforcements of those beliefs, the endless repetition in church and your social life, will cement them in your mind.

Because endless repetition of atheist viewpoints isn't equally capable of the same effect?

Quote from: Khris on Fri 07/06/2013 11:47:20If you actually think that at some point, you objectively chose religion, you're doubly wrong. You didn't choose, much less objectively.

Sorry, but I did choose, objectively. I objectively observed the results of various experiments throughout my life, and the results were invariable. Even when they didn't match the results I may have been expecting (or have been told to expect), I was still able to state the results that occurred.

Quote from: Khris on Fri 07/06/2013 11:47:20Unless of course you have just told us that if you had grown up in Iraq, in a muslim household, at some point you'd have made an objective decision to be a Mormon. Is this actually what you believe?

Were I raised Muslim and later given the opportunity to study the LDS doctrine, I know for a fact that I would have converted. It is the most logically correct gospel doctrine on the face of the planet.

Quote from: Khris on Fri 07/06/2013 11:47:20Don't forget that the Joseph Smith story is obviously a cheap scam to everybody who wasn't raised Mormon.

If you'd equally label every religious faction that exists as "a cheap scam" then I could see where you're coming from. Encouraging people to start actually following the teachings of Christ instead of bickering about the correct interpretation of a verse of scripture definitely seems like a huge scam. Especially when it's the only religious faction that will openly declare that every religious faction (including atheism, which is a religious faction) has some degree of truth.

Quote from: Khris on Fri 07/06/2013 11:47:20Parents who understand atheism and critical thinking don't try to raise atheists by indoctrinating them, they try to raise free thinkers, skeptics, rational people. They try to give them the proper tools to come up with their own conclusions. Religious people simply don't do this. After all, they're protecting their kid from going to hell.

I would like to see your research that proves that religious people are more discouraging of their children being free thinking or rational people compared to atheists. Oh, and in case you think it would be clever to send a link to LMGTFY, I'll point out that when I did it I was being asked for research about an unrelated topic which I had never mentioned.

Quote from: Khris on Fri 07/06/2013 11:47:20Science is the closest we can come to objectivity.

Why on earth would you think that I oppose science? Science and religion are not at odds with each other. In fact, they work together perfectly.

Quote from: Khris on Fri 07/06/2013 11:47:20

QuoteWell, guess I'd better stick to religion then.

Sounds like you're conceding that NOMA is bullshit. Be consistent though: please give up all technology, don't get any more vaccinations or other medical care, and go live in a hut without power or phone lines.

Sounds like you're conceding that your understanding of sarcasm is cattle feces. Also, I'll point out again that many biblical laws were superseded or abolished entirely within the Bible itself. Also, NOMA (http://noma.org/) is bs.

Quote from: Anian on Fri 07/06/2013 12:21:42So instead of trying to be objective,

I don't oppose objectivity. I live for it.

Quote from: Anian on Fri 07/06/2013 12:21:42you say it's better to trust:
A) a bunch of people who have over history been proven to have done awful things with motivation of greed and personal gain, by butchering, starting wars, burning people alive, stealing, promoting actions that cause the spread of STD-s etc. Not to mention all the riches they've gathered over the centuries by taxing states and poor people to build giant monuments to God while all around them people died in poverty?

I'm sorry, I never said I was Catholic...because I'm not. This point bears no relevance or semblance to the religious faction which I prescribe.

Quote from: Anian on Fri 07/06/2013 12:21:42B) a book that has it's origin in about 1500 years and contains stories passed on from generations of sheep herders who were mostly illiterate. A book containing stories of magic and floods and miracles that all not seem to have happened in the last 1000 years even though much worse things have? A book that has more ambiguous interpretations through that party from section A, than anything else in the history of mankind...

The Bible itself is primarily a collection of journals and personal letters, though insofar as it's translated correctly it has never been shown to be incorrect (because it can't be). I'm curious what "magic" you're referring to, unless you mean those acts carried out by street magicians claiming to be acting in the name of God, though they weren't. There are many documented cases of modern day miraculous events that are overlooked simply because science isn't able to explain them. Thousands of people have documented cases of miraculously being cured or healed of disease, even in modern times. As for the unrelated misinterpretations of "that party from section A", that's ties in to my assertion that my religious faction is the most logically correct.

Quote from: Anian on Fri 07/06/2013 12:21:42Choosing that and so much more decide what is right and wrong instead of thinking for yourself, because you have doubt about your objectivity!? Is that what God or Jesus or whatever authority or higher being would have wanted?

Why does following a certain faith mean I am incapable of thinking for myself? In actuality, I am very cautious about following religious practices prior to obtaining an objective understanding of why I am doing so. Which is the way God (the Father) and Jesus (the Son) would want it.

Quote from: Anian on Fri 07/06/2013 12:21:42Man, if you could have rational discussion with religious people, then really there would be no religious people. :smiley:

Man, if you could have a rational discussion with atheists, then really there would be no atheists.

Quote(including atheism, which is a religious faction)

As long as you actually think that's the case, arguing with you is a complete waste of time. Don't you want to be taken seriously? Stop trolling.

Quote from: Khris on Sat 08/06/2013 02:36:59Don't you want to be taken seriously?

Not if I can help it.

Quote from: monkey_05_06Never take me seriously. Unless I'm being serious. Seriously.

If anyone took me seriously then I seriously wouldn't be able to talk seriously about any topic without fear of being taken seriously. This would destroy my ability to objectively state the truth of my observations.

Atheism is merely a lack of belief in God claims.

Some really interesting stuff being said in this thread. These kind of conversations are my favorite. However, they usually don't really lead to anything good. Typically, both parties leave the discussion angrier and more strongly-rooted in their beliefs than before. I feel like these conversations are useless unless both parties can come to the table with an open mind and the conversation doesn't devolve into heated, back-and-forth arguments of who's more stupid.

I actually changed my mind about a lot of stuff after having some calm, in-depth discussions about religion (I wasn't really Christian, more of a spiritual agnostic). I also did a lot of research on my own. Stuff like The Atheist Experience (http://www.atheist-experience.com/) with Matt Dillahunty really helped me solidify what my beliefs were and why. If you're spiritual and want to hear different viewpoints, I'd recommend it. :)

This episode (http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-tv-show/atheist-experience-795-argument-from-making-sense-6494842) was really good, although the discussion gets pretty heated in parts.

If there's one thing I've learned no one will ever change their beliefs unless they do it on their own.

Quote from: Armageddon on Sat 08/06/2013 03:20:04change their beliefs

Khris has openly stated that this is impossible. Which means that it's impossible for me to choose to stop believing. Also, Journey made it impossible for me to stop believin' even before I was born. So.

Waheela raises a good point that this thread probably isn't going anywhere good. Although I won't (read as: can't?) change my beliefs out of anything that comes of this thread, I do also find it interesting. Despite what some might think, I actually do a fair amount of research into other faiths.

Quote from: Khris on Sat 08/06/2013 02:36:59

Quote(including atheism, which is a religious faction)

As long as you actually think that's the case, arguing with you is a complete waste of time.

I maintain this assertion based on the fact that "not believing in [something]" is syntactic sugar for "believing [something] is false". Atheists believe that God does not exist, therefore atheism is a representation of their religious faith.

Quote from: Alma 32:21 (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/32.21?lang=eng), The Book of Mormon21 And now as I said concerning faithâ€"faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

This definition of faith even applies to atheist's faith that God does not exist. In a manner of speaking, "atheists do not have a perfect knowledge of things, therefore atheists hope that God does not exist (for he is not seen), which is true" (from the atheist manifesto, presumably).

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sat 08/06/2013 04:08:01
I maintain this assertion based on the fact that "not believing in [something]" is syntactic sugar for "believing [something] is false". Atheists believe that God does not exist, therefore atheism is a representation of their religious faith.

Hmmm, I think I see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure how plausible it is to say that a lack of a belief in something is a religion. :-\

That really depends on the definition of the term religion. Sure, it has a certain connotation about someone who prescribes to a belief in deity, but that doesn't mean it's the only appropriate or applicable definition.

Quote from: Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion)4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Quote from: Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion)1: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe...

Atheism is a set of beliefs pertaining to the non-existence of God (gods, etc.), so it's not beyond reason to say that atheism is a religious faction.

As I mentioned before though, I wouldn't really say atheism is a "set of beliefs". The only thing that makes you an atheist is not accepting proof of God claims as true.

If we go by your standards of religion though, couldn't you make almost anything a religion? If you're a Democrat or Republican, does that make you part of a religion?

I think we may just have to agree to disagree on how we want to define religion.

QuoteRaising a kid in a religious household is like brainwashing them.

Well, Khris, raising a kid is much more than that. It's the hardest job in the world and it really doesn't matter what religion the parents follow or don't follow. In fact, your assumptions are pretty much old-story, ignorant hate-rants against religious people are so gone this days that I think you're just trying to pick up a fight.
Monkey has told you that religious people cope pretty well with science, I have told you that religious people do think about it when they choose to follow a religion. It looks to me that you have the opportunity to talk about religion with 2 religious persons but refuse to do it, instead you launch attacks that aren't even interesting points of view.
Monkey is not a "easy" guy to read, maybe I'm not as well. But I don't see hostility towards atheists from him or me. And that has a name: respect for other people beliefs.
I have a opinion about atheists as well, you know? What I do is to think first and realize that I'm on a computer game forum and 99% of the people here aren't religious. Therefore I restrain myself from commenting. I respect.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sat 08/06/2013 04:08:01Khris has openly stated that is impossible.

I said you cannot consciously decide what you believe. I'm talking about how ex-religious people lost their faith: they didn't wake up and decide to abandon their faith, what happens is they actually read the bible, or attend seminary, or talk to atheists at college, or listen to atheist podcasts, whatever. At some point, a certain percentage will start to doubt. If they continue this road, and for instance discover that some of the things they believe are propaganda ("atheists hate god"), they can lose their faith. Most ex-religious people will tell you that they remember what it was that actually made them change their minds.
You're free to call this entire process "actively change one's beliefs", but I was talking about the fact that in they end, they couldn't help but lose faith.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sat 08/06/2013 04:08:01I maintain this assertion based on the fact that "not believing in [something]" is syntactic sugar for "believing [something] is false". Atheists believe that God does not exist, therefore atheism is a representation of their religious faith.

So not collecting stamps is a hobby? And being a non-smoker will give you lung cancer? Being allergic to nuts makes you a fan of "not nuts"? My favorite food is "I'm not hungry"?
I'll put it another way: To me, Religion is about accepting supernatural claims about the nature of the universe. I have no good reason to accept any supernatural claims, which is why I'm a skeptic and thus an atheist. I reject religious beliefs, because many of them can shown to be false (for instance creationism).
How this makes me religious, how the rejection of faith makes my position a faith, I don't see.

If you mean to say that I as well accept claims based on faith (for instance the theory that germs cause disease), then well, I guess I do. I wouldn't call it faith though, because faith is believing something to be true without a good reason. And I actively try to get rid of beliefs like that, to suspend judgment until I have all the facts. And I don't need faith to accept the germ theory of disease as true (for now, until it is disproved).

Another good example is what a jury votes in a trial. When the jury isn't convinced that there's sufficient evidence that the defendant is guilty, they don't vote "innocent", they vote "not guilty". Some of them might think he's actually innocent, but they must address whether he's guilty or not.
"-But if he's not guilty, he's innocent!"
Not necessarily, if he actually did it, but there's insufficient evidence, he's not guilty according to the law, he's not innocent either though.

I'm merely stating that the evidence doesn't suggest God's existence. So I don't accept the god hypothesis as true. I'm not convinced there's no god either, and according to my own standards I can never be, because it's impossible to prove a negative (unless it is logically impossible).

Whatever I do, it's the antithesis of religious faith. Calling it that is just inflammatory, and is completely missing the point.


Since you maintain that you objectively chose your belief based on experiments, could you tell us what those were?

Quote from: miguel on Sat 08/06/2013 11:09:24Well, Khris, raising a kid is much more than that. It's the hardest job in the world and it really doesn't matter what religion the parents follow or don't follow. In fact, your assumptions are pretty much old-story, ignorant hate-rants against religious people are so gone this days that I think you're just trying to pick up a fight.

So if Muslim fundamentalists raise their kids to believe stuff about Allah and Mohammed, that according to your religion is false, is that not brainwashing?
If it isn't, then I guess we have different definitions of what constitutes brainwashing.

Any kind of fundamentalism can "force" a line of thought into children minds. Every thing a parent does can influence children behaviour. Every thing. Hating God as well.
I thought we were discussing modern religious people, the same people you pass by in the street. We don't have a single clue of what is to be born in a 3rd world fundamentalist country. We are lucky.
Agreeing or not with you that an Afghan kid doesn't really have a choice will not change anything regarding the topic.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sat 08/06/2013 01:46:31
Right. I don't believe that I ever said the Earth is only 6000 years old. The Bible doesn't either.

I think it's arguable that the bible does say that or at least that mankind is approximately 6000 year old since it has a full genealogy from adam to jesus.
Although this genealogy is arguably 'faked' by the author of luke since it was important to have jesus be a direct descendant of David for the prophecy to work.

If there's no such thing as objectivity, no one can truly know there's no such thing as objectivity. So backing your actions and beliefs with such claims is pointless. Unless one questions basic logic as well, then everything makes sense and is total nonsense equally.

Calin, the 6,000 years genealogy was a rule around the XVII century. Scholars did base their studies on the bible accounts and went back as far as 4004B.C. However, as with different ancient scripts, genealogy was many times "telescoped". Meaning that generations could be "skipped" while royal and important lineages would always feature. Recent studies point to a margin of 60,000-120,000 years of human kind.

Seriously Khris and I mean "SERIOUSLY". I had a inkling about your dislike for Muslims but before reading this, I never thought you were so much prejudiced in your opinion about the Muslims. Get a life! I wanted to say more on this topic (and answer you back) but I am refraining myself at the moment.

Quote from: miguel on Sat 08/06/2013 13:53:32
Calin, the 6,000 years genealogy was a rule around the XVII century. Scholars did base their studies on the bible accounts and went back as far as 4004B.C. However, as with different ancient scripts, genealogy was many times "telescoped". Meaning that generations could be "skipped" while royal and important lineages would always feature. Recent studies point to a margin of 60,000-120,000 years of human kind.

I am curious, is it told how long Adam lived in Eden? Since iirc he was immortal there that could last for thousands of years? Maybe they even had dinosaurs there. Also, there's no indication that the first seven days of creation were 24 hrs as they are now, isn't it? :)

Adeel:
I was talking about specifically fundamentalists, not all Muslims, and nowhere did I imply, much less state that all Muslims are fundamentalists. I could have used any other religion in my example as well, but Islam directly contradicts Christianity, which is why I used it.
Don't get all worked up, READ properly before getting butthurt and making baseless accusations.
(Also, since you brought it up: Islam is just as wrong and baseless as Christianity, its worse though because apostasy is punishable by death, and this is still enforced today in some predominantly Muslim countries. At least Christians don't kill people who leave the religion any longer.)

Monkey:

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 04/06/2013 09:18:52I don't think it's impossible for people to be good or moral (etc.) in the absence of religion or faith. My argument is that my beliefs make me more good, moral, etc.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Fri 07/06/2013 01:50:05

Quote from: Khris on Thu 06/06/2013 19:45:56But what you're saying boils down to "as long as I'm afraid of hell, I'll behave better".
And you still think you have the better morals? (roll)

I don't believe that I said my morals were better than anyone else's. This is a problem - a lot of what is being perceived isn't what is being said, on both sides. I think this is in human nature to do this, but it doesn't exactly help anyone.

Please explain the fundamental difference between "my beliefs make me more moral" and "my morals are better".

Edit: added context to first quote.

Quote from: miguel on Sat 08/06/2013 11:09:24
Well, Khris, raising a kid is much more than that. It's the hardest job in the world and it really doesn't matter what religion the parents follow or don't follow. In fact, your assumptions are pretty much old-story, ignorant hate-rants against religious people are so gone this days that I think you're just trying to pick up a fight.

Are you seriously going down this road? Do you honestly think you "chose" the religion you believe? Hell no. It was chosen for you (unless you did actually find a religion your parents didn't believe, then kudos to you). These were the options you were given as a child:
A: Accept their beliefs as your own
B: Objectively disbelieve in their faith
C: Find another faith.
All of these options, except for A leave you with this: what if I'm wrong and go to "hell" and never see my family again!!?

I doubt you can say "I was just lucky my parents believed the best religion. If they believed in another religion, I would've found Christianity (etc) on my own!" Blah! Your argument hurts my brain that you can honestly believe it's something you chose (in the actual definition of: to choose). What happened to you as a child was a complete definition of: brainwashing (albeit, for the lack of a better word, it can sound a little harsh)

I was born into a Christian family. I had strongly believed in this faith that my parents passed down on me. I went to church. I went to bible camp. I did many religious things. And all my friends were heavily religious, even more than I.

Then around 12-14 years old I started to look at why I believed in Christianity and not one of the other numerous popular religions. My answer: because I was simply raised to believe it. So I started to question religion and why my parents believed it. Turns out their parents believed it too (no shit)! And guess what, they're parents did too! Odd that my entire family of aunts and uncles, parents and grandparents are all Christian. With your definition of how people choose faith, that's like winning the lottery isn't it? Since you know, you're given the option the moment you come out of the womb, what religion you want to believe. Oh wait, no, that's not right. You're taught what to believe by your parents and friends (brainwashed by the masses).

The biggest reason why I started to disbelieve my own faith: I don't trust humans enough. We are amazing at telling stories and we're unbelievably creative.
I cannot for the life of me trust that any of these religions are real because humans have had their hands all over them. Bending them, twisting them, to their own creative desires. Not to mention the fact that we're hardwired to believe there is something out there watching us - to keep us alert from potential predators that could be stalking us. But in today's predator free world, we're now likely to believe that the "watching" feeling is God, or whomever.

When I was at the point in my young age to fully believe that I do no have faith in any holy, divine powers, I actually told my mother in a conversation about God. I was expressing how I felt, I said, "There isn't a God". What did she do? Did she accept my beliefs and allow me to express myself? No. I was immediately grounded for a week, then yelled at and then scolded and scolded more, making me feel like I was the scum on the earth and that my own mother didn't love me because of the choice I made.

Luckily I didn't have a super die hard religious family who could've decided to bring me to numerous religious schools and whatnot trying to push that belief back in there, to basically re brainwash me in a forceful way.

Anyway, I don't dislike anyone for being religious. I'm also certainly not trying to make anyone become atheist. I don't want to force my beliefs onto others, I want to let them choose on their own (just like I would with my own children). I am just trying to get you to accept that it is, in all definition, a form of brainwashing. And that you in fact did not "choose" for yourself (unless, like I said, you actually found a religion your parents didn't pass on to you).

Quote from: Khris on Sat 08/06/2013 14:40:21
Adeel:
I was talking about specifically fundamentalists, not all Muslims, and nowhere did I imply, much less state that all Muslims are fundamentalists. I could have used any other religion in my example as well, but Islam directly contradicts Christianity, which is why I used it.
Don't get all worked up, READ properly before getting butthurt and making baseless accusations.
(Also, since you brought it up: Islam is just as wrong and baseless as Christianity, its worse though because apostasy is punishable by death, and this is still enforced today in some predominantly Muslim countries. At least Christians don't kill people who leave the religion any longer.)

Well Khris, I am not one of those types who will be Butt-Hurt. I merely smiled just reading your and others' past comments. I think that what you are told by your gathering or what you read in some websites is your only basis of prejudiced thinking. BTW, I assure you that here are many agnostics living here who have not been punished to death.
    Islam isn't just about religion. It's a way of living the life. I am not too much practicing Muslim myself but I know what I am saying. Islam doesn't, hasn't and will not ever OPPOSE science. In fact, Quran invites people to ponder on the universe. There are many scientific facts described in Quran which were proved later. The formation of a baby in the womb, for example. All the things I have told you is not because I want you to convert to Islam. I am just saying that the religion of which you look from one side IS entirely different than you what you think or told it is. I'll explain this in detail later. For now, I am busy.

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Sat 08/06/2013 16:14:01
Are you seriously going down this road? Do you honestly think you "chose" the religion you believe? Hell no. It was chosen for you (unless you did actually find a religion your parents didn't believe, then kudos to you).

I'm not getting this. I'm pretty sure the number of converts in the world are significant enough that it isn't an abnormality that they chose the religion they believed. And especially considering those who drift towards non-theism or whatever. You went ahead and decided that the faith of your parents wasn't for you. You "chose" to go with something else. I'm sure you don't think of yourself as something special, many other people faced such choices, surely. If you add to that the number who investigated and felt that whatever they were born in sounds correct, it would be even more. Sure, it won't be the majority, and many people would probably continue living in the religion they were born in without question, but that doesn't mean that many didn't. Who is to know how miguel came about to where he is now?

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Sat 08/06/2013 16:14:01
All of these options, except for A leave you with this: what if I'm wrong and go to "hell" and never see my family again!!?

I'm not sure, and everyone's bringing up is different, but as far as me personally, and the people I know well enough to be able to answer for, "what if I am wrong and go to hell and never see my family again!!?" didn't seem to be a huge factor in childhood, and certainly not in adulthood. What would be the corollary of that? "Oh no, my parents are wrong, if I go to heaven, I'll never see them again, I better continue pretending to believe as they do!"?

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Sat 08/06/2013 16:14:01
Your argument hurts my brain that you can honestly believe it's something you chose (in the actual definition of: to choose). What happened to you as a child was a complete definition of: brainwashing (albeit, for the lack of a better word, it can sound a little harsh)

I suppose it could be labelled as that, but then, it'd be there along with political leanings, emphasis on sports/education/art (dependant on physical prowess as well, of course), and even complex moral choices. Heck, you could say that the very act of bringing up a child is "brainwashing" them. Now I've heard many people who say "I won't force my child, I will present all options, etc. etc. etc.", but I'm not sure if that is even possible. At the young, formative age, children seek to emulate their parents, and once they've seeped in all of that, it'll be with them for life, even if it is just in the background, unless they make a conscious decision to rebel against that.

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Sat 08/06/2013 16:14:01
Not to mention the fact that we're hardwired to believe there is something out there watching us - to keep us alert from potential predators that could be stalking us. But in today's predator free world, we're now likely to believe that the "watching" feeling is God, or whomever.

I think you mentioned this earlier (or maybe in another thread?) but I'm really not sure about the validity of this. Perhaps you are a sufferer of paranoia? ;D
I do not usually feel like this. If it was as you say, surely religious belief would have increased after humanity progressed into today's predator free world (instead of staying the same or decreasing). I do not usually go around thinking someone is out there watching me...and while I believe in an omnipresent God, it is only when I really think about it that it enters my mind that "God is watching me!11!"

Again, I don't want it to feel like I'm attacking you or anything, it is just that a couple of your statements and understandings you presented didn't really match with me, personally, at least, and I don't think they're a "standard". I do not know, my family and surroundings weren't particularly religious or pushy in that sense..perhaps it was different for you growing up in such a religious atmosphere.


Oh no what have I done....WHY DID I LET MYSELF GET SUCKED INTO POSTING IN THIS THREAD......TRAPPPED NOW FOREVERRRRRRRRR

Susej dog.

That is all.

Quote from: Babar on Sat 08/06/2013 16:53:35

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Sat 08/06/2013 16:14:01
Not to mention the fact that we're hardwired to believe there is something out there watching us - to keep us alert from potential predators that could be stalking us. But in today's predator free world, we're now likely to believe that the "watching" feeling is God, or whomever.

I think you mentioned this earlier (or maybe in another thread?) but I'm really not sure about the validity of this. Perhaps you are a sufferer of paranoia? ;D

Yes I posted this in the other thread. And no, I'm not paranoid. I mostly mentioned it because there was a study done on it recently. You can Google it.

You may not notice this feeling. It's not like you think someone is sitting outside your house looking in your windows. It can also be replaced with the feeling that you're simply not alone.

When you're alone in your room, driving down a lonely backroad, walking through the dark alleyway, you always have that underlying feeling that you're not alone or that someone is watching you. And today with camera tech being so popular, the feeling is even more pressing.

The part of the study wasn't that you believe it's God or a dead relative watching you, that's just my own personal belief that people have turned that feeling into a comfortable feeling of being watched over.

Are you talking about this study: http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=11335 ?
Because my understanding of it (from admittedly a cursory investigation) seems to be that it is talking about situations where there would be people, but there is a level of uncertainty as to whether or not they are looking at you (the article uses the example of sunglasses or low-light conditions when you can't see where they are looking. I may be mistaken, but it seems to be more focused on the eyes and the mind and gaze perception (being able to tell if people who are there are looking at you), and the implicit assumption that if you can't tell with someone's eyes, you get the feeling they're looking at you (which IS something I admit I've occasionally experienced :D), and makes no mention of being alone and having the background feeling of "someone is watching me!"

That fact that the various different belief systems in the world are concentrated in different parts of the world, to me, is very strong evidence that none of them are right.


Ryan's story is oh-so familiar among people who call themselves atheists (as opposed to people who just don't believe in God and never give it much thought).
I went to a Church of England school, I was told that God exists and that people go to Heaven when they die.  In the same way, I was told that 5+5=10, that Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon, or that light travels faster than sound.  I was also told that 'I' comes before 'E' except after 'C'. You eventually learn that not everything you are taught at a young age is necessarily actually 100% true.  After being told one Sunday School that I should love my Christian brothers and sisters more than my real sisters, which frightened and angered me, just a kid at the time, I put God on that list as well.  How dare you put me in this position! I love my sisters more than anyone else in the room, and if that means I'm going to Hell, then fucking fine by me.  That kind of thing is probably something they said in order to encourage people to bring their siblings along the following week.  Well, instead they lost a sheep.


I'm lucky in a way that my parents are not religious. My mum says she thinks she probably believes there is some kind of God, but she's never ever told me to agree with her. If she had been more religious, maybe me and my sisters would have been too, and then I would have probably kept going to Sunday School, safe in the knowledge that I could love my sisters as equal Christians.

Children are so vulnerable and impressionable.  And the priests, vicars and the Sunday school teachers are all very aware of this fact. I'm sure most of them are genuinely lovely, kind people who don't even realise that they are destroying a child's freedom to think for himself, but that is exactly what they are doing.  Religious parents who force their beliefs to their children are guilty of the same thing.  Again, they are obviously doing what they genuinely believe is right, after all they want their own child to be looked after by their god.

Quote from: Stupot+ on Sat 08/06/2013 17:54:32
Again, they are obviously doing what they genuinely believe is right, after all they want their own child to be looked after by their god.

You know what. About 5 years ago when my brother had his first child, I believe a family member asked when he was going to baptize her. I can honestly admit that it felt as though I was punched in the gut with a sense of worry.. What if I'm wrong in my beliefs and when it came time to have my own children, what if I didn't baptize them? I was baptized when I was younger, so I started to wonder: should I just do it out of security, as a just in case thing?

It really made me question my choice in being atheist and if there are some things I should do out of security OR do I firmly believe in my choice of not doing it. It didn't take me long to decide that no, I won't do it, but I've never felt such a wave of panic and worry before - which is exactly why parents push their own religion onto their children.

It's interesting isn't it.
My sisters and I were never christened as children (I was 'converted' at a christian camp probbaly slightly before the Sunday school incident), but my younger sister and her fiance wanted to christen their child and had to be christened themselves in order for that to happen.  They were only really doing it because his family were pressurising him to do it. My sister didn't really care either way at first and I think she thought it was a good excuse for a booze-up and some presents for the baby.  But closer to the time, she was having serious doubts.  She went along with it anyway, mainly just because of his family.  I think she knows that at the end of the day it makes little difference. They got a nice day out of it and pleased the fiance's family, and the church got another nice tick on the tally to beef up their statistics.

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Sat 08/06/2013 16:14:01Your argument hurts my brain that you can honestly believe it's something you chose (in the actual definition of: to choose). What happened to you as a child was a complete definition of: brainwashing (albeit, for the lack of a better word, it can sound a little harsh)

By the exact definition you've provided, a child raised by atheist parents who don't explicitly teach their child (objectively, which is impossible) about theism from the get out and offer them the choice is also being brainwashed against it. Therefore, by your exact logic, the only objective choice would be to denounce atheism and become a theist. There is a huge flaw in your logic, and I'd like you to stop overlooking it. Or at least accept that atheists are equally responsible of brainwashing children, who then grow into adults who by-and-large are able to make their own decisions.

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Sat 08/06/2013 16:14:01I was immediately grounded for a week, then yelled at and then scolded and scolded more, making me feel like I was the scum on the earth and that my own mother didn't love me because of the choice I made.

Luckily I didn't have a super die hard religious family who could've decided to bring me to numerous religious schools and whatnot trying to push that belief back in there, to basically re brainwash me in a forceful way.

It's readily apparent that your mother acted emotionally and didn't look at the situation objectively. That experience with your parents does not mean that this is the only experience that anyone could have with all parents. Logic has failed again. If I ever have kids and they choose to become atheists (because it is a choice), I will love and care for them the same way. I will persuade them to re-evaluate, but I will not treat them any differently. Just as I don't treat any other person on the street, or anyone who declares themselves an atheist differently. I care about people, and I am supported in that by my religion.

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Sat 08/06/2013 16:14:01Anyway, I don't dislike anyone for being religious. I'm also certainly not trying to make anyone become atheist. I don't want to force my beliefs onto others, I want to let them choose on their own (just like I would with my own children). I am just trying to get you to accept that it is, in all definition, a form of brainwashing. And that you in fact did not "choose" for yourself (unless, like I said, you actually found a religion your parents didn't pass on to you).

Bad logic remains bad, bro. But I haven't read anything past this post coz I'm at work. I appreciate your non-judgement, as I don't judge you, but your selective "applies only to you, but not to me" logic is bothersome. From an objective standpoint.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sat 08/06/2013 18:32:59
There is a huge flaw in your logic, and I'd like you to stop overlooking it. Or at least accept that atheists are equally responsible of brainwashing children, who then grow into adults who by-and-large are able to make their own decisions.

Wrong. From my standpoint, one is faithfully believing in magical beings written by men who used to think the world was flat. The other is completely logical and correct in a scientific standpoint. (nod) (side-note: this can be your exact response to me - except my faith doesn't have powerful almighty beings who love and protect me and want us all to dance in glee when we're all dead)

But yes. I agree that me raising my child without religion, even if I didn't express my own opinions, will undoubtedly make them faithless as well. They just likely will not know why they're faithless or atheist. At least this is a much better way to raise a child rather than telling them that Santa Claus is actually real (replace Santa Claus with religion, because in all honesty, what's the fucking difference? ha).

Just thought I'd stop by again to lighten the mood...

[embed=425,349]<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Kppx4bzfAaE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]

If that isn't a reason to be Christian, I dunno what is. PHAT BEATZ FOH JEBUZ YOW!

Quote from: Stupot+ on Sat 08/06/2013 17:54:32I should love my Christian brothers and sisters more than my real sisters

There is absolutely no record of Christ (who fulfilled and superseded the Mosaic law, etc.) ever saying that anyone should be loved "more equally". Whoever told you this was not practicing Christianity.

Quote from: Khris on Sat 08/06/2013 14:40:21Monkey:

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 04/06/2013 09:18:52I don't think it's impossible for people to be good or moral (etc.) in the absence of religion or faith. My argument is that my beliefs make me more good, moral, etc.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Fri 07/06/2013 01:50:05

Quote from: Khris on Thu 06/06/2013 19:45:56But what you're saying boils down to "as long as I'm afraid of hell, I'll behave better".
And you still think you have the better morals? (roll)

I don't believe that I said my morals were better than anyone else's. This is a problem - a lot of what is being perceived isn't what is being said, on both sides. I think this is in human nature to do this, but it doesn't exactly help anyone.

Please explain the fundamental difference between "my beliefs make me more moral" and "my morals are better".

Khris, there is a fundamental difference between saying "by acting this way I become more moral than acting that way" and saying "my morals are superior to your morals". They're not even related statements. Following my faith leads me to making more moral decisions than when I am not following my faith. This is what I said, and what I meant. Please do not try and twist my words into meaning something other than what I actually said.

Running on that same line of thought though, if you stripped away every bit of mysticism, mythology, supernatural, paranormal, scientifically ineffable tradition from my belief system, you'd still be left with a set of guidelines that say to be generally awesome to everyone equally no matter what, to help the poor, sick, and needy, and to care about other people more than I care about myself. I will not be ashamed for saying that following these guidelines make me into a better person than I would otherwise be.

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Sat 08/06/2013 19:13:41one is faithfully believing in magical beings

It's really interesting to me how everyone supposes that the definition of "god" must involve something completely unrelated to the physical realm whatsoever. Why couldn't a god simply be a sentient creature with greater dominion over the physical plane of existence than what human beings have? Because there is no scientific record of these creatures existing on earth? Or because it would shatter our fragile human egos to think that we're not the most advanced beings that could possibly exist in all of the realm of possibility, even down to the point that some of us are so bold as to declare that the only possible fourth dimension is "time" which is in itself a human invention?

Time doesn't pass or progress, because all it amounts to is a record of the order in which events happened. The progression of time would indicate that time itself is moving, and therefore sufficient opposing force could stop or even reverse it. This is simply not true. The quantum state of every atom in every molecule in the universe isn't going to start reverting itself because you twisted the minute hand the wrong way. But I digress.

Even in the absence of a spiritual plane of existence, it would still be plausible, and possible that life (and evolution) on earth was manipulated by a being with superhuman control over the physical realm. In a manner of speaking, one could even say:

(http://inmediares2013.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/aliens-meme.jpeg)

Oh, and the existence of extraterrestrial lifeforms also doesn't go against my beliefs, and is directly supported by them (even doctrinally).

Quote from: waheela on Sat 08/06/2013 22:25:38Just thought I'd stop by again to lighten the mood...

May as well go straight to the heart of the issue...

[embed=425,349]<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RsK7Tg3hV-0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]

Don't get me wrong here, my knowledge on Mormonism is quite small. But reading about it on wikipedia earlier today, it sounds like it wasn't a thing until 1820s when a man named Joseph Smith, Jr., claimed "he wrote the Book of Mormon after finding buried Golden Plates by being directed to their location by an angel".

What makes him different from, let's say, Hitler? Hitler was a man who was convincing enough to turn the majority of a country into a destructive uprising against the world - not to mention turning his people against Jews and other races. He was a very dedicated and convincing man.

What's to say this Smith person wasn't just as dedicated? "Hey, I'm not overly happy with Christianity, I'm going to make my own spin off of it". He was obviously convincing enough to have led anyone into believing him, let alone having people like you, 200 years later, still defending him and his claims. To each their own, I suppose.

Quote from: Stupot+ on Sat 08/06/2013 17:54:32That fact that the various different belief systems in the world are concentrated in different parts of the world, to me, is very strong evidence that none of them are right.

You know what, if this entire planet only had one single religion, you bet your fancy ass I wouldn't be atheist. I just absolutely know I'd believe in it.

Edit: Basically what I want to say, Monkey, is: If a man happened to run up to you today, telling you he wrote a religious book after finding some golden plates would you believe him? (were those golden plates ever shown to anyone, or were they strictly just part of Joseph Smith's story?) The only reason these claims have any weight on your belief is mostly because you were raised with them, and secondly, because it happened 200 years ago and there is now a numerous amount of followers.

No one wants to be the first follower (http://youtu.be/fW8amMCVAJQ) when it comes to a religion. But when you see a large group, you're all over that shit - especially when you're actually conceived and born in this group.

Quotemy knowledge on Mormonism is quite small

Seems legit.

Hitler spotted! Godwin's Law invoked! Thread is over!

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sat 08/06/2013 22:33:42Khris, there is a fundamental difference between saying "by acting this way I become more moral than acting that way" and saying "my morals are superior to your morals". They're not even related statements. Following my faith leads me to making more moral decisions than when I am not following my faith. This is what I said, and what I meant. Please do not try and twist my words into meaning something other than what I actually said.

I'm not trying to twist anything, I read it like that because the first part of the first quote referred to other people. I realize what you meant though.
So, let's try again:

But what you're saying boils down to "as long as I'm afraid of hell, I'll behave better". How does that support Mormonism or its morals? It simply means that you behave more moral if you follow a certain belief system. So what?
Taking heroin feels good. Does that means it's great stuff and should be legalized?

QuoteRunning on that same line of thought though, if you stripped away every bit of mysticism, mythology, supernatural, paranormal, scientifically ineffable tradition from my belief system, you'd still be left with a set of guidelines that say to be generally awesome to everyone equally no matter what, to help the poor, sick, and needy, and to care about other people more than I care about myself. I will not be ashamed for saying that following these guidelines make me into a better person than I would otherwise be.

Again, if you need your religion to be a better person, that doesn't mean your religion is a good thing, let alone true.

Getting back to the thread's topic though: saying that since a person's thoughts are always subjective, therefore scientific research is bunk is complete bunk.
Science is all about eliminating subjectivity, it's the entire point of science. Science tries to get to the truth, but scientists will also admit that there's no such thing as 100% certainty.  It's all about the likelihood of things.
You seem to distrust science. Why? Could you elaborate?

QuoteAre you seriously going down this road? Do you honestly think you "chose" the religion you believe? Hell no. It was chosen for you (unless you did actually find a religion your parents didn't believe, then kudos to you). These were the options you were given as a child:
A: Accept their beliefs as your own
B: Objectively disbelieve in their faith
C: Find another faith.
All of these options, except for A leave you with this: what if I'm wrong and go to "hell" and never see my family again!!?

Hey Ryan, what the fuck are you talking about?
Do you think you know what I choose for my life? Seriously, do you?
Why? Did you google it?
Why in the hell do you believe that people don't have options? I think you consider yourself pretty smart, way too smart.
And, seriously, "go to hell and never see my family again?", really? Did somebody did that to you? Poor child.
Grow up dude, people are free to choose a religion and because this all thing started about gay marriage, let me tell you this: it's their ass, they do whatever they want with it. Catholics like me will never put a man down if he chooses to be gay or Muslim or atheists or anything. A man is a man and we are all children of God, dude.
This was taught by Jesus Christ and I choose to follow.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sat 08/06/2013 22:33:42

Quote from: Stupot+ on Sat 08/06/2013 17:54:32I should love my Christian brothers and sisters more than my real sisters

There is absolutely no record of Christ (who fulfilled and superseded the Mosaic law, etc.) ever saying that anyone should be loved "more equally". Whoever told you this was not practicing Christianity.

Probably inspired by this:

While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:46-50)

See also:

I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law â€" a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:35-37)

As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. (John 15:9-14)

Quote from: miguel on Sun 09/06/2013 01:15:44if he chooses to be gay

Say what now?
Was this spur of the moment talk or do you really think gay people chose to be gay?

Quote from: miguel on Sun 09/06/2013 01:15:44Hey Ryan, what the fuck are you talking about?

Obviously you're passionate and angry over something.

QuoteDo you think you know what I choose for my life? Seriously, do you?

Nope, but your argument defending parents saying it's the hardest job in the world told me your parents passed their religion on to you:

Quote from: miguel on Sat 08/06/2013 11:09:24

QuoteRaising a kid in a religious household is like brainwashing them.

Well, Khris, raising a kid is much more than that. It's the hardest job in the world and it really doesn't matter what religion the parents follow or don't follow. In fact, your assumptions are pretty much old-story, ignorant hate-rants against religious people are so gone this days that I think you're just trying to pick up a fight.

I only responded to that quote earlier because of your attitude towards Khris with the whole "hate-rants against religious people" and thinking he's trying to pick a fight, JUST because of him saying what is in fact true. Perhaps you were confused by what Khris actually meant. He was saying that the majority of all children born into a religious or non-religious family will adapt their parent's beliefs (I'm quite positive I don't need to show you statistics on this - you yourself should believe this to be true). His comment didn't warrant your response, and quite frankly neither did mine. Put the pitchfork away when you're in a debate. We're not trying to pick fights here, we're simply just expressing our own (albeit, bias) views in a religious debate.

You also never did acknowledge if your parents passed their religion onto you or not (so from here on out, I'm still going to assume that is a yes).

QuoteAnd, seriously, "go to hell and never see my family again?", really? Did somebody did that to you? Poor child.

Again, I haven't a blasted clue what your immature attitude is about. Poor child? I've seem to struck a cord with you. You're passionate about your religion and can't have a logical debate. I don't care that you have accepted your religious upbringings. I'm not against you. I do not dislike you (well, with that attitude, maybe I should?).

What I meant with that sentence you've quoted was that IF for the odd chance you decided to ditch the religion your family has instilled on you, whether you've chosen to be atheist or found another religion, there will always be that thought in your head that your choice was wrong and you may have consequences and go to hell - or whatever consequential punishment your religious views believe.

How could someone "have done that to me"? It doesn't make any sense at all. It's like you're just rambling after a few drinks. Are you asking if I went to hell? Because I clearly didn't.

QuoteWhy in the hell do you believe that people don't have options?

Everyone has options, but will you necessarily choose one after it has already been chosen for you? Especially with something so powerfully impressionable as your family.

QuoteI think you consider yourself pretty smart, way too smart.

Actually no. I don't at all. But, you seem to forget that this is a debate. It has diddly squat with how smart that I think I am. Merely if you think I'm right or wrong.

Quote from: Khris on Sun 09/06/2013 01:45:50

Quote from: miguel on Sun 09/06/2013 01:15:44if he chooses to be gay

Say what now?
Was this spur of the moment talk or do you really think gay people chose to be gay?

I love arguing with people and how they still believe being gay is a choice. Who in the world would want to choose ridicule and embarrassment for "attention" or whatever other ridiculous claims there are. The only choice about being gay is being in the closet or not. Pretending you're someone you're not to avoid the fallout.

It was actually this forum that convinced me that even sexual identity disorder was something you're born with. I always believed it was something that was passed down on you during growth.

My best friend's little brother used to cry about why he was attracted to men and not women. If it was a choice, he'd simply "choose" women instead of crying over why he's attracted to men.

Quote from: miguel on Sun 09/06/2013 01:15:44
Grow up dude, people are free to choose a religion...

They are free and occasionally some convert, though the majority of religious people follow the religion imposed on them as a child.  There have been surveys (http://www.youthandreligion.org/resources/ref_parenting.html) conducted on this.  In my years traveling around in the U.S. and nowadays Asia, I've only met one person who converted and that was for marriage.

Quote from: Khris on Sun 09/06/2013 01:14:56I'm not trying to twist anything, I read it like that because the first part of the first quote referred to other people. I realize what you meant though.

Perhaps you did, perhaps you didn't mean to. I can see how it could have been misread, but I personally feel that in the context in which I was making the statement that my intent should have been clear. In any case, I've clarified it now, so that's that.

Quote from: Khris on Sun 09/06/2013 01:14:56But what you're saying boils down to "as long as I'm afraid of hell, I'll behave better". How does that support Mormonism or its morals? It simply means that you behave more moral if you follow a certain belief system. So what?
Taking heroin feels good. Does that means it's great stuff and should be legalized?

I'm not at a point where I am living by my religious faith out of fear. I choose to follow it because it gives me a sense of direction in my life, and a sense of purpose. I don't expect you (or anyone else for that matter) to just blindly accept what I believe and start following it. I'll share it, talk about it, and even try to have a semi-rational debate where we can both share our point of view. But is it wrong for me to follow my own conviction, especially when my own life's events show that doing so makes me into a better person? There is historical evidence that shows the physical, mental, and socially detrimental effects of drug use. There's even historical evidence that people have used religion and their beliefs to commit some horrible atrocities. But is there evidence that I have done this? I firmly believe people should be held accountable for their own knowledge, understanding, and actions -- not the actions of other people.

Quote from: Khris on Sun 09/06/2013 01:14:56Again, if you need your religion to be a better person, that doesn't mean your religion is a good thing, let alone true.

That's a fair assertion, and again, I don't expect you to accept my religion as true. But again, am I wrong to follow it if it does make me into a better person?

Quote from: Khris on Sun 09/06/2013 01:14:56Getting back to the thread's topic though: saying that since a person's thoughts are always subjective, therefore scientific research is bunk is complete bunk.
Science is all about eliminating subjectivity, it's the entire point of science. Science tries to get to the truth, but scientists will also admit that there's no such thing as 100% certainty.  It's all about the likelihood of things.
You seem to distrust science. Why? Could you elaborate?

I don't distrust science. As "a man of faith" so-to-speak, you could say that I distrust the anti-religious agenda of some certain people in the scientific community. I don't think that science and my religious beliefs are entirely at odds. I think they fit together more like a jigsaw puzzle. Science doesn't offer all of the answers, and yet I don't claim that my religion is the source of all knowledge either. My church publicly advocates for its members "to obtain as much education as possible" (directly and explicitly stating that this is one of the purposes of holding the Aaronic priesthood). Is it any more right for me to blindly accept other people's scientific research than to blindly accept religion?

At some point you had asked what experiment I had taken on my religious beliefs (which I can't help but feel was somewhat devious in intent, seeing as I have already discussed that with you personally). I am not afraid to say it though. I prayed. I prayed about the existence of God. I prayed about the truthfulness of LDS doctrines. I prayed about the truthfulness of the LDS church. I have prayed about many, many different things. I am willing to accept that due to the personal and internal nature of this thing that it is not generally considered a replicable or even scientific experiment. Be that as it may, in every instance that I have seriously sought after an answer, I have had a personally unique experience. That is, there is nothing in my life outside of these so-called "religious" or "spiritual" events where I had the same experience.

Never, not even once have I come close to the same experience in any other area of my life. It wasn't like a thought, or a feeling. It wasn't a voice or a vision. For me, it has always been as though there was something inside of me, trying to burst out. Not like "Alien", but I don't know how else to exactly describe it. It has come with a clarity of mind, a peaceful calm, and an answer. Again, not like a thought in my mind, but just an answer to the question. It's not always the answer I expected. Sometimes the answer has been "no". The first time I prayed about the LDS church itself the answer was "wait".

I'm not saying this is compelling evidence, or that others haven't made claim to similar unscientific and personal experiences. However, this is not something I have willfully decided to make up in my own mind. I say that I have made objective decisions because I stated the results that I got, not necessarily the results I wanted or expected. Feel free to interpret this however you want. It's your prerogative to hold your own opinions, make your own decisions and judgments, etc. For me though, I am compelled to state the results that I have experienced, and this is what I am doing. And as I said, this experience has only come as a result of following my faith.

@Snarky: I can see how that could be interpreted to that end, but to me what it's saying is to love everyone equally, so I maintain what I said about no one being more equal than others. Even the verse saying that a man's enemies may be the members of his own household (presumably, if they choose not to follow Christ) doesn't say not to love them. Christ was rather explicit in detailing the need to love your enemies.

Quote from: Khris on Sun 09/06/2013 01:45:50do you really think gay people chose to be gay?

There's no evidence to the contrary. Nor will there ever be, because it is a choice. And as for the dozen links that you'll send about the gay gene and so forth, there's two dozen more that show evidences that refute it.

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Sun 09/06/2013 02:24:02

QuoteWhy in the hell do you believe that people don't have options?

Everyone has options, but will you necessarily choose one after it has already been chosen for you? Especially with something so powerfully impressionable as your family.

Ryan, you actually bring up a very interesting point here that I hadn't really thought of, or thought relevant. It's been pointed out several times (primarily by Khris) that I was raised in the Mormon/LDS church. What has been overlooked though is the reality of the situation. My biological father was Christian, but was never part of my life. My parents divorced while I was very young, and then he spent most of my childhood in prison for premeditated murder. From age five I was raised by my stepfather who, if pressured into prescribing, aligned himself as Catholic, though in the 15 years my parents were married he only ever went to church once. My mother was a member of the LDS church, but she never had a strong personal testimony about the church. That's not to say she didn't play a role in "indoctrinating" me, but it was far more passive than many of you might have perceived.

At best we went to church two dozen or so times throughout the year, though it was probably often less than that. In later years I would witness my brother (three years older than me) have a massive falling out with the LDS church, to the point that he was actually writing a letter to request that his name be stricken from all church records. I don't know whether he ever followed through with that. My brother will get extremely angry with me for believing in the LDS doctrine, to the point that we cannot even talk about religion in any regard. I do not know if he is actively practicing another denomination of the Christian faith. None of my three sisters have gone to the LDS church in their adult lives as far as I know (if they have, it has been only a few times at best), nor do they actively attend services elsewhere. My mother has openly expressed to me that she does not feel that she will return to the LDS church, though she has not been critical of my attendance.

Out of all of the members of my immediate family, I stand alone in practicing faith in the LDS church and doctrines. The fact that I was "raised" in the LDS church has played a role, by sheer fact that I have had more opportunity to learn about its teachings. I will maintain that I believe the LDS church to be the most true of any church on the face of the earth. I will maintain that even had I not been introduced to it as a child, given the opportunity I still would have become converted, even if that meant standing alone. The only role my family really played in my current beliefs is introducing me to the church, which was never forced upon me by them. Saying that I have made my own decisions does not mean that no outside party has influenced them (no one can say that, even about themselves), but rather that even in the face of opposition (my stepfather, my brother) I will stand behind the choices I have willfully made.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sun 09/06/2013 08:00:13

Quote from: Khris on Sun 09/06/2013 01:45:50do you really think gay people chose to be gay?

There's no evidence to the contrary. Nor will there ever be, because it is a choice. And as for the dozen links that you'll send about the gay gene and so forth, there's two dozen more that show evidences that refute it.

So then that applies to everyone, right? People choose who they're attracted to, who they fall in love with? When Ryan got a crush on his new female coworker (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=11444.msg636457011#msg636457011) and not his male one, that was just because he chose to?

Some people are more flexible than others, but I think the vast majority of us can tell just from introspection that this whole business of finding certain other people sexy is something biological, something not under our conscious control.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sun 09/06/2013 08:00:13
There's no evidence to the contrary. Nor will there ever be, because it is a choice. And as for the dozen links that you'll send about the gay gene and so forth, there's two dozen more that show evidences that refute it.

But you're not looking at this clearly. Are you at all attracted to men? If you are, then maybe that's why you're confused with what gay actually is, and therefore you believe there's a choice. Maybe you're bisexual and have chosen women over the other attractions you feel towards men.

If you're heterosexual then it should be completely and 100% clear to you. I know when I look at a woman (as Snarky pointed out), I can be mesmerized in an instant. Completely infatuated and turned on. Or in some extreme cases an immediate erection - or at least blood flow towards that certain member. (laugh) But on the other hand, if I try to look at a man with sexual thoughts, the exact opposite occurs. My anus practically puckers up tightly with the sheer idea of it. Now that right there is my immediate telltale sign that not a single person would want to choose against that (in my case, my feeling towards women over men). I don't need a doctor or scientist to study gay people to know this to be the case.

You make the "gay gene" sound like it's super rare for someone to be attracted to men or attracted to women. There aren't two separate factories that makes women and men. We're developed in the same womb as your sister or brother, from a single cell turning into the trillions and trillions of cells you have at birth. One hiccup and you're blind, missing a leg, bad heart, no fingers, autistic, etc. Why is it so hard to believe that your brain was developed with the attraction towards women, while your brother may have had a hiccup and is attracted to men.

Hell, we can't even get a house concrete contractor to do his job properly and pour a foundation without issues; cracks, pits, unsquare, etc. And you're supposed to believe the human mind, which is the most complex organic thing I believe we've ever studied, can develop 100% without accidentally having the female attraction or male attraction in the wrong sexes.

And you say you're scientific.

@Ryan. I'm with you in your stance that homosexuality is not a choice and that some people are simply hard wired to prefer men. You make it sound like a disability though. Which I'm sure was not your intention, but could prove controversial :D

I didn't actually mean for it to sound like a disability defect, but now that you've mentioned it, for all purposes of procreation it kind of is...? I don't consider a gay person as defected though, just unfortunately different from the expected norm.

Edit: Oops. I don't mean disability. I meant defect.

To Ryan, who I love:

QuoteNope, but your argument defending parents saying it's the hardest job in the world told me your parents passed their religion on to you:

I believe raising a child is the hardest job in the world. If I was gay or atheist I would think the same.
My mother died when I was 8. I do not recall her "forcing" religion on me although I am aware that she never told me the contrary.
My father was/is a communist inveterate and mocks religion every time he can.
My grandparents on my father side were Catholics but in a very humble way, they were poor people and I guess they would go with the flow without thinking about it.
My grandparents on my mother side divorced around the 50's and that was pretty much a scandal. She was very religious and he was not.
During some years of my life I was taught religion, I took it with a great deal of interest but I had wonderful teachers. I remember clearly a Nun saying that the guy with the long beard was a representation of God and wasn't to be taken seriously. She told me to feel God rather then trying to interpret everything they were teaching Sunday afternoons. She could tell I was smart and some stuff didn't quite "work" on me. One time one of the nuns asked why people should not harm/kill others. I was the first raising my hand and replied that the species could become endangered. She could not hold a smile.
I grew up, did whatever teens do and religion wasn't really that interesting to me.
I got hooked on alternative music and surprise, surprise, many of my hero singers were rebelling against religion. I somehow figured that part of rock&roll is to go against what is established. I never rebelled myself against religion. How could music and words so beautiful laced be a source of evil or anything similar? I understood the differences. I even read Rinbaud and fell in love with his passion but then Nick Drake arrived and I was peaceful again.
The rest of my life? Grew up, found a job "but Heaven knew I was miserable, then." No, not really. I just had a normal life, had a band, smoked some joints, had girlfriends, travelled during winters after saving up in the summer. Happy days with no conflict with anyone because I loved Jesus and his thinking.
Eventually I met my wife back in 2004. We are now 5 plus a dog at home. 2 boys and a girl. None of them is catholic. The older ones hated church. The younger one is really excited about becoming a scout.
What can I say. When they ask questions about religion, I give them my honest opinion. And that's how far I go.
I hope this answers this:

QuoteYou also never did acknowledge if your parents passed their religion onto you or not (so from here on out, I'm still going to assume that is a yes).

You could have asked.

QuotePerhaps you were confused by what Khris actually meant.

I'm not confused by what Khris meant and I believe he doesn't need anybody to answer for him.
It's pretty degrading for parents when you call brainwashing the effort it is to raise their children. Yes they do copy you in order to learn, but even at tender ages they have their specific personalities. No way I could have ever take my older one from playing football. It was clear by the age of 6 that he was not the religious type.
Khris is one of those guys that really are the "salt" of our ironic life. I "read" Khris posts more times than I read my sports column for the past 10 years.
First things first, his altruistic nature is only found among saints. I love to read the lines between the lines of his posts and find really amusing when he "picks" on Monkey.

QuoteAgain, I haven't a blasted clue what your immature attitude is about.

We, Catholics, understand what "hell" is early on in our lives. You passed the idea that all Catholics are terrified that hell is around the corner.
Sorry if I was immature, your assumptions are irresponsible.
I had the feeling you were the one "haunted" by that fear of renouncing religion and pay the price.
That's the problem, see? You guys think that being a religious person is like going to work and put your name when you get in and on your way out. It's not. Being religious is a state of mind that guides your actions and helps you to cope with stressful situations.
My boss, last month or so, had to go to a family funeral. There was a mass the day after or so. He is not Catholic or even the least religious kind of person. I asked him why he went to the mass. Was it by respect for the rest of the family. He answered, "No. Sometimes I just want to listen to a priest. It's the right words at the right time."

QuoteIt's like you're just rambling after a few drinks. Are you asking if I went to hell? Because I clearly didn't.

Glad you didn't. Beware though. God may strike you with vengeful wrath for calling one of his sons a drinker.

QuoteEveryone has options, but will you necessarily choose one after it has already been chosen for you? Especially with something so powerfully impressionable as your family.

Assumptions again. You could have asked.
Intelligent people do change their minds. And now you know part of my life story. Can we really measure who impressed us more? My family or yours?

QuoteBut, you seem to forget that this is a debate.

And you don't?

QuoteI didn't actually mean for it to sound like a disability defect, but now that you've mentioned it, for all purposes of procreation it kind of is...? I don't consider a gay person as defected though, just unfortunately different from the expected norm.

Procreation? Would you stop and read what you write, Ryan? People don't procreate, they wish to raise children. It's one of the most beautiful moments in one's life when you and your partner decide to have kids.
A gay is unfortunately different? Maybe he is lucky that he's not like you?
Look at what all that science and disbelief in religion made of you.

Monkey:
Please don't insinuate malicious intent until it's clearly there. I already explained why I read what you said how I did.
And I looked up the PMs we exchanged and you indeed had already told me about your experiences; I didn't remember that though and even if I had, I probably wouldn't have realized that those were the experiments you were referring to earlier.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sun 09/06/2013 08:00:13

Quote from: Khris on Sun 09/06/2013 01:14:56Again, if you need your religion to be a better person, that doesn't mean your religion is a good thing, let alone true.

That's a fair assertion, and again, I don't expect you to accept my religion as true. But again, am I wrong to follow it if it does make me into a better person?

Have you identified the reason? Why is it that not following your religion makes you a worse person?
My point is: maybe you only behave worse because while not following it, you still hold it to be true. See, if I were convinced that infidels go to hell, and I stopped trying to convert others, I'd probably feel bad, too, because now I'm not trying my best to help others avoid hell. But if I stopped believing instead, this problem would simply disappear.
You're saying that your religion gives you "direction in my life, and a sense of purpose". That's fine of course, but aren't you curious where atheists get those?

QuoteI don't distrust science. As "a man of faith" so-to-speak, you could say that I distrust the anti-religious agenda of some certain people in the scientific community.

Afaik, scientists only push back, for instance when creationists try to sneak their religion into public schools. Could you explain what you mean by "anti-religious agenda"?

QuoteBe that as it may, in every instance that I have seriously sought after an answer, I have had a personally unique experience. That is, there is nothing in my life outside of these so-called "religious" or "spiritual" events where I had the same experience. [...] I'm not saying this is compelling evidence, or that others haven't made claim to similar unscientific and personal experiences. However, this is not something I have willfully decided to make up in my own mind.

Lots of people have these experiences. Have you considered that there could be a natural, scientific explanation for them? Even if we accept it as evidence, what about other people all over the planet, who have similar experiences? Why isn't the first thing that inner voice is telling them something along the lines of "you should convert to the LDS Church, because it's the religion closest to the truth"?
Even if we didn't know anything about how unreliable our brain can be, I'd still have to conclude that this is just evidence for a weird, natural experience, not for a supernatural being that takes an interest in my personal life.

Quote

Quote from: Khris on Sun 09/06/2013 01:45:50do you really think gay people chose to be gay?

There's no evidence to the contrary. Nor will there ever be, because it is a choice. And as for the dozen links that you'll send about the gay gene and so forth, there's two dozen more that show evidences that refute it.

I'm actually glad you said that, because finally, here's the real reason why you oppose gay marriage.
I'm not going to link to anything, I don't really need to. Homosexual behavior is observed in hundreds of animal species. Either religions are wrong, humans aren't special, and there are animals who choose to be gay, or some animals (including humans) are simply born closer to the other end of the Kinsey scale.
Then there's the high schoolers who are relentlessly bullied for being gay, to the point that some of them commit suicide. Either they chose to be gay at a very bad time, or they simply were born closer to the other end of the Kinsey scale.

My reasoning for why some (most? I don't know) religious people believe that being gay is a choice is as follows:
A) There are gay people
B) According to religion, gays are an abomination, and God wants them dead
C) God is omniscient and created humanity
So either God created gays and he's being or huge dick about it, or being gay is a choice.
Which of course means that if a religious person accepted that gays didn't choose, they'd have to face a pretty massive contradiction in their belief system.

There's a really simple way to get a definite answer though. You wrote earlier that you occasionally have friendly interactions with homosexuals. Why not ask them?
If you're feeling cocky, you can also ask them a loaded question like "why did you choose to be gay?"

The whole "religion versus science" debate seems pretty futile, since they do not actually overlap. Religion never tries to answer the materialistic questions like "What does matter consist of?" or "If we throw a rock upwards, why does it fall down?", and science can tell nothing about what lies beyond the material world (like I already said, you cannot discover God, angels or demons in a physical experiment). And while science gives us experimentally proven facts, religion and atheism are just philosophic paradigms that both can match those facts (why couldn't have God invented the Standart Model, after all?  ;)).

People can actually be good and moral without any sort of religion, but I think the best thing it gives us is the belief in afterlife. Because, if our loved ones are really gone forever and we'll never ever see them again, then we live in a really Crapsack world (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CrapsackWorld). And, since we'll never know for sure unless we die, we can only hope this isn't the case.

Cyrus:
There are religious claims that clearly contradict science. Let's not forget that all Christians used to take the entire bible as literal truth, and Creationists today still do so. They claim things like "the Grand Canyon was created by the biblical flood". The entire point of the existence of the Institute for Creation Research or the Intelligent Design movement is to try and prove their religion by using science. (They actually think that in order to prove their religion, it's enough to disprove evolution, a classic fallacy.)
In other words: if all progressive religious people would start a concerted effort to oppose creationism and fundamentalism, I'd be all for it. They don't do that though.

Your second point sounds like "wishful thinking is the greatest thing ever". Is it really more important whether a belief is comfortable than whether it is true? If you think (like I do) that this life is the only one you'll have, you're going to try and make it count.
You should really read up on the arguments against Pascal's Wager (http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_Wager).

Yes Cyrus, religion and the belief in afterlife are indeed a human "mechanism" to cope with death. We would probably exterminate ourselves if we were 100% certain that "only" human laws can "punish" or "reward" us during our lifespan.
Atheism is a modern conception if we consider how long humans have been in Earth.
This said, let's say that humans created the notion of God(s) to protect themselves.
Of course, in these Times of Plenty, we also built the idea that life is perfectly possible (better to some) without God(s) and that human justice is enough to balance things. Being religious became a sign of ignorance.
Justice.
The conflict between Divine Justice and Human Justice.
I ask all those that do not believe in God or any type of Divinity, what do you fear? Certainly not a Hell that exists only in the heads of the poor minded?
Certainly not the vengeance of a God that never was.
Do you fear difference?
Is it better for the homosexuals to be "judged" by a God that does not exists, by a notion that is thinner than air?
Or is it better for the homosexuals to be "judged" by humans with all their incredible thoughts on homosexuality?
There is a greater danger in "extracting" divinity from society than it may look.

Khris, I apologize for getting into you and Monkey's conversation, but when you say:

QuoteAccording to religion, gays are an abomination, and God wants them dead

we have come a long way regarding this. Like I said and will say it every time it is needed, as a Catholic I will love a gay person the same way I would a non-gay one. This was taught to me by my religion.
One thing is what the Vatican says about things like homosexuality, condoms and such and the other thing is what are the true actions of catholic communities.
Never did I hear a priest publicly condemning somebody gay in a mass. The traditional family concept is of course praised as the "right" way but that is fairly accepted as conservationism behaviour. There's no "wrath against gay sinners" crap.
I also believe that gays have more to fear from other portions of our society than from Catholics.

Quote from: Khris on Sun 09/06/2013 13:16:36Please don't insinuate malicious intent until it's clearly there.

This is why I simply said that it felt as if that was your intent. Perhaps it wasn't, but it still came across that way.

Quote from: Khris on Sun 09/06/2013 13:16:36You're saying that your religion gives you "direction in my life, and a sense of purpose". That's fine of course, but aren't you curious where atheists get those?

Sure, so long as it continues to be "fine of course" if I don't suddenly drop my faith upon hearing your reasoning. I didn't mean to imply that people can't live good, moral, meaningful, productive lives without religion. I just meant that my religion pushes me toward leading that type of life myself.

Quote from: Khris on Sun 09/06/2013 13:16:36

QuoteI don't distrust science. As "a man of faith" so-to-speak, you could say that I distrust the anti-religious agenda of some certain people in the scientific community.

Afaik, scientists only push back, for instance when creationists try to sneak their religion into public schools. Could you explain what you mean by "anti-religious agenda"?

Seeing as you mentioned schools, it's well and fine if they don't teach theology in public schools, but many schools (at least in the US) have explicit bans on students practicing their religion during school hours. This violates what the founding fathers of this country considered to be a basic and inalienable human right.

There also has been in recent years a massive, concerted effort by the scientific community at large to discredit the plausibility of creationism. You can scream Occam's razor all day long, but it doesn't mean that the alternative isn't still equally possible. Even in the last 10-15 years there have been major revocations of statements that could have been seen as giving even the slightest credence to creationists. And when I say "major revocations" I am expressly referencing an effort to cover up and hide the information, to the point that providing links or references would be impossible.

Quote from: Khris on Sun 09/06/2013 13:16:36Lots of people have these experiences. Have you considered that there could be a natural, scientific explanation for them?

Sure, but until counter-evidence is provided that shows that it was really just a brain tumor all along, am I not compelled to state the observable results?

Quote from: Khris on Sun 09/06/2013 13:16:36Even if we accept it as evidence, what about other people all over the planet, who have similar experiences? Why isn't the first thing that inner voice is telling them something along the lines of "you should convert to the LSD Church, because it's the religion closest to the truth"?

Supposing that it were true would indicate that men are expected to walk by a certain level of faith. If all men had a perfect knowledge of things then there would be no more cause for faith, and in that perfect knowledge man's agency would be destroyed. Who would knowingly (assuming a perfect knowledge) subject themselves to an eternity of anything less than the promised unending joy and happiness? I assert that no one in this situation would willfully choose another path, even if given the opportunity. So perfect knowledge would frustrate our entire purpose behind being here (from a Christian POV).

By extension of this then, men are expected to seek after God and find for themselves the answer. I don't think every person who prays about their faith is in a position to be told to join the LDS church. As I said, I was told to wait for an answer (although I was already a member by this point) about the truthfulness of the church. I believe that men are accountable for obtaining a certain level of knowledge about these things before these answers are provided (in a sense, due diligence).

Quote from: Khris on Sun 09/06/2013 13:16:36Even if we didn't know anything about how unreliable our brain can be, I'd still have to conclude that this is just evidence for a weird, natural experience, not for a supernatural being that takes an interest in my personal life.

I still find it interesting that any being which could possibly be more powerful than a human being automatically falls into the category of "supernatural".

Quote from: Khris on Sun 09/06/2013 13:16:36My reasoning for why some (most? I don't know) religious people believe that being gay is a choice is as follows:
A) There are gay people
B) According to religion, gays are an abomination, and God wants them dead
C) God is omniscient and created humanity
So either God created gays and he's being or huge dick about it, or being gay is a choice.
Which of course means that if a religious person accepted that gays didn't choose, they'd have to face a pretty massive contradiction in their belief system.

Do people necessarily make a conscious decision to become alcoholics? To become pedophiles? To develop mental illness? Just because a person is born with certain tendencies or predispositions to acting a certain way doesn't mean that they don't still have a choice in the matter. Saying "God wants [gays] dead" is along the same lines as saying "God wants everyone dead" just because he flooded the earth that one time. Homosexuality being an abomination before God does not necessarily mean he wants them to die, but there are biblical examples showing that at certain times God has deemed it better for some to die than to lead others astray (coz, y'know, being gay is a choice and all).

I'll maintain that I have nothing against anyone for being gay. That doesn't mean that I would support them in getting benefits that I don't even support hetero couples getting.

I'm curious about one thing, so here's a question to any christian person reading.

When I look at the laws of my country - or other countries - I have opinions about them. I acknowledge that they're the result of democratic processes; social institutions, governments, societies that evolve, etc, all trying to create a functional system, but I still have opinions about them. If my country wouldn't allow gay couples to marry, I would be upset, and perhaps try to influence people and change their opinions.

When you look at the Bible, do you ever have opinions on the rules stipulated there? Do you ever go "oh, the Bible - and God - seem to say that being gay is a sin (or an abomination), but that sure sucks, and I wish it wasn't so." I'm just curious if you always agree with God, even when there's no conceivable reason for the rule to exist?

And when it comes to the claim that not believing is a kind of religion too... I'm surprised intelligent people still use this argument, because it's so incredibly illogical.

Do you believe there's a goblin in your basement right now? You can't be sure. There's no evidence he's there, and he won't show up if you ask him. However, if you told your kids he existed, they would believe you (if they were small enough). Would you say that not believing in the goblin is also a religion? Or would you say that a lack of belief is just that - a lack of belief, and not a brand new set of beliefs? Do you understand that for non-religious people, your God is just another goblin in the basement? 

Miguel:
I'm pretty sure that no matter how early in the history of mankind, whenever there was a religion, there were people who we would call atheists around.
One could also argue that until the very first religion, everybody was an atheist.
According to Wikipedia, there were explicitly atheist groups as far back as at least 600 BCE.

Quote from: miguel on Sun 09/06/2013 14:25:12We would probably exterminate ourselves if we were 100% certain that "only" human laws can "punish" or "reward" us during our lifespan.

What...? Why?

You asked what I fear:
One thing I fear is violence based on irrationality (for instance somebody blowing themselves up next to me because they think their God wants them to).
It sounds like you're saing "it's better to view homosexuality as a sin, because the only alternative is viewing it as a crime". Is this what you believe, or am I misunderstanding you?
How about we don't judge homosexuals at all, until they actually break a law?
It also sounds like you're saying that faith is a good thing because the fear of judgment makes people do good things. The corollary is that only atheists can be truly selfless, because whenever a believer does something good, they do it in part to ensure they'll go up to heaven. If you don't accept that, then belief isn't required to be a good person, and your argument for faith is gone.

Regarding "God wants them dead":
I wrote "why some (most? I don't know) religious people". Nowhere did I say "all Catholics".
Why do you think being gay is a choice?
And what is your personal opinion about Romans 1:26-27?

(double-post to avoid wall of text)

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sun 09/06/2013 14:28:24Seeing as you mentioned schools, it's well and fine if they don't teach theology in public schools, but many schools (at least in the US) have explicit bans on students practicing their religion during school hours. This violates what the founding fathers of this country considered to be a basic and inalienable human right.

Could you back this up? Afaik, this claim is pure propaganda. Atheists don't oppose students carrying a bible or praying at school, what they oppose is putting the ten commandments on the walls of classrooms or mandatory prayer sessions for all students.

QuoteThere also has been in recent years a massive, concerted effort by the scientific community at large to discredit the plausibility of creationism.

You mean like the massive, concerted effort to discredit the plausibility of astrology or alchemy?

QuoteYou can scream Occam's razor all day long, but it doesn't mean that the alternative isn't still equally possible.

Yes it does. The evidence points away from creationism. We could debate this all day long, and I don't plan to do so. I'll point you to http://www.talkorigins.org/ and leave it at that.

QuoteI am expressly referencing an effort to cover up and hide the information, to the point that providing links or references would be impossible.

So are you saying there's a massive, global conspiracy among scientists?

QuoteI still find it interesting that any being which could possibly be more powerful than a human being automatically falls into the category of "supernatural".

I'm not claiming that there are supernatural beings or forces, that's what religions do.

QuoteDo people necessarily make a conscious decision to become alcoholics? To become pedophiles? To develop mental illness? Just because a person is born with certain tendencies or predispositions to acting a certain way doesn't mean that they don't still have a choice in the matter.

So you accept that some men are born with a tendency to find other men hot, but they can choose to not feel that way?
Like I said, please go and ask a few gay people about this. There's really no point in discussing this until you do.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sun 09/06/2013 14:28:24
Do people necessarily make a conscious decision to ... develop mental illness? Just because a person is born with certain tendencies or predispositions to acting a certain way doesn't mean that they don't still have a choice in the matter.

Uh, no?

If you're crazy, that's something mostly beyond your control. (In some cases, making sure you take your medication can help.) Depending on how crazy you are, you may be able to act more or less normal, but a person with deep mental illness can not simply refrain from doing crazy things. It's kind of like saying you can choose not to die of cancer, or choose not to lose your memories and mind if you have Alzheimer's.

Along with your other examples, I see that you take a behaviorist view of human nature: as long as someone acts normal, they're not crazy. As long as someone doesn't molest kids, they're not pedophile. Your implication, I assume, is that as long as someone doesn't sleep with people of their own sex, they're not gay. This does not strike me as a particularly Christian way to look at it.

QuoteWhen you look at the Bible, do you ever have opinions on the rules stipulated there?

Andail, I had many questions and still have regarding the Bible. Well, not The Bible itself but the many gospels and scripts that were not included in it. I consider The Bible to be a light, condensed, chosen version of the events. The full event magnitude reveal a very complex thread, sometimes disturbing, some times divine.
I'm pretty cool about debating my beliefs and goblins in basement, so go ahead.

QuoteI'm pretty sure that no matter how early in the history of mankind, whenever there was a religion, there were people who we would call atheists around.

I'm not sure of that, Khris. It was not religion, of course, but that "thing" that we have engraved in our DNA was a interpretation of what they could not explain. The "thing" later becoming divinities is a more coherent approach to the matter, in my opinion. Language has a relevant part in it as well. God was surely one of the first words men created, out of respectful fear.

QuoteQuote from: miguel on Today at 14:25

    We would probably exterminate ourselves if we were 100% certain that "only" human laws can "punish" or "reward" us during our lifespan.

What...? Why?

Because we could.

QuoteIt sounds like you're saing "it's better to view homosexuality as a sin, because the only alternative is viewing it as a crime". Is this what you believe, or am I misunderstanding you?

No, I'm saying that gay people are given the religious option of guilt or no guilt. While humans can and will burn homosexuals this century, and praise them the next one.
And yes, I don't judge gays, nor atheists.

QuoteRegarding "God wants them dead":
I wrote "why some (most? I don't know) religious people". Nowhere did I say "all Catholics".

Yes, you did. I apologize.

The other questions I guess it was meant for Monkey.

First off, I want to say that I honestly think every single one of the people in this thread are kind, well-intentioned people. I, as an atheist, have met and heard from a lot of shitty, spiteful Christians who revel in the fact that I am "going to burn in hell for all eternity". Similarly, I've met a lot of horrible atheists who go out of their way to step on Christians because they feel Christians are intellectually inferior. I have a lot of confidence in the fact that none of these people are in this thread though.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sun 09/06/2013 08:00:13
I choose to follow it because it gives me a sense of direction in my life, and a sense of purpose. I don't expect you (or anyone else for that matter) to just blindly accept what I believe and start following it. I'll share it, talk about it, and even try to have a semi-rational debate where we can both share our point of view. But is it wrong for me to follow my own conviction, especially when my own life's events show that doing so makes me into a better person?

I found monkey's statement interesting, and would honestly like to hear our thread's religious people's opinion on this. the following:

I do think it's possible for religion to make a person better, but there's one thing I'm still baffled about. Why do we need a book to tell us to be good to others? I was raised without religion, yet I still try to go out of my way to be kind and helpful towards others, try not to hate people who are different from me, try to be honest always and not hurt others... I will admit there are good things in The Bible. Jesus says some really great things. Kind of related to what Andail was saying though, if we do get our morals from the bible, which parts do we take? Not everything that Jesus says seems good to follow, and there are parts of The Bible where God endorses very horrendous things. How do we know which parts are still good to follow, and which are outdated, unhelpful or bigoted/sexist/racist?

What if God really does think slavery is ok, and that women are lesser to men? Is he right? Should we follow this? If God says something's moral, is it truly moral and good?

My opinion on monkey's statement is that it makes me happy to see somebody finding a path that makes him a better person. I don't really care what that path is.
But because I am a religious person as well, I understand perfectly what he means.

Religion is merely philosophy and the sooner people realise this, the better.

I'm not against the idea of a "god", but I certainly don't think god is a he or she sitting in a kingdom in the sky with some massive beard. Although, if god was a person he'd definitely have a beard.

There is certainly an energy in the universe that created us all, so is it not logical to presume that whatever it was is god? God is merely a word to describe whatever it was that created all things. It makes it easier for the human mind to comprehend.

So, in conclusion, arguing about who believes in what is pretty futile. It's good to believe in science, even if it doesn't answer all the questions and it's also ok to believe in a religion so long as you're not killing anybody or shoving it down anybodies throat. Faith is a part of human nature. It's a simple as the example of having faith that everything will be alright in the end or believing that everything will go arse up. Science provides the formula as to whether it will or won't. But it's not ALWAYS a certainty. but on average...

The bible, as with other 'certain' religious books, were written by storytellers. They were then edited by kings and then government. Everything is filtered and fabricated to keep people "in line". But who's to say that science hasn't been fabricated also? There's so little we really know until we discover it ourselves.

If you are going to have faith in anything - let it be faith in yourself. Be a good person. Follow your dreams. Read good books. Learn. Just be a decent person. Isn't that what it's all about?

We could even go way out there and blow our minds delving into how we don't really know anything and that EVERYTHING is man-made so, essentially, it could all be one big illusion.

But we won't go there. Because what's the point? Just live and be happy.

Oh, and let people have equal rights.

The end.

Quote from: miguel on Sun 09/06/2013 20:17:29
My opinion on monkey's statement is that it makes me happy to see somebody finding a path that makes him a better person. I don't really care what that path is.
But because I am a religious person as well, I understand perfectly what he means.

Sorry, I meant...

"I found monkey's statement interesting, and would honestly like to hear our thread's religious people's opinion on this <insert colon here>"

Would like to hear your opinion on the below, if possible. :)

QuoteI do think it's possible for religion to make a person better, but there's one thing I'm still baffled about. Why do we need a book to tell us to be good to others? I was raised without religion, yet I still try to go out of my way to be kind and helpful towards others, try not to hate people who are different from me, try to be honest always and not hurt others... I will admit there are good things in The Bible. Jesus says some really great things. Kind of related to what Andail was saying though, if we do get our morals from the bible, which parts do we take? Not everything that Jesus says seems good to follow, and there are parts of The Bible where God endorses very horrendous things. How do we know which parts are still good to follow, and which are outdated, unhelpful or bigoted/sexist/racist?

What if God really does think slavery is ok, and that women are lesser to men? Is he right? Should we follow this? If God says something's moral, is it truly moral and good?

Miguel,
you said that if earth's population were 100% atheist, we would exterminate ourselves, because we could. Care to elaborate? Why would you think that?
You don't get to make an outrageous statement like this without backing it up.

Quote from: miguel on Sun 09/06/2013 19:40:57No, I'm saying that gay people are given the religious option of guilt or no guilt. While humans can and will burn homosexuals this century, and praise them the next one.

What do you mean by that? What guilt? They should feel guilty for not repressing their personality? Please explain.
Do you know what motivates people to burn others? Totalitarian belief systems. Dehumanization of outsiders. Please explain how this is a consequence of secular humanist ideals.
And why would you think people praise homosexuals?

    Why people believe in anything? That's simply because ofFAITH. We, as a human beings, have a tendency to believe or have faith in something whether it be money, religion, morality, computers, cars, etc. ANYTHING. Religious people believe that God Does EXIST while Atheists hold faith that there is no God. But the way the world is going i.e. injustice to people makes me believe that there will be a final judgment day where the justice will served.

    Now, on to the original discussion. Regarding the question whether religion contradicts science or not. In my opinion, its both i.e. Yes and No. I elaborate it further as:

     
• There were times when the religion(s) contradicted and opposed science. Many of you look towards the dark ages of Europe (when Government was under Church). It's unfortunate that science was called evil subject in those days. But that were the mere opinion of Popes or Fathers of that era. I haven't read Bible but I know this: in any part of the Bible, there will be NO opposition of science.

     
• But now let's talk about a particular religion which I have some knowledge and feel confident enough to discuss about. Yes, I am talking about Islam and No, that doesn't you all have to raise your eyebrows. ;)
  
      Islam hasn't opposed science from the start. The Quran (holy book of Islam) invites people to ponder at this vast universe. That's why many philosophical personalities of that time converted to Islam. There are many facts written in The Quran. There are many lines in The Quran which were not understood by then but now in the light of fresh research, they are not only completely understood but proved too. Many researchers converted to Islam because they were amazed that how suprising the facts written in a Book 1400 years ago (without any equipment and/or science) were proved true. For the sake of simplicity, it was assumed that an illiterate man (as many of you believe it too) had written many facts in a Book and they are proving to be true. Was it a lucky guess? But in that case, there would be only one or two proved. Hence their scientific analysis led Scientists towards the conclusion that there was a Superior Power at work who had told this man because other than there was no humanly possible way to collect such facts.   Here, I quote one translated line from a chapter of The Quran (relating to solar system) for the discussion's sake:
  
  

  Quote from: The Quran"And all are revolving in their circles."

  
      And another translated one from a chapter in which people are openly invited to ponder:
  
  

  Quote from: The Quran"And there are signs in universe for those, who think and ponder."

  
      That was the sole reason that Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) advised all the Muslims (irrespective of Male or Female) to gain knowledge and not only religious one but the other ones (scientific, philosophical, etc) too. Why? Because only due to the knowledge people would be able to ponder on the universe and verify the truth of Islam. Below, I quote one of Mohammad (PBUH)'s advise (which is one of mine favorites.):
  
  

  Quote from: Mohammad (PBUH)"Gain knowledge. Even if you have to travel China for it. "

  
      The above quote highly encourages us to gain scientific knowledge. You may say it was meant to be for religious one. But if it was meant to be religious one then he wouldn't have advised people at all to travel China b/c he himself was the fountain of religious knowledge.
  
      That's why, we see that when Europe was in its dark ages, Muslim areas were at the peak of prosperity. Why? Because they were learning science. Evidence shows that Muslims were the first who started experimental science rather than philosophical science maintained by Greeks (which was not science at all). Because of this, we see many shining names whom achievements are hailed by the Modern Scientists. I mention few names:

• Ibn Al-Haytham (known in west as Alhazen) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al_haitham)
• Musa Al-Khwarizmi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Khwarizmi)
• Jabir ibn Hayyan - often known simply as Geber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%83,,%C3%82bir_ibn_Hayy%C3%83,,%C3%82n)
• Al Beruni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Beruni)
• Al Kindi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Kindi)

    By writing all of the above, my intention was to describe that even though many religions have opposed Science. Islam hasn't. The above lines clearly define that science and religion CAN CO-EXIST. I say again that I described Islam only because it is the only religion about which I have what you can call: proper knowledge. I do not descend from a very religious family. My mother is religious and so is my brother. My Father and I are hardly a practicing Muslim yet no one forced me to practice.  However, I have studied and analyzed enough to make me understand that there are many thing which are beyond the human control. Yes, I was educated as a Muslim yet I have been given a choice and after much pondering I have chosen to stay Muslim. Religion is more than just a mere philosophy. Its more than just brainwashing. Its the name of wide and open mindedness. I am pretty sure about Islam. Others, I do not know for I don't have much knowledge but that doesn't mean they are worthless. I respect them too.

I'll just leave this here:
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Qur%27an

Khris, I'll start with the second question if I may:

When I talk about guilt I mean a religious guilt, I am supposing that a gay person may feel guilty of not obeying religious rules. I am not saying a gay person should feel guilty because he/she's gay.
This said, IF there is guilt involved, it's of a personal nature. Shared between the person and God.
The only "harm" this person will feel is on its own private conscience. 
Human Justice is different. And changes according to country, races and time itself. Democratic countries vary on their laws towards gays. Gay people get arrested in some Democratic countries.
What I want to say, Khris, and believe me that I am being honest, is that I do not think that men can safely take care of our world without the notion of the divine. I truly believe that the divine instils a different (hopefully better) dimension to our lives.

QuoteAnd why would you think people praise homosexuals?

I didn't mean it like that. I mean that there were times that male relationships were "normal" within certain parts of societies and that it may as well be again, considering that "tastes" are forever bond to a certain type of time wheel.

I think I sort of answered your first question as well. I feel that we would eventually fail to resist self-destruction without the notion of the divine.

Khris, I may sound rude but I think you should consider what I am going to say. Not the tone in which it is said. BTW, I am not butt-hurt. Here we go:

    I am actually face-palming myself. Are you actually an idiot or just pretending to be one? Or maybe, you are not ready to accept anything. Sir, you just missed the entire point of writing. What I meant to say is that Religion and Science can co-exist peacefully. At least in Islam. I quoted so that anyone would be able to understand why I believe this. But instead of getting the point, you acted rather childish and went on to google

SCIENTIFIC ERRORS IN QURAN just so you can prove me wrong. I think you missed this part:

Quote from: Adeel S. Ahmed on Sun 09/06/2013 21:56:01
    That's why, we see that when Europe was in its dark ages, Muslim areas were at the peak of prosperity. Why? Because they were learning science. Evidence shows that Muslims were the first who started experimental science rather than philosophical science maintained by Greeks (which was not science at all). Because of this, we see many shining names whom achievements are hailed by the Modern Scientists. I mention few names:[/li][/list]

• Ibn Al-Haytham (known in west as Alhazen) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al_haitham)
• Musa Al-Khwarizmi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Khwarizmi)
• Jabir ibn Hayyan - often known simply as Geber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%83,,%C3%82bir_ibn_Hayy%C3%83,,%C3%82n)
• Al Beruni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Beruni)
• Al Kindi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Kindi)

    By writing all of the above, my intention was to describe that even though many religions have opposed Science. Islam hasn't. The above lines clearly define that science and religion CAN CO-EXIST.

Why don't you set out to prove me wrong that the one I quoted here is not true. Go on, have play with Google ;)
  Well, one thing is proved: Extremists exist in many forms. Atheists Extremists are equally ignorant and arrogant as the Religious Ones.
    Good day to you. :)

Quote from: Adeel S. Ahmed on Sun 09/06/2013 21:56:01
I haven't read Bible but I know this: in any part of the Bible, there will be NO opposition of science.

This is an odd sentence. In a funny way, it sums up the whole argument for me.

Miguel:
I'm saying that whenever gays were persecuted, it wasn't because taste had changed, it was because people considered them dirty sinners.
I don't really care about how certain types of Christians choose to interpret the bible. Homosexuals were chased down and killed because people thought it was divinely commanded. Women were burned as witches because people thought it was divinely commanded. And Christianity has a long history of antisemitism (which is kinda weird, given that their God is one third jew).
Sure, you could say they didn't interpret the bible right or they didn't follow Jesus properly, but the point is that these people killed others because they thought their bible told them to.
Now explain how an atheist can use secular law to justify killing someone.

Quote from: miguel on Sun 09/06/2013 23:02:02Gay people get arrested in some Democratic countries.

Could you stop making claims without backing them up? Sources please.

Adeel:

Quote from: Adeel S. Ahmed on Sun 09/06/2013 21:56:01Many researchers converted to Islam because they were amazed that how suprising the facts written in a Book 1400 years ago (without any equipment and/or science) were proved true. [...] Hence their scientific analysis led Scientists towards the conclusion that there was a Superior Power at work who had told this man because other than there was no humanly possible way to collect such facts.

But please, face-palm as much as you like.

I feel like I want to reply: Put a completely different spin on things

Firstly: Khris, I can kind of see where a lot of your points are coming from (somehow you always end up as the 'bad guy' :P) and I'd agree that some sections do still engage in brainwashing (although they are nowhere near as effective now - at least in the western world - since culture has become so disillusioned) but I think that wiki article was a little uncalled for; at least 2 of Einstein's theories have been proven wrong... the brambles grow on both sides of the bush.

How bout this as a theory: What if different epochs of humankind viewed 'obectivity' and 'truth' through different "lenses"? What if, at some point, religion was a "lens", and now science is a "lens"? I wonder what will be next... maybe philosophy will be a "lens" and no-one will ever get any work done :P

Whatever, I like it... I'll call it "lens theory" :D

I'm not going to bother engaging with this "religion vs science" debate that appears to be going on - if scientists had a way to impose abstract laws on people at the expense of science, they would - at the end of the day, some people will subvert anything to get power.

Quote from: geork on Mon 10/06/2013 09:07:42
at least 2 of Einstein's theories have been proven wrong... the brambles grow on both sides of the bush.

Yes, but there's still a major difference between science and religion in this regard. In science, being proven wrong is part of the process. You can't really prove a theory to be true, but you can prove it to be wrong. This is something you have to understand when you talk about science. It's all about falsifiablility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability). In science, a theory should better be testable. I come up with theory, you prove it wrong - and that's fine, because now we can come up with a better theory. That's the process, and that's quite a difference between science and religion.
If you manage to prove one of Einstein's theories to be wrong, you are the hero. If you manage to prove a religious dogma to be wrong, you are a filthy heretic! ;)

Exactly, and geork, I wouldn't call that a theory but rather a completely absurd hypothesis based on cluelessness about how science works.
Also, according to a quick google search, Einstein has been proved wrong on two major issues (for instance quantum events are truly random, and he wouldn't accept this). It's not like he was the father of two theories that have later been proved false.
Please look up what a scientific theory is. It's very different from a hypothesis or an assertion, let alone religious dogma.

Quote from: geork on Mon 10/06/2013 09:07:42if scientists had a way to impose abstract laws on people at the expense of science, they would - at the end of the day, some people will subvert anything to get power.

Please STFU. Making baseless generalized accusations like this really makes you look stupid.

While these debates are really engaging. These are mostly worthless. No matter how many words are thrown. No matter how many theories, hypothesis, observations are presented. No matter how many sources are presented. In the end, everything becomes useless. Because everyone keeps faith and no matter what you do. You can't change their faith unless they decide to do so.
    Hence, I close this discussion (from my side) with these two words:

Often, these debates are labelled as "fruitless" or "pointless". I disagree. In fact, my very position on the matter has been forged in debates like these.

I could say "Fuck! So many people believing in old unproven shit that has absolutely nothing to do with todays life? Man, I'm gonna have some beers to cope with that."
Because that's my opinion. But my opinion is just an idea, a feeling that has no proven context, therefore is absolutely rubbish until I can probe it to be true or not to be true.

That's science. Ideas, theories, assumptions can all be science, if you can effectively claim them to be true or not to be true. Actually it's the process that takes to prove if something is true or false.

Religion is not that different. It's also about ideas, theories, assumptions about a god, some important people (mostly prophets), rules about a better society... If you can effectively prove one of the assumptions of any of the various religions to be true, then they are also part of science.

The difference between science and religion is that most religions state that it is a fact that there were some prophets, there is god, it is the best to have no sex before marriage, you should honor your family (regardless how cruel or nice they are) and millions of other "facts".
While there are some things you can prove to be true or false - like the earth being a sphere and no disk - there are many things that we cannot really question ATM. Because these things are more abstract, not entirely defined; you cannot catch them.
When you ask two people about what is god, will they have the exact same answer? I don't think so.

Science will always improve it's methods for proving things. Eventually we WILL know if there ever was or is a thing like god.

Morals are a bit different. Is it good to kill somebody? Are there circumstances where it is less bad or good to do so? Who tells you if it is?
Everybody has to ask for himself. In general, if you are not influenced by religion or science most people will come to the same conclusion. Based on this we can form a system of law on which most of the people agree.
If it gets to morals, there is one simple sentence which you can answer all question: "Don't treat others in ways you wouldn't want to be treaten yourself!" or "Don't harm others because you don't want them to harm you".

What do I want to say with that? Science and religion can go hand in hand but when something is proven to be true or to be false, you shouldn't call it religion any more. Religion is about beliefs. If you know something for sure, you do not need to believe it, you just know it. So guys, stop criticizing each other and just open your eyes and ask things. Just keep asking Why? until he/she doesn't know the answer or the answer is already found.

Khris, so you're saying that only religious people "attack" gays? A gay is beaten up in a street in Berlin and you are 100% sure the offender is a Catholic?
He's not a f.... ass-hole with no idea of what he's doing in the world, no, he's a Catholic because he hates gays! That's not something that I'd think you would believe. But things change when hate is around, isn't it?
Are we still talking about the inquisition or can we move please?
You got stuck in the medieval ages regarding religion concepts like I could get stuck in political concepts regarding some of the countries that entered WW2.
I chose not to base my opinion on people due to mistakes that were done.
But this is me.

In the USA there are laws that forbid gay people to kiss in a Shopping Mall, you wanted examples. Unless USA isn't democratic but a Catholic Country like the Vatican.

I believe it's how professional everything feels about religion which becomes the biggest hook. There's so many followers, they can't all be wrong, right? There's a really old book written by men, it can't be wrong, right? All these big buildings, they feel so powerful and large, completely built on faith and people's cult money. There's no way that could be wrong, right?

Right?

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Mon 10/06/2013 12:48:46
Often, these debates are labelled as "fruitless" or "pointless". I disagree. In fact, my very position on the matter has been forged in debates like these.

I agree. I won't lie, it kinda makes religious people seem a little creepy when they defend their faith. Because of that, I should probably try to avoid getting in these debates in the future.

You know how some people are more susceptible to addictions, ie: coffee, smoking, alcohol. I personally believe there's some who are more susceptible to simply follow without thought or doubt. (note: These are my own opinions. I am not a doctor. I'll likely also get flamed for this)


While I was growing up and firmly accepted being atheist, my best friend used to say "If I'm wrong about my faith, I just look like a fool. If I'm right, I get to go to heaven" and then he'd say "But if you're wrong, you go to hell". So as Miguel asked, yes. Hell is a strong weight against a person's decision. It certainly was for me when I was denouncing my faith.

Miguel, I wasn't talking about Berlin today. And I didn't say that hate against gays necessarily always stems from religion.
All I'm saying is that you can't use humanist ideals to justify violence against humans.

You have adopted a non-literal, interpretative view of the bible. That's fine. I'm merely pointing out the dilemma that comes with basing morality on interpretations of copies of translations of copies of old books. There are people who call themselves Christians today who wouldn't accept your interpretation, and who would say that you aren't a true Christian. Just like you would say that members of the Westboro Baptist Church don't follow Jesus properly and are therefore no true Christians.

Humanism recognizes this dilemma:

QuoteHumanism is a group of philosophies and ethical perspectives which emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism).

This means that humanism is free to grow and reshape as it evolves alongside thinking humans.

Religions on the other hand are still bound to interpreting an old book, and the "revealed wisdom" therein. That's why modern theology is riddled with mental gymnastics to keep up with modern values like for instance the equality of races and genders, and of course all the amazing scientific discoveries.

Do you really think that Catholics accepted evolution because they had a sudden insight about the biblical creation story? They did it due to societal pressure. This can be observed today: in Germany, the Catholic church has massive problems; people leave the church in droves whenever some of the bigwigs makes another inane statement. Religions are dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, and they are forced to adopt more and more humanist values or they will simply die out.


Adeel:
Faith is the excuse people give for accepting something as true without a good reason. Faith isn't a virtue, faith is gullibility.
(Having "faith in humanity" is fine, that's a different kind of faith though.)


Lt. Smash:
I don't think opinions can be true or false. If something can be shown to be true or false, it's a statement. An opinion is something like "we should build colonies on Mars". People just like to put "imo" before statements, because that makes it easier to retract them later ;)
The difference between science and religion, in a nutshell: science values doubt, while religion values faith. Science progresses by questioning itself, religion thinks it already has all the answers.

Quote from: Khris on Mon 10/06/2013 14:33:12
Do you really think that Catholics accepted evolution because they had a sudden insight about the biblical creation story? They did it due to societal pressure. This can be observed today: in Germany, the Catholic church has massive problems; people leave the church in droves whenever some of the bigwigs makes another inane statement. Religions are dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, and they are forced to adopt more and more humanist values or they will simply die out.

I think it's more or less that Catholics are people as well, who go to school, who learn and accept science over the strict principles they're taught. Then the things that normally weren't acceptable suddenly become acceptable as they themselves adapt new philosophies.

It's like the movie Doubt where the younger new nun has different views of what's acceptable whereas the older nun is strict and stuck on old-school ideology.

Quote from: Snarky on Sun 09/06/2013 16:39:19If you're crazy, that's something mostly beyond your control. (In some cases, making sure you take your medication can help.) Depending on how crazy you are, you may be able to act more or less normal, but a person with deep mental illness can not simply refrain from doing crazy things. It's kind of like saying you can choose not to die of cancer, or choose not to lose your memories and mind if you have Alzheimer's.

Interesting use of "mostly". Except in the most rare and exceptionally uncommon cases (and even these are late stage progressions to which the following would still have applied at some point), people with mental illness still have enough lucidity to willingly choose to seek help...if they choose to do so. This was my point. Having mental illness isn't a free excuse to do whatever you want and just get away with it. The mentally ill should still be held accountable for seeking help. Not only medications, but psychotherapy, psychosocial therapy, diet, exercise, and education about their illness, their own personal triggers for that illness, and coping skills for dealing with the stresses of everyday life and those triggers -- all of these things have been proven to be essential in managing and overcoming mental illness. Mental illness is not comparable to the other cases you presented in this regard. (Granted, Alzheimer's does target the brain, but it's not a "mental illness" in the same context as bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, schizophrenia, schizo-affective disorder, major depressive disorder, manic depressive disorder, etc.)

Quote from: Snarky on Sun 09/06/2013 16:39:19Along with your other examples, I see that you take a behaviorist view of human nature: as long as someone acts normal, they're not crazy. As long as someone doesn't molest kids, they're not pedophile. Your implication, I assume, is that as long as someone doesn't sleep with people of their own sex, they're not gay. This does not strike me as a particularly Christian way to look at it.

Actually I don't generally take a behaviorist view, because people's thoughts are what lead to their actions. Christ taught that if a man lusts after a woman (in his mind) that he is already responsible of committing adultery with her. Someone with homosexual tendencies would therefore be equally responsible of sin for fantasizing about men, watching gay porn, etc. It doesn't mean that I'm not a sinner myself (or that I haven't ever been responsible for lusting after women), but sin is sin. All men fall short of the glory of God, which is why we needed a perfect mediator to pay the price that justice demanded.

Quote from: waheela on Sun 09/06/2013 19:44:07Why do we need a book to tell us to be good to others?

This exact logic could be extended to the question, "Why does government need to create laws?" People are generally good, but we are still naturally disposed to certain not-so-good things (lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, pride, etc.). If everyone was perfect and could always be expected to do the right thing, then not only would we have no need for government whatsoever, I will assert that we would even have no need for religion or God. The truth of the matter though is that people are simply not perfect. As human beings we need things like government to keep us in line. Some of us need a book to tell us to be good to each other (because, honestly, my intellectual superiority complex would make it so much easier to just say, "F*** YOU ALL!!!" and be done with it). This particular aspect doesn't necessarily apply to everyone (just as not everyone would go and murder someone if there was no government or law preventing it), but it does apply to some. The secular parallel of government should make this rather transparent.

Quote from: waheela on Sun 09/06/2013 19:44:07How do we know which parts are still good to follow, and which are outdated, unhelpful or bigoted/sexist/racist?

What if God really does think slavery is ok, and that women are lesser to men? Is he right? Should we follow this? If God says something's moral, is it truly moral and good?

I've pointed out several times that just because a particular commandment was given at one point in the Bible doesn't mean that it was meant to apply globally for everyone. Putting things in their proper context makes what might seem atrocious into reasonably understandable acts. Many commandments (e.g., the Mosaic law) were explicitly revoked, and replaced by a higher law. Some commandments were given as tests, some to subject punishment. Even outside of religious texts, context can be the essential difference. This is especially true when looking at religion though, because honestly, a fair and just God isn't going to treat unequal people as equals.

As to whether something is moral because God says it is, this is an interesting matter for debate because morality itself is so loosely defined. An example that springs instantly to mind is Abraham being commanded to kill his son Isaac. From what we know, Isaac had done no great evil to deserve this punishment, but the commandment was given as a test of Abraham's faith. Because Isaac did not deserve to be slain, God provided a lamb. If the lamb had not been presented and Abraham had slain his (apparently) innocent son, would Abraham have acted morally? That's a very existential question, but from my viewpoint a perfect, loving, and just God would not have given this commandment if he was not going to provide an out. So to me, it would have been less morally correct to disobey the commandment, but that also comes from an understanding that Abraham had a close enough relationship with God to understand that it truly was a commandment being given by God.

Quote from: Adeel S. Ahmed on Sun 09/06/2013 21:56:01Now, on to the original discussion. Regarding the question whether religion contradicts science or not.

Uh... Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this (I'll be off to bed soon, and I'm not going looking for it now), but I don't believe that I ever said anything about "the original discussion" involving "whether religion contradicts science". I have expressly said that I don't believe that they do contradict each other, that I believe they fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, etc., but I don't recall the original topic having been about this. Because, honestly, it's not what I wanted to debate...

Quote from: Khris on Sun 09/06/2013 23:53:25...use secular law to justify killing someone.

I believe that Obama can provide that answer (http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/03/07/kill-m07.html).

Quote from: geork on Mon 10/06/2013 09:07:42...this "religion vs science" debate that appears to be going on

Yes, let's not engage in that. ;)

Quote from: Problem on Mon 10/06/2013 09:41:06...a major difference between science and religion...

:( thread, wat r u doin?? thread, stahp!

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Mon 10/06/2013 12:48:46Often, these debates are labelled as "fruitless" or "pointless".

I recognized that from the get-out, but isn't the point of a debate (vs. an argument) that both sides are able to share their thoughts, feelings, impressions, and ideas? To me, a debate isn't won or lost, it's just about the exchange. I'm not going to get butt-hurt that someone doesn't agree with me here, and I certainly hope that no one gets butt-hurt by my religious beliefs (although AFAIK, the only other inflammatory thing I've said other than being a creationist theist is that I believe homosexuality is a choice and a sin...in which case, if someone gets butt-hurt over the gays, the irony would actually make it worth it).

Quote from: Lt. Smash on Mon 10/06/2013 12:57:24The difference between science and religion...

This made me worried.

Quote from: Lt. Smash on Mon 10/06/2013 12:57:24...is that most religions state that it is a fact that there were some prophets...

I actually find this humorous, because I don't think it says what you mean. It is a fact "that there were some prophets", the question is whether these persons were actually divinely inspired. I'm sure you meant the latter, but essentially all it takes to be a prophet is to make a prophecy. Doesn't mean your prophecy is true, or that you're actually speaking on behalf of a higher power. ;)

Quote from: Lt. Smash on Mon 10/06/2013 12:57:24...it is the best to have no sex before marriage...

Wait a second, you mean to tell me that some people don't consider this an absolute and irrefutable fact?!? Hah! What silly, backwards people those must be! 8-)

Quote from: Lt. Smash on Mon 10/06/2013 12:57:24Morals are a bit different. Is it good to kill somebody? Are there circumstances where it is less bad or good to do so? Who tells you if it is?
Everybody has to ask for himself. In general, if you are not influenced by religion or science most people will come to the same conclusion. Based on this we can form a system of law on which most of the people agree.
If it gets to morals, there is one simple sentence which you can answer all question: "Don't treat others in ways you wouldn't want to be treaten yourself!" or "Don't harm others because you don't want them to harm you".

This is pretty fair, but I think "not influenced by religion or science" amounts to approximately zero people. ;)

Quote from: Lt. Smash on Mon 10/06/2013 12:57:24Science and religion can go hand in hand but when something is proven to be true or to be false, you shouldn't call it religion any more. Religion is about beliefs. If you know something for sure, you do not need to believe it, you just know it. So guys, stop criticizing each other and just open your eyes and ask things. Just keep asking Why? until he/she doesn't know the answer or the answer is already found.

Interesting. I don't really have much else to say about it, but I do find this interesting. And perhaps even agreeable.

miguel, I think (feel, etc. WARNING: SUBJECTIVITY AHEAD!!) that sometimes Khris' statements come across as inflammatory when it's not necessarily his intent. That's not to say he never says any inflammatory things, but I feel like the two of you especially are bashing heads and getting nowhere. I myself don't agree with a fair bit (most?) of what Khris has said in this thread, but that doesn't mean I'm going to hold any hard feelings toward him afterwards. Khris and I are clearly at two very different ends of the spectrum, and I think that while your heart may be in the right place, your point is being lost entirely in the heat of battle. [/entirely-blatant-subjectivity]

Three new posts while I was typing. Will post and edit if I have anything else to say.

I lied! I said I was going to edit the previous post, but upon realizing how long it was, I may as well just split this up here to avoid longcatting this page too horrifically.

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Mon 10/06/2013 14:12:11cult money

To an atheist, isn't every religion a cult?

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Mon 10/06/2013 14:12:11I won't lie, it kinda makes religious people seem a little creepy when they defend their faith.

Ryan, I fully expect after making a statement like this that you will never defend yourself, friends, family, or anything which you care about or believe in ever again -- for fear of being viewed as creepy no doubt. Defending religion is no different than defending anything else in which people put their faith (other people, science, etc.). If you find it creepy, it seems more likely to me that you find religion itself creepy, not its defense.

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Mon 10/06/2013 14:12:11You know how some people are more susceptible to addictions, ie: coffee, smoking, alcohol. I personally believe there's some who are more susceptible to simply follow without thought or doubt.

I'm not going to flame you for this. In fact, I agree with you wholeheartedly. That doesn't mean that you can use a blanket statement to say that everyone who identifies themselves as religious has done it without thought or doubt. Thought and doubt alike have played key roles in the development of my faith. My church publicly advocates for people to gain their own testimonies and not rely on the witnesses of family or friends alone. The Book of Mormon itself advocates questioning whether or not it is false (granted, it then directs to follow the same admonition given biblically in the book of James, to ask of God, but it still poses the question itself instead of demanding blind faith).

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Mon 10/06/2013 14:12:11While I was growing up and firmly accepted being atheist, my best friend used to say "If I'm wrong about my faith, I just look like a fool. If I'm right, I get to go to heaven" and then he'd say "But if you're wrong, you go to hell". So as Miguel asked, yes. Hell is a strong weight against a person's decision. It certainly was for me when I was denouncing my faith.

This is again interesting to someone who doesn't believe in the "traditional" Hell. I recall a time when I felt that same way (and even said as much), but my faith isn't about fear any more. It inspires me with hope, it drives me to question everything even more than I did before, it pushes me to become a morally better version of myself, and there is no aspect of my life which my faith has not done something to improve. Again, I'm not condemning anyone for not sharing my faith, but it's become such an integrated part of who I am, that I simply don't have this same fear that you're talking about here. It's somewhat liberating to realize this.

Quote from: Khris on Mon 10/06/2013 14:33:12Religions on the other hand are still bound to interpreting an old book, and the "revealed wisdom" therein.

Interpretations of ancient texts are extremely beneficial to understanding modern society by value of the old adage that, "history repeats itself." This is true (given the non-literal context in which the saying is intended). It is true though that not everything is accounted for by "an old book" that was written well before the advent of modern technology (an almost entirely inconceivable concept at the time). Your statements here are particularly interesting to me though, because my faith isn't solely bound to ancient writings. This is the benefit of a living, modern day prophet. Most biblical prophecies were relating to the people living in that time, or about "the end of days" which hasn't exactly come about yet. It doesn't mean that we can't still find meaning in them, but in a very real sense the biblical prophets were the leaders of God's people...and just as we needed leaders in the past, we still need leaders today.

monkey you got my point :) There is nothing wrong in general about religion or science. If every person would question himself if something is right or not there wouldn't be so many (if any?) wars, murders and other cruel things.
People with faith can be really peacefully or really dangerous, depending on what they believe in and how they practice that belief. The problem really is that many don't think for themselves when doing things like killing a sinner or psychicollogically terrorizing someone for his non-belief etc. God or more general their religion tells them to behave like so, everything else - even their own opinion - often has no relevance. You can compare it to peer pressure. If you wanna be cool, you do like the other cools do, if you don't some of 'em will bully you.

Talking about Christianity now, I belief that Jesus Christ is one very impressive personality. Even though I don't agree in everything he said/did there is this special thing about this man that has changed the world (for good) over the past 2000 years. He praised charity and love at a time where noone else would have thought like that or dared to. Today there are lots of people that are like him, doing things to help other people for non-reward, something really unthinkable in the time Jesus lived. I don't believe that he is any relative of god, or sent by him (This was invented later by the emperors, which recognized that Christianity could be used for their own purposes and telling the people he is son of god, will make much more people believe in the words of a carpenter.) But I think that we, as an intelligent race, have the own power to be like Jesus and love each other without wanting a reward for everything we do.

Somewhere I read in this thread that if there would be no people believing in god, we would all kill ourselves. Actually I think that this would happen if every person would be 100% believer of some religion. I'm not sure who wrote that but I'm sure he is someone who needs a reward for everything good he does. If you really think that you get in heaven for doing good and go to hell for doing bad, then you are not a real good person. You only do good things to others because you think you will be rewarded with paradise for that. Doing something just for the sake of a reward, isn't the purpose of charity. Thinking of that, the praising of charity of Jesus Christ actually makes the belief of an after-life senseless.

For me, rather antithetically, one look at the complexity of the universe makes me reject any form of organised religion. In fact, the religious explanations of why we are here are quite frankly insulting to the real beauty of it all. Just go to an observatory or read a book on evolution. Can it honestly be given justice by any of the stories written thousands of years ago, when we knew so little compared to now?

Quote
NORSE CREATION MYTH
Odin and his brothers first fashioned the earth (Midgard) from Ymir's flesh and, using his eyebrows, encircled it with a protective wall. Using Ymir's unbroken bones, they created mountains and from his teeth the rocks, boulders and stones. Using Ymir's blood, they created the sea and lakes. Using the dead giant's skull, they created the endless expanse of the sky and supported its corners with four dwarfs.

How ridiculous does this sound in retrospect? (At least it's 10x more kickass than modern day creation stories). And yet people had faith in it indistinguishable from people who hold religious faith today. What makes it any different from Christianity, Islam, Judaism? The answer of course is bog standard social influence, and which norms adapt or become extinct. Instead let's tell people that no words that man has ever written or said can truly represent the fact that such an awesome universe exists in the first place!

You are absolutely right Atelier. It is really arrogant to argue that one "living thing" (god) would have created galaxies, stars, planets, vegetation, animals, human, reactions, sub-atomar particles etc. And now this "god" should also interact with all our lives and minds????? Assuming we are the only planet with rational thinking beings this would be totally impossible. Now assume that there are billions of planets with beings similar to us. How could anything handle that all???
No one knows for sure what happened before the big bang but this mostly has to do with our definition of time. We think of a beginning and an ending, while this could easily be a loop or anything else without time at all.

Single humans will never understand everything of the universe. Our brain is not capable of this. So there will always be place for beliefs in super douper beings above all levels of existence and logic. If we once can describe matter (speaking of things which are influenced by gravity), presumable the average person won't understand it. They will continue to believe that god is holding these particles together or they simply don't care. That's humankind...

Lt. Smash, why would it be requisite that there be only one god? There are many polytheistic belief systems. There are even polytheistic denominations of Christianity for example. Is it more arrogant to suppose that a god could have created the universe than to suppose that human beings are the most complex creatures in the universe? (Or the multiverse for that matter?)

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Mon 10/06/2013 15:12:55

Quote from: Snarky on Sun 09/06/2013 16:39:19If you're crazy, that's something mostly beyond your control. (In some cases, making sure you take your medication can help.) Depending on how crazy you are, you may be able to act more or less normal, but a person with deep mental illness can not simply refrain from doing crazy things. It's kind of like saying you can choose not to die of cancer, or choose not to lose your memories and mind if you have Alzheimer's.

Interesting use of "mostly". Except in the most rare and exceptionally uncommon cases (and even these are late stage progressions to which the following would still have applied at some point), people with mental illness still have enough lucidity to willingly choose to seek help...if they choose to do so. This was my point. Having mental illness isn't a free excuse to do whatever you want and just get away with it. The mentally ill should still be held accountable for seeking help. Not only medications, but psychotherapy, psychosocial therapy, diet, exercise, and education about their illness, their own personal triggers for that illness, and coping skills for dealing with the stresses of everyday life and those triggers -- all of these things have been proven to be essential in managing and overcoming mental illness. Mental illness is not comparable to the other cases you presented in this regard. (Granted, Alzheimer's does target the brain, but it's not a "mental illness" in the same context as bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, schizophrenia, schizo-affective disorder, major depressive disorder, manic depressive disorder, etc.)

Just like Alzheimer's, we're seeing mental illness more and more as having organic causes: physical damage to, degeneration of, or disturbances within the brain. Fundamentally, in either case you're talking about holding someone accountable for actions triggered by a malfunctioning brain. There's a reason for the term "not guilty by reason of insanity."

As for whether they're responsible for not having sought help, let me suggest that very few people of sound mind would willingly and knowingly choose insanity. You present it as a choice and blame the crazies for choosing wrong, but there are many more plausible explanations:

1. Many people with incipient mental illness do not realize that they are becoming mentally ill. (This can in some cases be a symptom of their illness.) In serious cases, they may have delusions that keep them from seeking help.
2. Even if they do make efforts to seek help, they are often not properly diagnosed or treated.
3. Proper treatment/therapy can be expensive, and therefore is often not offered to or an option for people without private means.
4. Treatment may be too demanding of the patient, more than they can handle.
5. Treatment is not always effective, and even if it appears to be, serious symptoms can return unexpectedly.

So tell me again how crazy people just made a choice to go insane.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Mon 10/06/2013 15:12:55
Actually I don't generally take a behaviorist view, because people's thoughts are what lead to their actions. Christ taught that if a man lusts after a woman (in his mind) that he is already responsible of committing adultery with her. Someone with homosexual tendencies would therefore be equally responsible of sin for fantasizing about men, watching gay porn, etc. It doesn't mean that I'm not a sinner myself (or that I haven't ever been responsible for lusting after women), but sin is sin. All men fall short of the glory of God, which is why we needed a perfect mediator to pay the price that justice demanded.

You said being gay is a choice, and talked about it in terms of "controlling one's actions." But when people say being gay isn't a choice, they don't mean that a person can't control whether or not they engage in homosexual activity (though they dispute whether they should feel they have a responsibility to do so). They're saying that their sexual orientation â€" which gender someone is attracted to â€" is not something they choose or can control.

So how do you disagree with that? Do you argue:

1. There's no such thing as sexual orientation; people are not more sexually attracted to people of one sex than the other.
2. There's no such thing as homosexuality; no one is more sexually attracted to people of their own sex.
3. Everyone can choose their own sexual orientation; if you want, you can decide who you're sexually attracted to and aroused by.

1 and 2 seem to be trivially false, so if you hold to 3, are you really claiming that you personally (and everyone else) have the capacity, if you so choose, to change your sexual orientation so that you're attracted to men and not by women, sexually aroused by men and not by women, and sexually satisfied by sex with men and not by sex with women? (Assuming you currently identify as heterosexual, and I seem to remember posts that would suggest you do.)

Regardless of how sexual orientation is decided (whether it's purely genetic, some random event during development, or influenced by environmental factors in early life), science, introspection and common sense would all argue that homosexuality or heterosexuality is not a choice.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Mon 10/06/2013 16:40:07
Lt. Smash, why would it be requisite that there be only one god? There are many polytheistic belief systems. There are even polytheistic denominations of Christianity for example. Is it more arrogant to suppose that a god could have created the universe than to suppose that human beings are the most complex creatures in the universe? (Or the multiverse for that matter?)

Of course you can invent trillions of different gods for everything and anything. It may makes it more "possible" but even more absurd. There were so many chemical, physical, mathematical... reactions involved during the development of our known universe, maybe even some creatures, which need our respect and not "ghosty" gods, which were invented by the minds of some human many years ago.

I didn't say that we are the most complex creatures in the universe. Actually I think we may be at average, if not below, 'cause there are lots of bad things in our world like murder, hate, rape etc also there are so many unanswered ethnical, moral and scientific questions; I'm sure there are races who have a better understanding of the universe. I agree with you, it would be really arrogant to say anything else.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 10/06/2013 16:59:57
So how do you disagree with that? Do you argue:

1. There's no such thing as sexual orientation; people are not more sexually attracted to people of one sex than the other.
2. There's no such thing as homosexuality; no one is more sexually attracted to people of their own sex.
3. Everyone can choose their own sexual orientation; if you want, you can decide who you're sexually attracted to and aroused by.

1 and 2 seem to be trivially false, so if you hold to 3, are you really claiming that you personally (and everyone else) have the capacity, if you so choose, to change your sexual orientation so that you're attracted to men and not by women, sexually aroused by men and not by women, and sexually satisfied by sex with men and not by sex with women? (Assuming you currently identify as heterosexual, and I seem to remember posts that would suggest you do.)

Regardless of how sexual orientation is decided (whether it's purely genetic, some random event during development, or influenced by environmental factors in early life), science, introspection and common sense would all argue that homosexuality or heterosexuality is not a choice.

To back up Snarky's arguments:

If you think of "falling in love" or "having a crush" you also do not decide whom you fall in love with, or do you? Do you decide rationally that this girl or boy excites you, or does it simply happen?

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Mon 10/06/2013 15:12:55Christ taught that if a man lusts after a woman (in his mind) that he is already responsible of committing adultery with her.

Here's a fine example of why most religions are so evil (using Christianity as an example): "Couldn't help but think something I dislike? Off to hell you go! ...what? You raped and murdered 117 women, but accepted Christ as your lord and savior on your death bed? Welcome to heaven!"

And just a general comment: if you are debating something, using an argument that is based on a premise not accepted by the other party is completely useless. To me, sin is a non-issue, an imaginary, victimless crime. From my point of view, the claim that gays are sinners is meaningless.

I'd also like you to clarify what you mean by "being gay is a choice". I think it is abundantly clear that the people on my side read this as "gay men are born as heterosexual, then consciously choose to bang men and/or cross-dress".
If you accept that gay people are born gay and you're talking about the choice whether to act on those feelings or to repress them, why didn't you say so from the get-go?

Quote from: Lt. Smash on Mon 10/06/2013 16:05:34Talking about Christianity now, I belief that Jesus Christ is one very impressive personality. Even though I don't agree in everything he said/did there is this special thing about this man that has changed the world (for good) over the past 2000 years. He praised charity and love at a time where noone else would have thought like that or dared to. Today there are lots of people that are like him, doing things to help other people for non-reward, something really unthinkable in the time Jesus lived.

You are not helping. This naive, sentimental view of Jesus and Christianity is very common unfortunately. I urge you to read up on the arguments against that position.

To sort of argue against myself, it occurs to me that what many people who believe homosexuality is a (wrong) choice, or something that can be "cured," probably believe, is that you can't talk about "sexual orientation" as if heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same kind of thing. They might argue that heterosexuality is normal while homosexuality is a disorder, and that homosexuals are not attracted to/fall in love with people of their own sex in the same way that heterosexuals are attracted to/fall in love with people of the opposite sex.

So holding that people can be cured of or choose to overcome homosexuality would then not imply that the same holds true of heterosexuality, any more than saying that you can cure people of a nervous compulsion to eat their hair would imply that you can "cure" people of eating food the same way.

Which ultimately falls back on an idea that gay people are sick, but refusing to get better. A view that is finding less and less sympathy in society.

Edit: Haha, I didn't intend for that emoticon. I typed "(wrong)" without realizing it was a special code.  :)

in Buddhism we accept all and do not dwell on the past, Why create negative energies by indulging in caressing your own Egos. What business is it of any of ours to argue why a person is Gay, straight, lesbian or greedy why not just accept that it is what it is..  could your thoughts not be used in other ways?? Could this not have been a thread for postivity rather than getting peoples backs up?

    I had intended to not reply in this thread but here we go again. This time, some bashing (laugh) rather than a  observation piece that too was written in every neutral way possible.

Quote from: Khris on Mon 10/06/2013 14:33:12
Adeel:
Faith is the excuse people give for accepting something as true without a good reason. Faith isn't a virtue, faith is gullibility.
(Having "faith in humanity" is fine, that's a different kind of faith though.)

    Well, maybe you haven't observed this but there are many things we accept to be true without a good reason aka Faith. One of them is: we believe that Earth and planets revolve around the sun, because we are told so. Not because, we have ACTUALLY gone to space to verify. Perhaps, it can be the other way around i.e. planets and Sun revolve around the Earth and when we observed them through telescopes we get the feel that Earth is revolving. Just a thought.

   

Quote from: Atelier on Mon 10/06/2013 16:11:32
For me, rather antithetically, one look at the complexity of the universe makes me reject any form of organised religion. In fact, the religious explanations of why we are here are quite frankly insulting to the real beauty of it all. Just go to an observatory or read a book on evolution. Can it honestly be given justice by any of the stories written thousands of years ago, when we knew so little compared to now?

Quote
NORSE CREATION MYTH
Odin and his brothers first fashioned the earth (Midgard) from Ymir's flesh and, using his eyebrows, encircled it with a protective wall. Using Ymir's unbroken bones, they created mountains and from his teeth the rocks, boulders and stones. Using Ymir's blood, they created the sea and lakes. Using the dead giant's skull, they created the endless expanse of the sky and supported its corners with four dwarfs.

How ridiculous does this sound in retrospect? (At least it's 10x more kickass than modern day creation stories). And yet people had faith in it indistinguishable from people who hold religious faith today. What makes it any different from Christianity, Islam, Judaism? The answer of course is bog standard social influence, and which norms adapt or become extinct. Instead let's tell people that no words that man has ever written or said can truly represent the fact that such an awesome universe exists in the first place!

    Well that of Norse Myth does seem weird. Maybe if you had read some translation of The Quran, surely you wouldn't be generalizing it.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Mon 10/06/2013 15:12:55

Quote from: Adeel S. Ahmed on Sun 09/06/2013 21:56:01Now, on to the original discussion. Regarding the question whether religion contradicts science or not.

Uh... Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this (I'll be off to bed soon, and I'm not going looking for it now), but I don't believe that I ever said anything about "the original discussion" involving "whether religion contradicts science". I have expressly said that I don't believe that they do contradict each other, that I believe they fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, etc., but I don't recall the original topic having been about this. Because, honestly, it's not what I wanted to debate...

    Well, I said this keeping in mind the direction where the debate was going. Perhaps, this wasn't the outcome you expected but we saw that when something involved religion. There came the debate on many issues such as gays automatically.:)

Quote from: Lt. Smash on Mon 10/06/2013 16:30:27
You are absolutely right Atelier. It is really arrogant to argue that one "living thing" (god) would have created galaxies, stars, planets, vegetation, animals, human, reactions, sub-atomar particles etc. And now this "god" should also interact with all our lives and minds????? Assuming we are the only planet with rational thinking beings this would be totally impossible. Now assume that there are billions of planets with beings similar to us. How could anything handle that all???
No one knows for sure what happened before the big bang but this mostly has to do with our definition of time. We think of a beginning and an ending, while this could easily be a loop or anything else without time at all.

Single humans will never understand everything of the universe. Our brain is not capable of this. So there will always be place for beliefs in super douper beings above all levels of existence and logic. If we once can describe matter (speaking of things which are influenced by gravity), presumable the average person won't understand it. They will continue to believe that god is holding these particles together or they simply don't care. That's humankind...

    Pardon me. What arrogance? There doesn't exist a single thing which can creates itself rather than creator creating his creations. Without human, there is not a single machine. So, why simply believe that this whole universe created itself? Or maybe by believing this, you are relating that the first machine created themselves too and human is only upgrading (evolving) them.
    You answered yourself that this universe is too deep that human brain cannot understand. So, is the God's personality. Most of us perceive God to be a human but in actual God is much superior power. He cannot be imagined. But He shows his signs in his creations like any creation shows the signs of creator. If He can create the universe. So He can manage it as well. Consider Google: Larry Page created it. Initially, it was just a small search engine. Now it has become an Internet Giant. So, that's means Larry cannot manage his own company? If that were the case, Google would have been bankrupted years ago.
    Yes, particles hold each other with different forces. But these forces were already designed and created by God even before the creation of universe itself. You say that we expect God is holding every particle. Consider this example: You made a blueprint of some device in which you have defined where all the screws will fit. So, when thousands of such devices are manufactured exactly in the same design. Will you be expected to hold together all the devices? No, these devices will be held together by screws, that were created by human himself. Even after all this, you'll still be hailed as an inventor or would people credit these devices because they are holding themselves? The same goes to the universe. Once, the forces (screws) were designed and created. Then the devices (particles) were designed and manufactured in such a way so that these two would work well together. Yet, instead of crediting the original Mastermind, you say that these devices (particles) created and attached themselves.

EDIT: I saw some new replies but I don't intend to refine this one. Now, I am just going to post this, switch to some other threads, read them and enjoy my tea ;)

Quote from: Khris on Mon 10/06/2013 17:35:38

Quote from: Lt. Smash on Mon 10/06/2013 16:05:34Talking about Christianity now, I belief that Jesus Christ is one very impressive personality. Even though I don't agree in everything he said/did there is this special thing about this man that has changed the world (for good) over the past 2000 years. He praised charity and love at a time where noone else would have thought like that or dared to. Today there are lots of people that are like him, doing things to help other people for non-reward, something really unthinkable in the time Jesus lived.

You are not helping. This naive, sentimental view of Jesus and Christianity is very common unfortunately. I urge you to read up on the arguments against that position.

I was just argueing that the aspect of helping other people without getting anything for it IS a good thing. Or do you think the red cross isn't good? Religion was built around that idea in order to abuse it.
BTW no one is helping here anyone. Everyone has it's own opinion on things and wants to tell his version in a debate. I'm just kicking in to show my perspective of things and want to know what others think about it.

Quote from: Adeel S. Ahmed on Mon 10/06/2013 18:28:53Well, maybe you haven't observed this but there are many things we accept to be true without a good reason aka Faith. One of them is: we believe that Earth and planets revolve around the sun, because we are told so. Not because, we have ACTUALLY gone to space to verify. Perhaps, it can be the other way around i.e. planets and Sun revolve around the Earth and when we observed them through telescopes we get the feel that Earth is revolving. Just a thought.

Because incidentally, that's what the Qu'ran says, right? It pretty plainly says that the earth is the center of the universe.
Funnily enough, you don't actually need to go to space to verify that that isn't true. Astronomers have figured this out centuries ago, by using basically just telescopes and math. We don't HAVE to take it on faith, we can actually study astronomy and confirm this ourselves. You are correct in so far as I do trust the scientists and books that say this, but I don't do so on a whim or because it makes me feel good, I do it because I trust the scientific method. I trust the underlying process because I know how it works and it demonstrably produces results.
Scientists can make progress because they can start their work where other people left off. But again, they don't have to take everything on faith. This is because there are standards in science, like reproducibility and peer-review, to make sure that people don't publish nonsense.

As for your other arguments, and I'm sorry to say this and I know it's arrogant: you are advocating a simplistic and naive view of the universe. What you put forward as arguments for god is old and far from convincing. It also sounds like you are a creationist, which is so far removed from reality and what we know about it that progressive religious people have abandoned this notion (because they understand why it's indefensible).

Lt. Smash:
There are some pretty big problems (http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Sermon_on_the_mount) with the teachings of Jesus. And the thought that helping others without reward was unthinkable in the time of Jesus is pure fiction. What you say sounds like all people were completely amoral, egotistical assholes for thousands of years, until along came Jesus.

I'd just like to defend my last post, because flame wars :D

Most of it was meant as satire to the idea of this topic even being relevant (as Lt. Smash says, no-one is helping anyone here), hence "lens theory" ;) ...although I messed up on the Einstein point (my mistake, I skim read an article once) so thanks for the correction :)

On a serious note though (well, less silly anyway), it may be entirely possible that there are [correct] ways of looking at life, the universe and everything(TM) that human beings are simply not equipped to comprehend. Maybe yes, maybe no. I'll let that hang as the pointless point it is...

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Mon 10/06/2013 15:12:55

Quote from: waheela on Sun 09/06/2013 19:44:07Why do we need a book to tell us to be good to others?

This exact logic could be extended to the question, "Why does government need to create laws?" People are generally good, but we are still naturally disposed to certain not-so-good things (lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, pride, etc.). If everyone was perfect and could always be expected to do the right thing, then not only would we have no need for government whatsoever, I will assert that we would even have no need for religion or God. The truth of the matter though is that people are simply not perfect. As human beings we need things like government to keep us in line. Some of us need a book to tell us to be good to each other (because, honestly, my intellectual superiority complex would make it so much easier to just say, "F*** YOU ALL!!!" and be done with it). This particular aspect doesn't necessarily apply to everyone (just as not everyone would go and murder someone if there was no government or law preventing it), but it does apply to some. The secular parallel of government should make this rather transparent.

Thanks for answering my questions, monkey! :)
If government fills the role of "keeping people in line", why do we need the bible? Do you, truly, need a book to tell you to be nice to people? If you were not a Mormon, would you honestly tell me to fuck off because I'm intellectually inferior to you?

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Mon 10/06/2013 15:12:55

Quote from: waheela on Sun 09/06/2013 19:44:07How do we know which parts are still good to follow, and which are outdated, unhelpful or bigoted/sexist/racist?

What if God really does think slavery is ok, and that women are lesser to men? Is he right? Should we follow this? If God says something's moral, is it truly moral and good?

I've pointed out several times that just because a particular commandment was given at one point in the Bible doesn't mean that it was meant to apply globally for everyone. Putting things in their proper context makes what might seem atrocious into reasonably understandable acts. Many commandments (e.g., the Mosaic law) were explicitly revoked, and replaced by a higher law. Some commandments were given as tests, some to subject punishment. Even outside of religious texts, context can be the essential difference. This is especially true when looking at religion though, because honestly, a fair and just God isn't going to treat unequal people as equals.

As to whether something is moral because God says it is, this is an interesting matter for debate because morality itself is so loosely defined. An example that springs instantly to mind is Abraham being commanded to kill his son Isaac. From what we know, Isaac had done no great evil to deserve this punishment, but the commandment was given as a test of Abraham's faith. Because Isaac did not deserve to be slain, God provided a lamb. If the lamb had not been presented and Abraham had slain his (apparently) innocent son, would Abraham have acted morally? That's a very existential question, but from my viewpoint a perfect, loving, and just God would not have given this commandment if he was not going to provide an out. So to me, it would have been less morally correct to disobey the commandment, but that also comes from an understanding that Abraham had a close enough relationship with God to understand that it truly was a commandment being given by God.

Is slavery in any context actually good? :-\

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Mon 10/06/2013 15:12:55because honestly, a fair and just God isn't going to treat unequal people as equals

:(

-Who, specifically, is unequal and undeserving?
-Why would God create people who are unequal?
-If God truly loved every one of us, why would he send some of us to hell, an eternity of torture, for being unequal? Does he really love us if he does?
-If a mass murderer or rapist converts on his deathbed, does he go to heaven? If so, is that truly fair and just?

Some of the posts I read here this morning reminded me of this...

(http://i.imgur.com/zxcr0nD.jpg)

xD haha that's a nice graphic!! I already knew it but without the most important last step ;)

I so much love these religious debates! Everyone gets angry on another, fights for his beliefs and tells the others what they should think... aah it's just lovely :)

This debate is really heating up! But I still have a few questions:

-If Jesus was so great why didn't we get a sequel? What with kickstarter around now it's the perfect platform for upcoming messiah's.
- Moreover, is faith freeware now or is there still a weekly membership fee?

Thanx

@waheela, now change words to "Don't kill", and you get far different impression. :)

You do realize that the entire point of this image is that the creator of this vast universe doesn't want people to masturbate, right?
But since we're changing it, why not change the words to "don't kill" and remove Jesus? Suddenly, it even makes sense.

Edit after reply:
It didn't sound like a joke to me, more like: "those silly atheists just don't get how profound and great Jesus's teachings are". But all this religious nonsense is probably already getting to me, and I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Quote from: Khris on Mon 10/06/2013 21:28:09
You do realize that the entire point of this image is that the creator of this vast universe doesn't want people to masturbate, right?

Yes, yes, I was kidding. *sigh*

Can we merge this into the other ridiculously long thread on religion that ultimately went nowhere?

@Monkey , Miguel, Adeel : Don't argue with an atheist, they will always question your beliefs. If you are happy with them, then good for you  :)

@Khris, Crimson & other atheists / supporters of this side of the debate : Don't argue with a religious person, they are just as stubborn about their faith as you are about your lack of it.

All religions have a deep rooted level of corruption in them. It's about taking the good things out of the stories and overlooking the stuff that is quite obviously bullshit. All religions when broken down to their basics provide a good foundation of morals and ethics. After that, it's up to the person themselves what story to believe / not believe.

As for the whole homosexual thing.. I have no idea where the thread derailed (not like it was railed in the first place). I personally don't see why it matters. If it means they are going to hell or whatever in your religion then so be it. It's not like it's your problem. If you are an atheist and have issue with it then I think it is quite hypocritical to have issue with people who are free thinking and as liberal as you claim to be.

Personally I feel a tiny bit uneasy when I see 2 men kissing each other in public, but then I think hetero couples go far too overboard with it all too and that makes me uncomfortable. I'm hardly going to go around locking up homosexuals or start executing them for their beliefs / lifestyle choices / way they were born (circle whichever one you think is applicable). That stuff is what lead to WWII (yeah I'm invoking Godwins law again). In some way I think it's quite admirable that they continue to show their feelings in public despite the fact there are still so many people intolerant towards it.

Now I'm kinda hoping my magical ability to kill threads is still working as I'm getting bored of these Religion threads popping up  :(

I don't post in threads that bore me and hope to kill them, I ignore them.

Plus, like I said before, I'm not trying to convert the religious people, I'm posting here so people who read this thread can see the arguments on both sides and maybe learn a thing or two about either side they didn't know before. The best way to do this is to address the arguments, isn't it? To me, it's all about the people on the fence. And I get to practice arguing for my position.

I agree that a forum about a game engine maybe isn't the best place for this, but at least we aren't debating this in a youtube video's comment section.

So take your condescendence, shove it and go back to not posting, unless you have something meaningful to add.

Monkey, I know how Khris "bursts into flames" real fast, and no, I'm not upset about his comments. He's honest with himself. I respect him a lot.

I am indeed upset with the mockery of some guys that just came in into the thread, launched a joke or two about religion, felt really superior about themselves and left. It's okay, maybe I deserve it. I sometimes jump into threads only to say stupid stuff. Only this time I really care for what I am defending.

But, anyway, I knew this thread would turn up like this. Religious people are but a few in our little forum universe and then there are this boring atheists with their statistics and studies...Oh well, enough said. I know it's over.

I love to live, I can't see me near death, and hell, or the impossibility of reason, is one last step before dust, bones and...nothing.
If there is a hell, or Hell or one Hell, at least I can cry out of my lungs that I didn't do it! It wasn't me!
I rather suffer in burning pain for eternity than to simply vanish into nothing.
Why should I surrender to the notion that there is nothing after death if all my willing and hope is telling me there is.
Why should I yield to reason if love grabs me by the collar?
The last breath, the last electricity pinballing neurons, the last thought...and nothing. That's it.
Not for me.

Maybe religious people are the mad men of modern times, maybe we are the true rebels of a plastic world,
but we see colours while you see in Black & White.
What I do know, it's we're here and it's now.
The lack of respect is just to much for me to continue this debate.

I'll be at the guess the movie thread replying "Blade Runner" to all the smart-ass kids that think that a good movie is one that nobody has seen.

QuoteI am indeed upset with the mockery of some guys that just came in into the thread, launched a joke or two about religion, felt really superior about themselves and left.

It's not about feeling superior. It's about throwing water on the fire to cool things down in here (you guys are really tearing into each other). Although in hindsight it probably has had the opposite effect on some people. If I in particular offended you with a joke, miguel, I for one sincerely apologise.

Quote from: waheela on Mon 10/06/2013 20:00:07Thanks for answering my questions, monkey! :)

You're welcome! :)

Quote from: waheela on Mon 10/06/2013 20:00:07If government fills the role of "keeping people in line", why do we need the bible? Do you, truly, need a book to tell you to be nice to people? If you were not a Mormon, would you honestly tell me to fuck off because I'm intellectually inferior to you?

The government doesn't care about morality, they care about keeping their citizens in a manageable state so that they can continue collecting money from them. The Bible at least encourages good moral values. And yes, if I weren't a Mormon I would be a lot more pissy than I am anyway. ;) People are generally ignorant, and mostly they're too ignorant to know or care.

Quote from: waheela on Mon 10/06/2013 20:00:07Is slavery in any context actually good? :-\

That really depends. Slavery in America was generally good. That is, the majority of slaves lived better, more productive lives as slaves than the persecution and segregation that followed. Firsthand accounts support this. It's also supported by the number of slaves who willingly stayed with their former "masters" to continue working (because they knew they didn't stand a chance at making a living on their own).

There's also the context in which people are placed into slavery under less humane terms as a form of punishment against them, such as the Jewish slaves in ancient Egypt. Because God's covenant people had willfully rebelled against him, they were subjected to some horrible things. This is essentially the same as a parent stepping aside when a rebellious child refuses to listen, even though the parent knows that the outcome will be far worse for the child.

Quote from: waheela on Mon 10/06/2013 20:00:07

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Mon 10/06/2013 15:12:55because honestly, a fair and just God isn't going to treat unequal people as equals

:(

-Who, specifically, is unequal and undeserving?

Everyone is unequal. There is an idiom in parenting that children should be treated equitably, not necessarily equally. Odds are that any given parent is not going to have two children who learn, grow, and act exactly the same. Treating these two children would not be fair to anyone. Parents should make a conscious effort to acknowledge their children's differences so that they can be treated with equity.

Quote from: waheela on Mon 10/06/2013 20:00:07-Why would God create people who are unequal?

Because the alternative is everyone being an exact carbon-copy clone of everyone else. The entire purpose of life itself would be frustrated if everyone had the exact same experience (hence the reason that Satan was deemed the loser in the war in heaven).

Quote from: waheela on Mon 10/06/2013 20:00:07-If God truly loved every one of us, why would he send some of us to hell, an eternity of torture, for being unequal? Does he really love us if he does?

This is like asking, "if a parent truly loves their children, why would they ever discipline them?" If God is perfect and just, then he is bound to assign punishment to those who willingly choose to rebel against his law. That speaks nothing of whether he loves them. God loves Satan, as even Satan is one of his children. That doesn't mean that God is going to break the justice by which he is bound. At the same time, it also wouldn't be fair or just to hold anyone accountable for knowledge which they never had the opportunity to gain. Those who will be assigned the greatest punishment are those who had the opportunity to accept the truth but willfully rejected it.

As to "an eternity of torture", nothing would be worse torture to me than having eternity to come to terms with the fact that I didn't live up to my full potential. Of course, if I hadn't lived a life in accordance with God's law, I certainly wouldn't be comfortable in his presence either. Heck, I don't even feel comfortable going to church on Sundays if I know that I've openly made decisions that go against everything I say I believe. Placing someone outside the presence of God doesn't mean that they are separated from his love (otherwise, even here on this earth we would be separated from his love).

Quote from: waheela on Mon 10/06/2013 20:00:07-If a mass murderer or rapist converts on his deathbed, does he go to heaven? If so, is that truly fair and just?

Repentance isn't about lip-service. Repentance is a process which generally speaking requires significantly more time than anyone on their deathbed is going to have. Murder is spoken of as being one of the hardest sins to actually be forgiven of, in part because you can't just go and make reparation to the person you've harmed. It wouldn't be just or fair to assume that someone simply saying, "Oh, btw, sorry," would be pardoned of a life of sin.

Quote from: Stee on Mon 10/06/2013 22:21:13Can we merge this into the other ridiculously long thread on religion that ultimately went nowhere?

You mean the thread that wasn't about religion and had nothing to do with religion? If anything, the religious discussion from that thread should be split from it, rather than merging this unrelated topic with it. It's a good thing that you aren't a moderator, because you don't seem to understand how forums are supposed to work.

Quote from: miguel on Tue 11/06/2013 01:46:38boring atheists with their statistics and studies

I guess I must have skipped over the boring parts, and the links to the statistics and studies. Can't find them anywhere though.

Quote from: miguel on Tue 11/06/2013 01:46:38Why should I surrender to the notion that there is nothing after death if all my willing and hope is telling me there is.

You're right! Please will and hope for cancer to vanish, while you're at it, since doing so seems to make it true.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 11/06/2013 03:05:16Slavery in America was generally good. That is, the majority of slaves lived better, more productive lives as slaves than the persecution and segregation that followed.

Congratulations. I rest my case.


I just remembered something I recently heard:
If there is a god like the one proposed by the religious people here, it follows that whenever a child is raped, god either sent the rapist to do it, or he watches them do it, and punishes them after they're done.
This god is neither perfect nor just, and he surely isn't deserving of worship. Thank god, there's absolutely no evidence for his existence.

If anything, this thread has shown how thoroughly religion can poison the innate moral sense of a human. So I guess it was worth it after all.

Blade Runner?

I haven't read this whole thread, but I figured after reading bits and pieces all over the place from this thread and some others, this would be the place to ask this.

Monkey - how can you say your religion makes you a better person and leave '#1 Gay Basher' as the text under you avatar?

I pride myself on accepting and liking all people until they give me a reason not to.
But I have no respect for you at all after reading this. That really makes my blood boil.  Sorry, I try not to hate without reason, but I just can't stand that kind of thing.
I don't see what it has to do with you what other people do with their lives?

Quote from: awakening on Tue 11/06/2013 11:19:42
Monkey - how can you say your religion makes you a better person and leave '#1 Gay Basher' as the text under you avatar?

He is joking. Or pretending to be a troll.

I have a question for you, though. How can you judge a man out of context - by reading "bits and pieces" of what was written in the thread?

Quote from: Crimson Wizard on Tue 11/06/2013 11:22:15
I have a question for you, though. How can you judge a man out of context - by reading "bits and pieces" of what was written in the thread?

I think anyone can assume that anyone who writes "#1 Gay Basher" in some kind of proud way has an opposition to them, for one reason or another.  Anybody who writes such a blatant hatred towards another human being is opening themselves up to being questioned and judged.  It's not very nice, is it?  Why wouldn't I want to oppose unjust discrimination?

I've also read enough of the threads to get an understanding of it all.  The bits I skipped over were people's posts like Khris, who share the same viewpoints as myself.

Monkey thinks we all see him as #1 Gay basher now, so he might as well put it there for everyone to see, since it is "OBVIOUSLY NOT TRUE, ya know?"
It's just a passive-aggressive way of declaring himself the winner of the argument.

Quote from: monkey_05_06
Slavery in America was generally good. That is, the majority of slaves lived better, more productive lives as slaves than the persecution and segregation that followed.Slavery in America was generally good. That is, the majority of slaves lived better, more productive lives as slaves than the persecution and segregation that followed.Slavery in America was generally good. That is, the majority of slaves lived better, more productive lives as slaves than the persecution and segregation that followed.Slavery in America was generally good. That is, the majority of slaves lived better, more productive lives as slaves than the persecution and segregation that followed.Slavery in America was generally good. That is, the majority of slaves lived better, more productive lives as slaves than the persecution and segregation that followed.Slavery in America was generally good. That is, the majority of slaves lived better, more productive lives as slaves than the persecution and segregation that followed.Slavery in America was generally good. That is, the majority of slaves lived better, more productive lives as slaves than the persecution and segregation that followed.Slavery in America was generally good. That is, the majority of slaves lived better, more productive lives as slaves than the persecution and segregation that followed.Slavery in America was generally good. That is, the majority of slaves lived better, more productive lives as slaves than the persecution and segregation that followed.Slavery in America was generally good. That is, the majority of slaves lived better, more productive lives as slaves than the persecution and segregation that followed.

My mind is blown.

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Tue 11/06/2013 11:35:03

Quote from: monkey_05_06
Slavery in America was generally good. That is, the majority of slaves lived better, more productive lives as slaves than the persecution and segregation that followed.Slavery in America was generally good. That is, the majority of slaves lived better, more productive lives as slaves than the persecution and segregation that followed.Slavery in America was generally good. That is, the majority of slaves lived better, more productive lives as slaves than the persecution and segregation that followed.Slavery in America was generally good. That is, the majority of slaves lived better, more productive lives as slaves than the persecution and segregation that followed.Slavery in America was generally good. That is, the majority of slaves lived better, more productive lives as slaves than the persecution and segregation that followed.Slavery in America was generally good. That is, the majority of slaves lived better, more productive lives as slaves than the persecution and segregation that followed.Slavery in America was generally good. That is, the majority of slaves lived better, more productive lives as slaves than the persecution and segregation that followed.Slavery in America was generally good. That is, the majority of slaves lived better, more productive lives as slaves than the persecution and segregation that followed.Slavery in America was generally good. That is, the majority of slaves lived better, more productive lives as slaves than the persecution and segregation that followed.Slavery in America was generally good. That is, the majority of slaves lived better, more productive lives as slaves than the persecution and segregation that followed.

My mind is blown.

Mine too. Seriously stating that slavery was generally good without joking, can be enough information to judge a person.
If it's just a joke to pretend to be #1 gay basher, I think it won't be a problem to share this:

[embed=425,349]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06jF1EG8o-Q[/embed]

Quote from: awakening on Tue 11/06/2013 11:28:25
I think anyone can assume that anyone who writes "#1 Gay Basher" in some kind of proud way has an opposition to them, for one reason or another.  Anybody who writes such a blatant hatred towards another human being is opening themselves up to being questioned and judged.  It's not very nice, is it?  Why wouldn't I want to oppose unjust discrimination?

That might be related to personal experience, but I would not immediately oppose a man (any man) if he'd written "#1 Jews killer" under his avatar, because, from my point of view, such statement made on general public forum (not dedicated to nazi philosophy or something like that, for example) would mean he is 1) making a dumb joke, 2) being a troll (or pretending to be one) or 3) sarcasm (something like Khris explained). In either case this could mean he is acting stupid, but not directly prove he seriously have "blatant hatred" towards aforementioned group of people.

If I hadn't read all the other parts of the thread I probably wouldn't have judged him either.  I would have been taken aback, for sure, and probably investigated further.
As Khris explained it probably is just a joke, but I don't personally agree with this kind of humour.
The Jew example would get me just as cross.

I guess it's how you take it.

Ok, everyone, let's not make this thread derail completely. From here on, let's agree not to write posts that
1. are just meant to provoke. It's basically never funny, it doesn't make you look smart, and it just ruins the thread.
2. only point out how meaningless these debates are. Yes we've all heard the paralympics analogy, and no, it's not true. If you don't personally see a meaning in debating these issues, just stay away from the thread.
3. actually belong in the Rumpus Room. Yes, posting a funny même may seem like a good way to let the situation cool off, but it just makes the thread really long and hard to follow. Go and start a thread in the Rumpus Room if you're itching to be funny.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 11/06/2013 03:05:16
The Bible at least encourages good moral values. And yes, if I weren't a Mormon I would be a lot more pissy than I am anyway. ;) People are generally ignorant, and mostly they're too ignorant to know or care.

I don't mean to be rude, but I've found a number of bible passages that I can't see as encouraging good moral values in any circumstance. Do you think any of these things are good or moral?

• Num 31:17-18 -- "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
• Isa 13:16 -- "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished."
• Luk 14:26 -- "If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
• 2Jo 1:10 -- "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed:"
• 1Cr 14:34 -- "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law."
• 1Ti 2:12 -- "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

Can we at least agree that infanticide, child rape and the oppression of women are not good or moral in any circumstances?

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 11/06/2013 03:05:16

Quote from: waheela on Mon 10/06/2013 20:00:07Is slavery in any context actually good? :-\

That really depends. Slavery in America was generally good. That is, the majority of slaves lived better, more productive lives as slaves than the persecution and segregation that followed. Firsthand accounts support this. It's also supported by the number of slaves who willingly stayed with their former "masters" to continue working (because they knew they didn't stand a chance at making a living on their own).

There's also the context in which people are placed into slavery under less humane terms as a form of punishment against them, such as the Jewish slaves in ancient Egypt. Because God's covenant people had willfully rebelled against him, they were subjected to some horrible things. This is essentially the same as a parent stepping aside when a rebellious child refuses to listen, even though the parent knows that the outcome will be far worse for the child.

Again, I don't mean to be rude, but I think your view on slavery in America is a little naive at best. If you honestly believe the owning of another human being can sometimes be ok, I don't know if we can find any common ground on what is truly right and wrong.  :(

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 11/06/2013 03:05:16

Quote from: waheela on Mon 10/06/2013 20:00:07-Why would God create people who are unequal?

Because the alternative is everyone being an exact carbon-copy clone of everyone else. The entire purpose of life itself would be frustrated if everyone had the exact same experience (hence the reason that Satan was deemed the loser in the war in heaven).

So God didn't create people equal because it would be too boring for us? ???

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 11/06/2013 03:05:16

Quote from: waheela on Mon 10/06/2013 20:00:07-If God truly loved every one of us, why would he send some of us to hell, an eternity of torture, for being unequal? Does he really love us if he does?

This is like asking, "if a parent truly loves their children, why would they ever discipline them?" If God is perfect and just, then he is bound to assign punishment to those who willingly choose to rebel against his law. That speaks nothing of whether he loves them. God loves Satan, as even Satan is one of his children. That doesn't mean that God is going to break the justice by which he is bound. At the same time, it also wouldn't be fair or just to hold anyone accountable for knowledge which they never had the opportunity to gain. Those who will be assigned the greatest punishment are those who had the opportunity to accept the truth but willfully rejected it.

I think I understand what you're saying. God and humans are similar to a father and his children. I'm not sure though that the punishment God inflicts holds the same weight as a father punishing his child for doing something bad. It would be like a father beating his child for days on end for getting a "D" on his report card.

Do you honestly think it's right for someone like me (who does not believe in the Christian God but tries to live life as honestly and decently as possible), to spend an eternity in horrible agony because I used the brain and critical thinking God gave me and came to the conclusion there was not enough evidence to believe in Him? Is that truly just?

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 11/06/2013 03:05:16As to "an eternity of torture", nothing would be worse torture to me than having eternity to come to terms with the fact that I didn't live up to my full potential. Of course, if I hadn't lived a life in accordance with God's law, I certainly wouldn't be comfortable in his presence either. Heck, I don't even feel comfortable going to church on Sundays if I know that I've openly made decisions that go against everything I say I believe. Placing someone outside the presence of God doesn't mean that they are separated from his love (otherwise, even here on this earth we would be separated from his love).

Just a hypothetical scenario... If someone you loved with all your heart in this life did not believe in God, would you truly be happy in Heaven knowing they were burning in hell for all eternity?

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 11/06/2013 03:05:16

Quote from: waheela on Mon 10/06/2013 20:00:07-If a mass murderer or rapist converts on his deathbed, does he go to heaven? If so, is that truly fair and just?

Repentance isn't about lip-service. Repentance is a process which generally speaking requires significantly more time than anyone on their deathbed is going to have. Murder is spoken of as being one of the hardest sins to actually be forgiven of, in part because you can't just go and make reparation to the person you've harmed. It wouldn't be just or fair to assume that someone simply saying, "Oh, btw, sorry," would be pardoned of a life of sin.

I think you're right. If God existed, he would absolutely be able to tell if someone was faking it to try to get into Heaven. If he truly has repented, could he though? If so, would that truly be just?

@monkey:
I always find it funny that religious people call themselves moral. Actually they don't have any real sense of morality. They are just following some codex and commandments that they were told to be good or bad. God says what is good or bad for a human.

But isn't it way more logical that humans know better what is good or bad for them? You know what makes you laugh and what makes you cry; you know what things are good and what things are bad for you.
Even IF there is a god, he wouldn't know better what is good for us than we, because he is no human but we are!

Atheists, agnostics and non-believers don't have these moral codex and commandments they are told to follow. No god, who tells them what's right or what's wrong.
But if you look at various statistics and polls it's quite clear that they are way more moral than any religious people.

Why can this happen one may ask?

I believe, it's simply because these people are way more open-minded. They think about their actions and the outcome of these. They do not have to fear that they will get into hell or anything like that if they do something wrong, they can think rationally about what is really good or bad.

See, monkey is way too restricted in his view of things because of his mormon beliefs. He thinks that slavery can be good because his god or bible or some golden plates don't say that it would be bad (at least not directly). Therefore he says it could be good as he doesn't know if god is strictly against it. If he wouldn't have these strong beliefs, he would see things from a different side.

Myself, as an atheist, think the following when it comes to slavery: How does somebody feel when he is just the property of someone else? Is a life as property better than a life in poverty? How could I dare to let someone work for me in exchange for not torturing and killing him?
After thinking about these things and answering for myself I come to the conclusion that: Even if I would get the richest person in world for keeping slaves, I would rather kill myself than doing something like that.

Quote from: Lt. Smash on Tue 11/06/2013 22:48:23
Atheists, agnostics and non-believers don't have these moral codex and commandments they are told to follow. No god, who tells them what's right or what's wrong.
But if you look at various statistics and polls it's quite clear that they are way more moral than any religious people.

I'm sorry, but I don't even know how one would go about performing a study on which group is more "moral" than the other.  :-\
Do you have any more info about these studies and how they were performed? Maybe some links?

People like us are more moral because they agree with our opinions. Obviously.

Sorry I may were not specific enough. Of course there's no real study about morality. But there are several statistics which show that among atheists there is less divorce, murder, rape, crime in general, less prejudice but more tolerance... I'm in bed now but will post some links when I've time tomorrow. If you use google you should find lot of information about that subject.

I love you guys.  In a neighbourly, christian kind of way, and also in a carnal vulgar man-loving kind of way: that should embrace and alienate everyone sufficiently to get your attention.

I'm impressed by the fervour of the arguments of both the religious and atheistic among you: you obviously hold your beliefs very strongly as evidenced by your willingness to argue them endlessly with the hope of.... well, being proven right, I suppose.  I myself have a hard time believing either way.  I must confess I doubt in the existence of a supreme being or flying spaghetti monster or whatever, mostly due to lack of evidence but also due to the self-interested delusions of the most zealous believers (isn't it handy that god told you to oppress those other folk and not the other way around....).  By inclination the cult of reason appeals to me, but then as has been pointed out in the thread it ought to, since that's how I was raised.  And yet, to be truthful, I have a hard time seeing the world as a reasonable place.  For all the blood and treasure sacrificed to science, it is in many ways as aloof and impotent on the ground as any divinity.  Yes we don't die all the time of trivial diseases any more, but then the Hebrews giving up pork probably solved a lot of needless disease-caused death too.  There's lots of diseases which science can't cure, and many more that it says it can but won't.  Also I am frustrated by the feature creep of rationality.  Small decisions made for rational reasons culminate in a straightjacket of regulation that strangles spontaneity and initiative: I won't gripe on with examples, I'm sure you can think of them.  Kids don't explore/play outside any more because everything is rationally dangerous to some degree, etc. 
     So I'm left dubious of anything that makes grandiose promises of a better life or offers to teach me to improve myself.  I guess the official term is agnostic, but I even doubt that term encapsulates everything I'm not sure of.  I don't like hate, but I guess there's a time and place for everything (to be a good person you really ought to hate what the Nazis stood for).  Being good is appealing, but it leaves you vulnerable to those who would take advantage of unconditional goodness.  So where are the absolutes that can dispel my doubts?  I am reminded of one of my grandfather's favourite sayings: "All things in moderation.  But not that much moderation."

Peace be with you sometimes maybe. 

Ok, I just removed a bunch of posts that ignored the warning I posted like less than 24 hours ago.

Really guys, respect the topic of the thread.

If you don't enjoy discussing religion, there's no f-ing reason to barge in and tell everyone about it. Just pick another discussion to take part of.

Quote from: Baron on Wed 12/06/2013 03:33:03There's lots of diseases which science can't cure, and many more that it says it can but won't.  Also I am frustrated by the feature creep of rationality.  Small decisions made for rational reasons culminate in a straightjacket of regulation that strangles spontaneity and initiative: I won't gripe on with examples, I'm sure you can think of them.  Kids don't explore/play outside any more because everything is rationally dangerous to some degree, etc.

Wow.
There are many diseases science says it can cure but won't?  Care to name a few of those?
And how does science tell kids not to play outside?
If there's a radioactive cloud coming towards your house, science doesn't tell you to stay indoors, it only tells you why and how you're going to die if you don't.
Science doesn't make moral judgments. It tries to describe and understand reality.
(Actually: according to science, going outside and eating dirt is recommended, because exposure will strengthen the immune system.)
It looks like you are confusing rationality with completely irrational recommendations. Not everything that isn't religious is scientific.
The people who claim that living near power lines makes you sick are not scientists.

If your view of religion is similarly removed from reality, I'd almost feel inclined to defend it. The notion that Hebrews didn't eat pork because of infections if completely ridiculous. They knew nothing of microorganisms.

I know this will complicate the discussion somewhat, but is it worth trying to factor in a distinction between the views, beliefs and practices of a religious organization and the views, beliefs and practices of an individual within one? Does being religious mean you have to observe every code that is layed down,or does it mean trying to undertake the same spiritual journey, rather, that the organization is attempting to undertake?
I'm not saying I know the answer, I was just wondering what you all thought of that, because if the individual is allowed to consciously deviate from the text if he/she sees that to be imperative on guiding their spiritual journey towards whatever their religion tells them is the end point, does that make them religious or not? I personally (from a semi-religious, although quite deviant, persuasion) see going to church as a boon, but I cannot accept that ALL the teachings in the Bible really are the 'truth' (it was, of course, written by people too).

I don't know what a "spiritual journey" is. Sounds made up.

What you propose sounds like somebody who is raised to be vegan but then finds out they like eggs way too much to abstain from them. It ultimately always comes down to cherry-picking. I'd also question that going to church is a boon, as opposed to a complete waste of time.

Religions aren't interested in what's actually true, they already claim to know the absolute truth. Anybody who is actually interested in what's true should be consistent and leave dogma behind.

Quote from: geork on Wed 12/06/2013 12:52:13
I know this will complicate the discussion somewhat, but is it worth trying to factor in a distinction between the views, beliefs and practices of a religious organization and the views, beliefs and practices of an individual within one? Does being religious mean you have to observe every code that is layed down,or does it mean trying to undertake the same spiritual journey, rather, that the organization is attempting to undertake?
I'm not saying I know the answer, I was just wondering what you all thought of that, because if the individual is allowed to consciously deviate from the text if he/she sees that to be imperative on guiding their spiritual journey towards whatever their religion tells them is the end point, does that make them religious or not? I personally (from a semi-religious, although quite deviant, persuasion) see going to church as a boon, but I cannot accept that ALL the teachings in the Bible really are the 'truth' (it was, of course, written by people too).

It's one thing that any given religion does have its word-for-word followers who go along with everything that their particular holy book tells them.  But then you break down the main religions into hundreds, if not thousands of smaller denominations which each have their own 'version' of what they consider 'the truth'.  Do those people really believe that their small handful of people know something that all the other churches don't.  And then even within those churches, there are presumably a large percentage of people who don't necessarily share exactly the same set of beliefs than those of their fellow churchgoers.  Basically,  billions of people think they are following the true path.  But how can they all be right if they are all following different paths? Are religious people so arrogant that they think their particular set of arbitrary, historically-evolved beliefs is somehow more correct than those of everyone else?  If everyone else is wrong, then you're probably wrong as well.

Quote from: Khris on Wed 12/06/2013 08:39:17

Quote from: Baron on Wed 12/06/2013 03:33:03There's lots of diseases which science can't cure, and many more that it says it can but won't.  Also I am frustrated by the feature creep of rationality.  Small decisions made for rational reasons culminate in a straightjacket of regulation that strangles spontaneity and initiative: I won't gripe on with examples, I'm sure you can think of them.  Kids don't explore/play outside any more because everything is rationally dangerous to some degree, etc.

Wow.
There are many diseases science says it can cure but won't?  Care to name a few of those?
And how does science tell kids not to play outside?
If there's a radioactive cloud coming towards your house, science doesn't tell you to stay indoors, it only tells you why and how you're going to die if you don't.
Science doesn't make moral judgments. It tries to describe and understand reality.
(Actually: according to science, going outside and eating dirt is recommended, because exposure will strengthen the immune system.)
It looks like you are confusing rationality with completely irrational recommendations. Not everything that isn't religious is scientific.
The people who claim that living near power lines makes you sick are not scientists.

If your view of religion is similarly removed from reality, I'd almost feel inclined to defend it. The notion that Hebrews didn't eat pork because of infections if completely ridiculous. They knew nothing of microorganisms.

Khris, I think you're being too hard on Baron. I actually agree to a certain extent with what he's saying. (Not sure what he means about the diseases scientists can cure, but won't though.) I may be wrong, but I think what Baron is getting at is that there are often studies that are published online or in magazines that say doofy things that go against common sense. Things like having 10 extra pounds of body fat will shorten your lifespan by 5 years, or eating such-and-such will reduce your risk of cancer by 5%. However, a lot of this is junk science. When looking at studies like this, it's imperative to consider how the study was performed (control groups, how many people were surveyed, etc...), whether or not it was peer-reviewed, and what company potentially stands to benefit from this study? There are a number of things (like germs) that people have phobias of because the media and junk science have told them these are dangerous and should be avoided. When you actually look at the hard science though, you'll see what Khris has said: Germs strengthen the immune system, it's important for kids to get colds at an early age, etc...

Quote from: Khris on Mon 10/06/2013 21:28:09
It didn't sound like a joke to me, more like: "those silly atheists just don't get how profound and great Jesus's teachings are".

As an atheist, I still find value in the teachings of Jesus. The power of the Bible is in its storytelling, and the Old Testament especially benefits from being the end result of oral tales transmitted over generations before the act of writing was invented. The stories of Moses, Noah, David, Solomon, etc., are undeniably great narratives. Jesus, as he's represented in the gospels, was also a great storyteller.

The biggest problem with the teachings of Jesus is the same as their biggest strength. Their profundity comes from their simplicity. "Blessed are the meek," equally so. "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye," "Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you didn't do it to one of the least of these, you didn't do it to me." Not exactly mind-blowing material, but how many follow them? They're so simple that they seem like common sense, and yet they're not commonly put into practice.

I'm obviously not as enamored with the bits regarding the supernatural, but even in those, Jesus is attempting to change the nature of the relationship between the people and their God. The Old Testament God wipes out entire civilizations on seeming whims, favors nations in battle with others, kills innocents to prove points to the devil. The God for whom Jesus advocates is one of love, forgiveness (see the parables on the prodigal son, and the story of the two debtors), charity (the parable of the widow's two coins), and benevolence. Thus, the new Covenant: "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."

Jesus spent his time with the working class and with sinners. Part of me always wonders, and I hope the religious among us will excuse this bit of what they might consider blasphemy, if Jesus was just a really benevolent teacher who realized that if he wanted to reach people, he had to put his teachings in terms of what they knew already, i.e. in terms of their religion. I wonder if he really believed he was the son of God, or if that was just a solid hook on which he knew he could hang his teachings.

Jesus also introduced the concept of eternal punishment in the lake of fire. And he tells people to not care about tomorrow, leave their family, and to love their enemy.
Is somebody who gives as much bad advice as good a good advisor...?

The fact that not many follow his teachings to the letter is probably a good thing, and even if we single out the ones that would still count as good advice today, it again boils down to "don't be a dick". It's all we need as basis. The important thing is the message anyway, not who delivers it.

The biggest problem I have with religious morality in general is the absolute black and white type of separating people into sinners and non-sinners. Jesus' teachings are no exception, due to their simplicity. Life is complex, science is complex, the universe is complex. Accepting simple explanations and rules is easy, but is almost always problematic.

Quote from: Khris on Wed 12/06/2013 21:40:23
Jesus also introduced the concept of eternal punishment in the lake of fire. And he tells people to not care about tomorrow, leave their family, and to love their enemy.
Is somebody who gives as much bad advice as good a good advisor...?

Well, that's the benefit of seeing Jesus as a philosopher and not a religious figure whom I have to follow to the letter. I don't have to agree with everything that Aristotle, Kierkegaard, Kant, Nietzsche, or others say, but can treat their good ideas as the ideas of fallible men who sometimes also had bad ones. Some of the examples you've cited here aren't things I'd necessarily disagree with either -- our interpretations of the mandate to love enemies, for example, I think, would come down to our individual interpretation of that set of verses.

In addition, my skepticism regarding the supernatural extends to whether Jesus believed in a fiery hell, or whether, as he often did in the parables, he drew on metaphor and storytelling to make his point. I'm being super lazy right now, and don't actually want to belabor this because I think we're on the same side for the most part in the wider view of this debate, but if I'm not mistaken, Jesus was drawing on a description of an actual place where garbage was burned...or something. We also get all of this filtered across centuries, secondhand accounts, and multiple translations.

Quote from: Khris on Wed 12/06/2013 21:40:23it again boils down to "don't be a dick"

Which is, unfortunately, the part that everyone seems to gloss over, in fact they bend over backwards to ignore it (http://www.millionairesforjesus.com/Blog/2007/09/following-question-came-from-reader-can.html). Again, I wonder if Jesus was attempting to lead a shift from a culture of persecution, mistrust and vengeance, to one of self-examination, openness, and forgiveness. This involved making people shift their view of God and the laws that God hand-wrote for them to follow. Easier this approach than simply announcing there was no God, though it still got him killed. I don't advocate this as the definitive reading of the New Testament, only the one that's most interesting to me.

Ugh. That's more than I ever intended to write in this thread. Carry on!

Quote from: Khris on Wed 12/06/2013 08:39:17
Science doesn't make moral judgments. It tries to describe and understand reality.
(Actually: according to science, going outside and eating dirt is recommended, because exposure will strengthen the immune system.)
It looks like you are confusing rationality with completely irrational recommendations. Not everything that isn't religious is scientific.
The people who claim that living near power lines makes you sick are not scientists.

When it works like it should, removed from dogma, misleading desires, focused on a problem at hand, science doesn't try to describe and understand reality. It's people who do that. Because of psychological needs and ideological purposes. For those who still believe actual science (or even "real", "official" science) is any close to 100% rationality and differs so much from how the directives of a religion are established, I have one word for you: "Kuhn".

How about a few more words? Because I'm talking about landing a rover on Mars using a sky crane, eradicating smallpox and polio, building quantum computers inside diamonds, and figuring out how single celled organisms turned into the diversity of life we see today by purely natural processes.
How does any of this compare to what religion does/is?

Quote from: Eric on Wed 12/06/2013 22:40:33
Well, that's the benefit of seeing Jesus as a philosopher and not a religious figure whom I have to follow to the letter.

That would be fine except that Jesus was a fairly bad philosopher. Most of the "good" ideas Jesus spoke of were outlined hundreds, if not thousands, of years before he was born.

Hardly the revealed wisdom of the divine.

And again, the strength of Jesus was his ability to distill all of this down into simple aphorisms and didactic parables, and, historically, to do it in ways that resonated with the Jewish culture he was addressing.

I'm not sure what we're arguing here. That Jesus as he's represented in the Bible was a bad person? That his thoughts were unoriginal and therefore not worthy of consideration?

Quote from: Khris on Wed 12/06/2013 23:42:04
How about a few more words? Because I'm talking about landing a rover on Mars using a sky crane, eradicating smallpox and polio, building quantum computers inside diamonds, and figuring out how single celled organisms turned into the diversity of life we see today by purely natural processes.
How does any of this compare to what religion does/is?

The things you mention are fragments of reality. Religion has a lot of bearing on how the world we live in is. It influenced people's actions throughout centuries and is influencing them still. So that is religion's connection to reality. And in that sense religion is very much comparable to theoretical science.

But if you want me to compare religion directly to reality, it compares pretty much as any other piece of fiction describing reality to reality. And the theoretical/explanatory content of science is not that much different.

The reason I wrote to you in the first place was your attack on Baron's well-founded advice to approach scientific theories with a healthy dose of skepticism. I imagine you must be some extreme materialist.

Quote from: Ascovel on Thu 13/06/2013 01:36:15The things you mention are fragments of reality. Religion has a lot of bearing on how the world we live in is. It influenced people's actions throughout centuries and is influencing them still. So that is religion's connection to reality. And in that sense religion is very much comparable to theoretical science.

But if you want me to compare religion directly to reality, it compares pretty much as any other piece of fiction describing reality to reality. And the theoretical/explanatory content of science is not that much different.

How? Why? Nothing of this makes sense. Are you saying that because religion still permeates society, it has some intrinsic value? Is this also true of the belief in witchcraft in Africa?
Are you seriously suggesting science is basically "just another religion"!?

Quote from: Ascovel on Thu 13/06/2013 01:36:15The reason I wrote to you in the first place was your attack on Baron's well-founded advice to approach scientific theories with a healthy dose of skepticism. I imagine you must be some extreme materialist.

"Well-founded"? Not in the least. And please don't tell me you can't distinguish between a theory in the colloquial sense and a scientific theory.
I don't believe this. This ignorance about science is breathtaking.

Science is fundamentally different from religion. It seeks to eliminate personal bias. It follows the evidence wherever it leads.
If you think this means I blindly trust anything that claims to be scientific, and that people like me have basically replaced priests by people in lab coats, you are simply clueless.

Quote from: Andail on Wed 12/06/2013 06:37:11
If you don't enjoy discussing religion, there's no f-ing reason to barge in and tell everyone about it. Just pick another discussion to take part of.

You are beautiful when you are angry. :-*  I like you for that.

Quote from: Khris on Wed 12/06/2013 08:39:17
There are many diseases science says it can cure but won't?  Care to name a few of those?

Malaria, which is both preventable and treatable (according to Science) and yet it kills about 500 000 people every year!.  How about that cholera epidemic that killed more Hatians than the 2010 earthquake (~ 250 000 deaths).  But maybe the media is spinning some kind of sensational yarn to sell advertisements, so let's look closer to home.  Asphyxia before birth, caused by the umbilical cord being wrapped around a baby's neck and often results in brain damage.  Easily preventable.  But I have an extended family member who will spend the rest of his life in a wheel chair and will max his vocabulary out at 100 words due to this.  Go science.

To anticipate your argument, you'll say these are examples of imperfect execution.  Science is perfect, and it's human error (individual doctor or collective political class) that has brought about these tragedies.  But, from the perspective of the man in the trenches, much the same argument can be made for why "god" allows bad things to happen while he himself remains flawless.  Both "science" and "god" are these all-powerful forces that can solve all your problems (in theory), but are just as equally likely to leave you stranded and disappointed in practice.  You may choose to believe in one or the other, and if that makes you feel more secure then so be it.  All I'm saying is that neither has convinced me, and that I still harbour doubts about both.

QuoteAnd how does science tell kids not to play outside?

Too much UV exposure will give you skin cancer.  Too much exposure to nitrous-oxide and other smog-born chemicals causes lung disease and possibly developmental delays in younger children.  Social science gives us crime statistics that increase the perception of danger on the street (although a close reading of those same statistics should in fact do the opposite... (roll)), and medical studies a greater awareness of the long-term impacts of concussions and breaking the growth-zone of bones before reaching maturity.  The sum total of these perfectly rational studies is to promote a vigilant culture among parents, thereby restricting such unquantifiable aspects of childhood as "unstructured fun" in favour of caution and safety.  You can look at school regulations that clearly dissuade kids from doing anything that might maybe possibly cause them even the slightest injury.  When is the last time you saw a teeter-totter on a school yard?  Or a merry-go-round?  Or a tire ladder?  Or a game of Red-Rover?  You can find scientific studies that show that kids do not play outside as much as they used to, and that childhood obesity rates are sky-rocketing.  Why?  Because people are making rational decisions based on what science tells them, to their own and society's detriment!

QuoteIf there's a radioactive cloud coming towards your house, science doesn't tell you to stay indoors, it only tells you why and how you're going to die if you don't.
Science doesn't make moral judgments. It tries to describe and understand reality.

I don't think science can distance itself from such clearly implicit recommendations.  Even if science doesn't tell you to go indoors to avoid the radioactive cloud, a reasonable person could anticipate that as the understood instruction.  In a court of law it is not so much the exact wording of the fine print as the interpretation of that fine print by a reasonable person that would make a party culpable or not.  Science can not wash it's hands of the consequences of its discoveries with an "I'm just saying...." remark that will absolve it of all responsibility.

QuoteIf your view of religion is similarly removed from reality, I'd almost feel inclined to defend it. The notion that Hebrews didn't eat pork because of infections if completely ridiculous. They knew nothing of microorganisms.

But they knew eating pork was making some people sick, and so agreed with their prophets and stopped....  Don't you see the parallel between "prophet" and "study"?  Both convince you to change your lifestyle as, for all intents and purposes if you're just an everyman, a matter of faith.

Quote from: Andail on Wed 12/06/2013 06:37:11
Ok, I just removed a bunch of posts that ignored the warning I posted like less than 24 hours ago.

Really guys, respect the topic of the thread.

If you don't enjoy discussing religion, there's no f-ing reason to barge in and tell everyone about it. Just pick another discussion to take part of.

I thought my post drawing a parallel between a person's particular religious faith and brand loyalty was clever and funny. Apparently, it was neither. :~(

Quote from: Baron on Thu 13/06/2013 03:31:28

Quote from: Khris on Wed 12/06/2013 08:39:17
There are many diseases science says it can cure but won't?  Care to name a few of those?

Malaria, which is both preventable and treatable (according to Science) and yet it kills about 500 000 people every year!.  How about that cholera epidemic that killed more Hatians than the 2010 earthquake (~ 250 000 deaths).  But maybe the media is spinning some kind of sensational yarn to sell advertisements, so let's look closer to home.  Asphyxia before birth, caused by the umbilical cord being wrapped around a baby's neck and often results in brain damage.  Easily preventable.  But I have an extended family member who will spend the rest of his life in a wheel chair and will max his vocabulary out at 100 words due to this.  Go science.

It seems you don't quite understand what the purpose of science is. What you are talking about is more of simplified science, which you hear over TV or radio. But real science is all about cause and probability. You won't hear any scientist say we can cure Malaria to 100%. He/She will say that it is extremely likely to cure a person with Malaria, if everything is done correctly. But there is always this 0.00001% (or whatsover) possibility that the therapy doesn't work for that person for several reasons.
But why are so many people dying of Malaria or similar deseases, according to science there should be just a few? Politics, culture, religion and many other things are the cause for this. In most of the countries where such illness is "normal" there is no real social or health care system. Doctors don't have the possibilites to cure such deseases. Some reject therapy because of religious beliefs and so on. Nothing that has to do anything with science.

Quote from: Baron on Thu 13/06/2013 03:31:28

QuoteAnd how does science tell kids not to play outside?

Too much UV exposure will give you skin cancer.  Too much exposure to nitrous-oxide and other smog-born chemicals causes lung disease and possibly developmental delays in younger children.  Social science gives us crime statistics that increase the perception of danger on the street (although a close reading of those same statistics should in fact do the opposite... (roll)), and medical studies a greater awareness of the long-term impacts of concussions and breaking the growth-zone of bones before reaching maturity.  The sum total of these perfectly rational studies is to promote a vigilant culture among parents, thereby restricting such unquantifiable aspects of childhood as "unstructured fun" in favour of caution and safety.  You can look at school regulations that clearly dissuade kids from doing anything that might maybe possibly cause them even the slightest injury.  When is the last time you saw a teeter-totter on a school yard?  Or a merry-go-round?  Or a tire ladder?  Or a game of Red-Rover?  You can find scientific studies that show that kids do not play outside as much as they used to, and that childhood obesity rates are sky-rocketing.  Why?  Because people are making rational decisions based on what science tells them, to their own and society's detriment!

You are just speaking of a few little parts of science. Psychology is also science and if you ask a pyschologist he won't advise any parents to prevent their kids from all dangers. Fun, dangerous events, illness are all essential experiences to children to make them grow up normally (psychologically and physiologically).
If you are so sure that science causes detriment for society, then please tell me some real examples. I could come up with millions of examples where science helped society and no single one where religion did.

Quote from: Baron on Thu 13/06/2013 03:31:28

QuoteIf there's a radioactive cloud coming towards your house, science doesn't tell you to stay indoors, it only tells you why and how you're going to die if you don't.
Science doesn't make moral judgments. It tries to describe and understand reality.

I don't think science can distance itself from such clearly implicit recommendations.  Even if science doesn't tell you to go indoors to avoid the radioactive cloud, a reasonable person could anticipate that as the understood instruction.  In a court of law it is not so much the exact wording of the fine print as the interpretation of that fine print by a reasonable person that would make a party culpable or not.  Science can not wash it's hands of the consequences of its discoveries with an "I'm just saying...." remark that will absolve it of all responsibility.

Science tells you what happens with your body if confronted with too much radioactivity. It tells you the probablity of your death if you are outside, inside, behind lead walls etc.
The logical consequence is to stay in-house or if you have a bunker go in there. Lead walls preferable.
Science doesn't need to wash it's hands of consequences, it clearly says that it IS possible to die even if you are in your house or your lead bunker.
Religion says that if you do some things (without giving good reason) nothing can happen to you. But it does. So religion must wash it's hands of the consequences! Science does admit that shit can happen.

Quote from: Baron on Thu 13/06/2013 03:31:28

QuoteIf your view of religion is similarly removed from reality, I'd almost feel inclined to defend it. The notion that Hebrews didn't eat pork because of infections if completely ridiculous. They knew nothing of microorganisms.

But they knew eating pork was making some people sick, and so agreed with their prophets and stopped....  Don't you see the parallel between "prophet" and "study"?  Both convince you to change your lifestyle as, for all intents and purposes if you're just an everyman, a matter of faith.

If a man in rags tells you to stop eating pork because god will make you sick if you do, would you believe him?
Or do you believe a man who tells you that eating old meat can make you sick because it's very probable that it already has started rotting and explains you what rotting is and causes to your body?
Like Khris says people didn't have any understanding of such things at that time. You could tell them anything and they would believe it, at least if you add god into the explanation.

Baron, so what are you saying: that we should stop all research, because it might have some bad implications...!?
You are redefining science as "policies about what we should and shouldn't do". You are free to oppose that, but don't call it science.
I don't care about a guy in a trench who is too stupid to understand the difference.

Quote from: Baron on Thu 13/06/2013 03:31:28I don't think science can distance itself from such clearly implicit recommendations.

Yes it can. Science says how things are, not how they should be. But disregarding that for a moment: if we find out that there's an increased risk of getting skin cancer now, are we supposed to not make it public because our children are going to spend less time outside? I can't understand your view on this, not at all. It sounds like you desperately want to live in the past because you think everything used to be better (it wasn't).

You mentioned your relative with the umbilical cord around his neck. How was science causing that? According to you, science didn't want to prevent that. I don't know what's more ridiculous, the notion that science is an entity that can make decisions, or holding it responsible for what happened.

Quote from: Baron on Thu 13/06/2013 03:31:28Both "science" and "god" are these all-powerful forces that can solve all your problems (in theory), but are just as equally likely to leave you stranded and disappointed in practice.  You may choose to believe in one or the other, and if that makes you feel more secure then so be it.  All I'm saying is that neither has convinced me, and that I still harbour doubts about both.

I don't even know what to say to this. It's not even wrong (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong).

Edit:
Took a shower, cooled off a bit and decided to address one of the specific arguments.

QuoteMalaria, which is both preventable and treatable (according to Science) and yet it kills about 500 000 people every year!.

How is this the fault of science? As long as there are people who think homeopathy will help against Malaria, or who refuse treatment until it's too late, people will die from diseases like Malaria.
Also:

QuoteIn the most severe cases of the disease, fatality rates can reach 20%, even with intensive care and treatment.

So again, how is this science's fault? HOW?

I also feel I have to address the "science is just another religion" part of your argument. Religions usually consist of three things: they provide a moral framework, they provide "facts" about the universe, and they tell the history of at least their part of the world. Science can only address the latter two; the first is where humanism comes in.
If people die of a cholera epidemic, it's not science's fault, it's the fault of people. Maybe there wasn't enough money, maybe help didn't get there fast enough. Pinning this on science is delusional.

Quote from: Lt. Smash on Thu 13/06/2013 12:24:40
It seems you don't quite understand what the purpose of science is. What you are talking about is more of simplified science, which you hear over TV or radio. But real science is all about cause and probability.

Well, let's get our definitions straight, so at least we are talking about the same thing.  My understanding of science is a systematic approach to building up knowledge through testing hypotheses through experimentation.  Causation and probability are often further hypotheses based on the evidence at hand, but I would disagree that they are what science is "all about".  I would say that a large segment of society ascribes to science the power to absolutely determine causation, but I think you are more accurate in saying that a scientist would only claim a high-degree of probable causation.  The central issue I take with science is that it promises that a systematic, rational and objective approach can solve all problems.  I doubt this, since as I've already explained rational and evidence based conclusions based on isolated observations and experiments can and often do have unintended consequences when applied to the real world.  Further, I contend that science displays a degree of hypocrisy in its very nature: replicable experiments by their nature need to be isolated to minimize the number of variables involved, but the build-up of the knowledge based on those results does not often equate to applicability in the real world (and thus constitutes "knowledge" to the same degree as "knowing" how many angels can fit on top of a pin). I fully concede that science has had many successes, as has religion, but I find it hard to place blind faith in something that is clearly fallible. 

QuoteIf you are so sure that science causes detriment for society, then please tell me some real examples.

...Er, how about nuclear bombs?

QuoteI could come up with millions of examples where science helped society and no single one where religion did.

How about "love thy neighbour"?  Don't get me wrong, I think science beats religion hands down 19 times out of 20.  But I will concede that there are some merits to religion some of the time for some people, and I don't think science has it right 100% of the time.

QuoteIf a man in rags tells you to stop eating pork because god will make you sick if you do, would you believe him?

What is this, some sort of ad hominem argument?  Who cares what the guy looks like?  I think we're on the same wavelength regarding people's grasp of the facts in the past: what they called divine retribution we would understand as some sort of pathogen.  But that shouldn't take away from religion's historical successes: it was successful because people saw it as contributing to making their lives better, however ill-conceived its ideas actually were.  Also, this argument pre-supposes that we have all the answers now (a glaring fault a number of you have pointed out in ardent religious believers), while I suspect that the future will prove our ignorance just as we have exposed that of religion.

Quote from: Khris on Thu 13/06/2013 12:28:37
Baron, so what are you saying: that we should stop all research, because it might have some bad implications...!?

I am saying science should not be seen as infallible.  I am saying this over and over again.

Quote
I don't care about a guy in a trench who is too stupid to understand the difference.

You are the man in the trench too.  The universe exerts its force on you, and you (as all of us) have only an imperfect conception of why or how.  You turn to science for understanding, but others do otherwise.  To proclaim superior knowledge of the mortal condition than anyone else is conceited, and differs little in outward appearance from the holy-rollers you claim to despise.

QuoteYou mentioned your relative with the umbilical cord around his neck. How was science causing that? According to you, science didn't want to prevent that. I don't know what's more ridiculous, the notion that science is an entity that can make decisions, or holding it responsible for what happened.

The science of medicine has determined acceptable risks for surgical outcomes.  This is rational, unless it happens to you.  I don't pray, but I hope it never does to you.

Quote

Quote from: Baron on Thu 13/06/2013 03:31:28Both "science" and "god" are these all-powerful forces that can solve all your problems (in theory), but are just as equally likely to leave you stranded and disappointed in practice.  You may choose to believe in one or the other, and if that makes you feel more secure then so be it.  All I'm saying is that neither has convinced me, and that I still harbour doubts about both.

I don't even know what to say to this. It's not even wrong (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong).

Belief (or trust, if you prefer) can not be correct or incorrect according to measurable criteria, so your cute turn of phrase isn't applicable.  I don't need to be told that I don't understand what we are discussing: the very fact that you are wasting your time trying to correct me belies your acceptance that my arguments merit response.

Quote
How is [Malaria] the fault of science? As long as there are people who think homeopathy will help against Malaria, or who refuse treatment until it's too late, people will die from diseases like Malaria.

What has caused people to turn to homeopathy but experience of the shortcomings of mainstream medicine?  A failure in one regard shakes confidence throughout.  It seeds doubt.  I have doubts, that is all.

QuoteI also feel I have to address the "science is just another religion" part of your argument. Religions usually consist of three things: they provide a moral framework, they provide "facts" about the universe, and they tell the history of at least their part of the world. Science can only address the latter two; the first is where humanism comes in.

These are arbitrary definitions.  I am drawing a parallel between two powerful forces in people's lives.  People turn to religion for answers, and they turn to science for answers.  I contend that neither has all the answers.  Although I admire your conviction that one of them does, I can not share it.

Again, I don't trust anything that calls itself science blindly. I am well aware that proper science doesn't have all the answers and maybe never will. It IS the only way to get actual answers though. It isn't a force; and what constitutes an acceptable risk for surgical outcomes was determined by people, not science.
You have an extremely personified view of science, thinking that it is something we have to trust (as in faith). This is simply not true. AGAIN, I have "faith" in the methodology, not necessarily every scientist.

It also sounds like you're saying that until science is 100% perfect and has all the answers, you might as well reject it. I just can't understand the reasoning behind this.
If you don't have access to clean water and keep getting sick, wouldn't you treasure a device that destroys 50% of the pathogens? This is what science does, as opposed to religion, which simply tells you that you'll get all the clean water you'll ever want after you die.

You mentioned the invention of the nuclear bomb was when science caused a detriment for society. This is of course a common argument. But there are always risks like that. The decision to actually drop two of them on people was made by politicians, not scientists, and especially not science itself. One could also argue that doing so did not just stop a war and while causing them, also prevented lots of deaths, but it also made sure we'd never drop another one. Maybe it prevented an escalation of the cold war. We'll never know. Still, not an argument against science.
Because even if we start charging up the good against the bad, the good will always win. Accumulation of knowledge and understanding about the universe will always win out against psychopaths who decided to use new technology to kill.

Please point out "successes of religion". Note that in order for these to count, the success must be explicitly based on religious belief or morality. Mentioning a pastor who saved Jews from the Nazis does NOT count.

You have a really skewed way of looking at science, it almost sounds like you're anti-science. Some of your arguments sound like coming from a 12 year old Amish, sorry. It's pretty frustrating, because I have lots of respect for you and think you're a funny, creative and intelligent guy. Seeing you talk like that about the greatest human achievement ever really makes me sad.

What should I say? Khris has already mentioned everything that's worth to mention.
Maybe you take a look at this website (http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122sciencedefns.html) to see how scientists define and describe science.

Regarding your nuclear bomb example. I kinda knew that you would come up with that. Khris already mentioned that it is the human who uses it for bad things. Science does only describe how this things works and doesn't tell any use cases. Every invention by humankind can be used for good things and bad things. Bombs can be used for mining or to flatten floor for streets and building. Also in the near future we will be able to use nuclear bombs or similar bombs to destroy asteroids and comets which would be dangerous if they approach earth. But of course it can be used to kill people and animals.

Let me give you another example, which makes things even clearer: A rifle.
Science describes the way the rifle is working and how you use it in order to fire a projectile into the direction you are aiming.
But humans are the ones who decide to use it for protecting lifes, killing animals (because of food or fun) or killing people. This is the perfect example to show you that a thing can be good or bad depending on how humans use it.

If we would reject every invention that could be dangerous to humans or the earth, we would still live like apes without clothing, no roasted beef, no language, not even religion, just nothing.

I'm back.
This has been all about Khris making a point. It was to me, to Monkey and I can understand that. Personally I stick with the idea that Khris had a really bad experience with religion or religious people, this hate towards religion is almost biblical.
With monkey I understand that Khris got a bit upset that the brightest coder in AGS is religious, I imagine his "NO!" scream when he found out.
But with Baron? C'mon Khris! He had the most reasonable posts around this thread.
And it seams to me that you just don't want to loose a debate, man. You go around picking every little "fault" on one's post and it's common from you to stall conversation and even give opposite meaning to sentences.

And how can you absolve scientists from Hiroshima and Nagasaky?
Because they didn't drop it?
The scientists that built the bomb knew exactly what they were creating.
Could a common guy split the atom, do the formulas and maths, handle the uranium (massive enrichment laboratory/plant was constructed)?
The Manhattan Project cost 2 Billion Dollars.
Scientists who invented the atomic bomb under the Manhattan Project: Robert Oppenheimer, David Bohm, Leo Szilard, Eugene Wigner, Otto Frisch, Rudolf Peierls, Felix Bloch, Niels Bohr, Emilio Segre, James Franck, Enrico Fermi, Klaus Fuchs and Edward Teller. They were considered the greatest minds around that time.
They were the most brilliant minds around 1939, Khris.
They had the capability to understand life, religion, science, god, God or gods and all the things that make the universe and still they consciously decided to make a bomb.

So, I better have a 2000 year old story about God's wrath than a very recent example of what scientists can do.
Sounds childish doesn't it? But this are the "weapons" you've been using on this debate.
And yes, atheists are boring and there are dozens of blogs and forums where they get together and debate their solitude. Check it out.

EDITED to note that Miguel and I posted these messages simultaneously. My response doesn't consider his.

Maybe what Baron is addressing is that it's a difficult proposition to examine science as an objective concept, because it will always, as it is (generally within our realm of consideration -- we could perhaps make some arguments about intelligent animals) a human endeavor, come packaged/polluted with human nature, good and bad -- idealism, greed, compassion, mistrust, stewardship, nationalism, etc. etc.

So of course, there are instances where, in the application of science, our humanity and rationality come in opposition to each other. The nuclear bomb, for instance (and I think that the argument Khris puts forth is still problematic -- you can't just invent the nuclear bomb objectively and blame politicians for dropping it, otherwise you don't go on television and say 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds' when you do), or calculating surgical risk, or deciding whether or not we should suspend federal laws for a little girl to get a lung transplant. Discussion of the ethics of science is important, essential to the application of science.

Where this differs from religion is that this is an ongoing, progressive conversation. The laws of most religions have been codified, and even if we set aside some of them, like the much-cited-in-this-thread example of eating pork, there's no chance for a (since we've brought him up) Kuhnian paradigm shift in which we reject wholesale the beliefs that came before and still call ourselves Christian, or Muslim, or Scientologist, or what-have-you. All new information and human development has to be shoehorned into ancient and antiquated rules for living.

Eric,
I've been trying to say in this debate that modern Catholics can distance themselves from the ancient rules from the Bible, or antiquated resolutions from the Vatican. Modern Catholics follow Jesus and his life more than anything else.

Quote from: miguel on Fri 14/06/2013 13:46:14
And how can you absolve scientists from Hiroshima and Nagasaky?
Because they didn't drop it?
The scientists that built the bomb knew exactly what they were creating.
Could a common guy split the atom, do the formulas and maths, handle the uranium (massive enrichment laboratory/plant was constructed)?
The Manhattan Project cost 2 Billion Dollars.
Scientists who invented the atomic bomb under the Manhattan Project: Robert Oppenheimer, David Bohm, Leo Szilard, Eugene Wigner, Otto Frisch, Rudolf Peierls, Felix Bloch, Niels Bohr, Emilio Segre, James Franck, Enrico Fermi, Klaus Fuchs and Edward Teller. They were considered the greatest minds around that time.
They were the most brilliant minds around 1939, Khris.
They had the capability to understand life, religion, science, god, God or gods and all the things that make the universe and still they consciously decided to make a bomb.

Science is a process of increasing our knowledge and understanding. Some consider knowledge a good in itself (preferable to ignorance or wrong beliefs).

But more importantly, knowledge is power: science gives us increased control over the world. That is not inherently a good thing or a bad thing: it can help us solve real problems, but at the same time people don't always use power for good, or in the wisest ways. Still, if there's a question we really want to answer or problem we really need to solve, science is the method that has by far the best track record in doing so.

Whether "progress" (of which science and improvements in technology are some of the biggest contributors) has, in sum and on balance, been for better or for worse is an empirical question, but also depends on your values (one could argue that it would be better for the planet if humans had just remained apes with no science or technology whatsoever). Recent books (e.g. Steven Pinker's) attempt to show that yes, we are in fact better off in measurable ways.

Quote from: miguel on Fri 14/06/2013 13:46:14
So, I better have a 2000 year old story about God's wrath than a very recent example of what scientists can do.

Why do you keep making science responsible for Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Did science decide to kill hundreds of thousand civilists to decide war in favor of the Allies? Or where it the USA who finally dropped the bombs?

Do you agree that god and religion are responsible for hundreds of wars where millions of people died because of their different beliefs? If not, then stop pissing on things that you obviously will never understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_wars#Wars.

Quote from: miguel on Fri 14/06/2013 13:46:14
And yes, atheists are boring ...

Could you come up with an example of why atheists are boring? People who are open for new ideas, new inventions, new experiences do you call boring? Just my opinion but people who live like they used to live 2000 years before and not trying new things are boring.

Some different question @all:
Do you agree that since humans have started distancing from god en masse (beginning with reconnaissance) that life for the average man has become multiple times better than it used to be?

Miguel, your assessment of me is completely wrong, plain and simple. I didn't have any bad experience with religion in any form, whatsoever. Until I was 25 or so, I didn't really care either way, because I didn't come into contact with religion in my daily life, at all (except in school, where is was just another boring subject).
What eventually sparked my interest was the debate over Intelligent Design back in 2005. I read about it, was curious and haven't stopped since then. I realized why agnosticism is complacent and prone to make you feel superior for all the wrong reasons. And I oppose ignorance in all forms.

What I hate about religion is not jesus or the bible, what I hate is how religious people remain willfully ignorant, and how they get people killed (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57586726/pregnant-el-salvador-woman-denied-life-saving-abortion/) over unfounded and superstitious beliefs. I don't hate Christianity, I hate people who are stuck in ancient morality, people who let religions corrupt them into becoming abominable assholes, even against their better judgment. What I hate is how religions manage to turn nice, caring human beings into somebody who'll say that owning another human as property is not bad in every circumstance (and who actually believe this!), because they'd rather die than admit that their belief system is full of holes and contradictions.

As for monkey, the "brightest coder in AGS", when I found out he's a Mormon, lots of things went through my head, but "NO!" or anything similar surely wasn't among them.

QuoteAnd it seams to me that you just don't want to loose a debate, man. You go around picking every little "fault" on one's post and it's common from you to stall conversation and even give opposite meaning to sentences.

This is just meaningless polemics. The same could be said about any of your posts.

I'm currently in this to defend science. Baron's opinion is as common as it is mislead, and I'm simply trying to correct what I deem to be downright dishonest. And like I said before, it doesn't matter who says something; all that matters is the argument itself.

Like Eric and Snarky pointed out, ethics are important in science. In no way do I think that everything we can do, should necessarily be done, too. I'm still quite torn about animal testing for example, in so far as it is unavoidable to find vaccines or cures.

But the notion that we should regard science as one of many approaches that is as good as the next one is so hare-brained and ridiculous it's almost not even worth commenting on.

QuoteI've been trying to say in this debate that modern Catholics can distance themselves from the ancient rules from the Bible, or antiquated resolutions from the Vatican. Modern Catholics follow Jesus and his life more than anything else.

At a point where you disagree with the Vatican of all things, what's even really the point of calling yourself Catholic any longer, "modern" or not? This is the definition of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Quote from: Khris on Fri 14/06/2013 16:22:45
I realized why agnosticism is complacent and prone to make you feel superior for all the wrong reasons. And I oppose ignorance in all forms.

I think it's actually quite ignorant to believe you're not ignorant yourself. We all are, it's an integral part of human nature. Why would being agnostic make you feel superior? In my opinion, it's actually quite humble to accept that you can't be sure about things that are beyond you to know. Do you know how (and why) the Universe came into existence? Can you tell for sure it wasn't created by some supreme force/aliens from another dimension or something else that could be, by our definitions, considered a divine entity? Can you actually claim you know for sure there is no such thing as god? If so, isn't then atheism just another belief, i.e. a belief in the absence of any supreme force at all?

Quote from: Cuiki on Fri 14/06/2013 16:54:33Can you actually claim you know for sure there is no such thing as god? If so, isn't then atheism just another belief, i.e. a belief in the absence of any supreme force at all?

The problem with this line of thought is: Can you actually claim you know for sure that the universe wasn't created by a giant death metal-loving unicorn who believes that all people named Cuiki should be executed by guillotine? If so, isn't then your non-belief in my death-metal unicorn just another belief, i.e. you should acknowledge the validity of my belief that you should probably be executed by guillotine (so sayeth the Unicorn)?

Quote from: Khris on Fri 14/06/2013 10:54:28
Please point out "successes of religion". Note that in order for these to count, the success must be explicitly based on religious belief or morality. Mentioning a pastor who saved Jews from the Nazis does NOT count.

I can only really speak for the UK and Christianity, as that is what I know, but these would include the creation of schools in England (the first we have any records of came with the spread of Christianity), the provision and spread of free schooling for all, hospitals which treated those who could not pay and a massive amount of "charity" work. I suppose it depends how you measure success but that would fit my definition.

Quote from: Eric on Fri 14/06/2013 17:15:57

Quote from: Cuiki on Fri 14/06/2013 16:54:33Can you actually claim you know for sure there is no such thing as god? If so, isn't then atheism just another belief, i.e. a belief in the absence of any supreme force at all?

The problem with this line of thought is: Can you actually claim you know for sure that the universe wasn't created by a giant death metal-loving unicorn who believes that all people named Cuiki should be executed by guillotine? If so, isn't then your non-belief in my death-metal unicorn just another belief, i.e. you should acknowledge the validity of my belief that you should probably be executed by guillotine (so sayeth the Unicorn)?

I just meant, can you claim we were brought into existence by nothing at all that could be, in some way, considered a divine being? And that includes pretty much anything. ;-D
The rest is kind of down to semantics. Is non-belief actually a type of belief? If it isn't, I retract that statement you quoted, but that still doesn't change that much.

Quote from: Khris on Fri 14/06/2013 16:22:45

What I hate about religion is not jesus or the bible, what I hate is how religious people remain willfully ignorant, and how they get people killed (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57586726/pregnant-el-salvador-woman-denied-life-saving-abortion/) over unfounded and superstitious beliefs. I don't hate Christianity, I hate people who are stuck in ancient morality, people who let religions corrupt them into becoming abominable assholes, even against their better judgment. What I hate is how religions manage to turn nice, caring human beings into somebody who'll say that owning another human as property is not bad in every circumstance (and who actually believe this!), because they'd rather die than admit that their belief system is full of holes and contradictions.

This all comes from either misunderstanding of religion or intentional misreading. On the fundamental level, Christianity is about love and compassion, and everything else is secondary. Just like "living near a power line will kill you" or quantum theory-based esoterics aren't science, this blah-blah-blah about abortion and other stuff is nothing close to what Jesus said. Besides, the original Christians (those from the Ancient Rome, etc.) never put that much emphasis on Hell, torture and punishment for sins. The "punishment" aspect was heavily laid on by the Church in Middle Ages (most likely for political reasons).

Also, I don't believe in religion making people worse. There's a certain percent of "nastiness" inside many people that just looks for an excuse to manifest itself (like in the Stanford prison experiment); if it isn't religion, it can be patriotism, revolutionary ideas or virtually anything else. Just like "if you cannot be a good person without your religion, then maybe you're not so good yourself", if your religion made you a worse person, then perhaps you weren't as good as you thought you were.

As for the gay question, since it bothers everyone so much, lemme throw in my two cents. There is both innate homosexuality (probably a result of genetic changes) and brief homosexual experiences of mostly straight people (even Marlon Brando had one in his young years). My IMHO is that religion only disapproves of the latter, since no one can be judged for what they were born with.

Cuiki:
I didn't say I have all the answers, and claiming that there is definitely no god is equally unjustifiable, yes (that's why I don't).
I'm saying this is about probability though, and that of the existence of for instance the God of the Christian Bible is not 50:50.
So as far as an agnostic only says "we cannot know", that's fine, but I feel they must also emphasise at the same time, that it's different with common God claims, like those made by Christianity. Because in those cases, absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence (because if the claim were true, we should find evidence).
Like Eric mentioned, saying that anything is possible gets you nowhere.

Intense Degree:
This is true, the only objection I would have is that atheists didn't get an equal chance. Back then, everybody was religious (or else...).
Today we have for instance Doctors without borders, a completely secular organization. They don't hold their treatments hostage until their patients read a bible passage with them.
I'm still maintaining that people who wanted to help others have always existed, and those who lived centuries ago simply joined the church in order to do so. It was the natural thing to do.
Religious people claim that believing that Jesus is God makes people help others, and my point is that that belief is not required to want to do good.

Cyrus: this is just your modern, progressive interpretation.

QuoteChristianity is all about love and compassion

Have you ever read the bible...? I am aware that is typically what priests tell people nowadays, but you really shouldn't take their word for it. If you think Christians can simply chuck out the OT, fine, but why call yourself Christian then? You just lost Genesis, Moses, the Commandments.
You are free to redefine a religion to your liking and subsequently call other interpretations misreadings. But don't make it the basis for an argument.

Here's a brilliant debate on the issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCdnh7G87m4&list=PL87110E560077639E
Everybody should have watched it.

Quote from: Cuiki on Fri 14/06/2013 17:34:14
The rest is kind of down to semantics. Is non-belief actually a type of belief? If it isn't, I retract that statement you quoted, but that still doesn't change that much.

This point of view gives validity to any belief that has been historically held, though, which is part of the problem with modern discussions of difficult issues. Fair and balanced doesn't mean that everyone who has a viewpoint gets equal airtime. For instance, if you (well, not you you, but you know what I mean) hold that black people are an inferior race, and I disagree with you, you shouldn't get to automatically say, "Well, that's just your belief, isn't it?" The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

Quote from: Intense Degree on Fri 14/06/2013 17:33:32

Quote from: Khris on Fri 14/06/2013 10:54:28
Please point out "successes of religion". Note that in order for these to count, the success must be explicitly based on religious belief or morality. Mentioning a pastor who saved Jews from the Nazis does NOT count.

I can only really speak for the UK and Christianity, as that is what I know, but these would include the creation of schools in England (the first we have any records of came with the spread of Christianity), the provision and spread of free schooling for all, hospitals which treated those who could not pay and a massive amount of "charity" work. I suppose it depends how you measure success but that would fit my definition.

Christians are a very charitable people, and always have been, but you get the feeling that it has rarely been entirely without strings attached.  Free schooling for all meant being able to teach more kids about God from an early age. Same with loads of things like orphanages and the Scout movement. Good things run by good people, all held together with a creepy Christian glue of hymns and prayers.

Quote from: Baron on Thu 13/06/2013 03:31:28
You are beautiful when you are angry. :-*  I like you for that.

Thanks, trying my best!

Quote from: Ponch
I thought my post drawing a parallel between a person's particular religious faith and brand loyalty was clever and funny. Apparently, it was neither. :~(

This was one of your posts:

QuoteOh, Baron. As a Canadian, we all know that your religion is The Church Of Tim Horton's.

It's just that not all threads have room for comedians. 95% of this forum is pretty light-hearted, so when some people are trying to have a serious discussion, just try to leave the rumpus by the door. These debates are sometimes hard to keep track of as it is.
Thanks.

Khris,

QuoteWhat I hate about religion is not jesus or the bible(...)

So, there is hate after all. This was pretty evident since the start. From this quote on you mention religious fundamentalists who blindly use religion as a excuse to get their revenge on other men. No sane person will go against you on this. But, either for power, land or resources, men will always justify their ways with some kind of "higher" reason in order to obtain what they do not own.
How a country of intelligent, good people, went on to conquer the world based on a "blue-eyes and pale skin" concept of the world (it still goes on, see the lunatic in Iceland) is something that should make every one of us to think about how fragile we really are. Looks like a good propaganda is enough to do the trick.

Quote(...)I oppose ignorance in all forms.

So do I. The difference is that I don't hate ignorants.

QuoteWhat I hate is how religions manage to turn nice, caring human beings into somebody who'll say that owning another human as property is not bad in every circumstance(...)

What I hate is how politicians manage to turn nice, caring human beings into somebody who'll say that exterminating another human is not bad in every circumstance.

QuoteThis is just meaningless polemics. The same could be said about any of your posts.

We agree on this one, then.

QuoteAt a point where you disagree with the Vatican of all things, what's even really the point of calling yourself Catholic any longer, "modern" or not? This is the definition of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

No, this is me thinking about what religion means to me and how should I accept it. This is me not throwing myself into something I don't fully agree.
This is me taking what I feel is important from a religion and putting in perspective/discarding what I do not think is valuable to me.

Lt. Smash,

QuoteWhy do you keep making science responsible for Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Did science decide to kill hundreds of thousand civilists to decide war in favor of the Allies? Or where it the USA who finally dropped the bombs?

Well, science is indeed responsible for Nagasaki and Hiroshima. There was a joint effort of top leading scientist and a powerful nation to build a bomb that would and did kill a large amount of humans. Because most of us were on the allies field, the bomb may be seen as the "right" way to end the war.
The USA did drop the bomb, because they had the leading technology and the funds to do it.

QuoteDo you agree that god and religion are responsible for hundreds of wars where millions of people died because of their different beliefs? If not, then stop pissing on things that you obviously will never understand.

As long as I don't piss at your door, I'll piss everywhere I want, dude. Lot's of people have died in wars. Land and resources are what drives people to fight. Then they use "excuses" to justify it. Religions was/is one of them.
I'm sure you obviously will never understand that there are other "justifications" to attack a nation.

QuoteCould you come up with an example of why atheists are boring? People who are open for new ideas, new inventions, new experiences do you call boring? Just my opinion but people who live like they used to live 2000 years before and not trying new things are boring.

I'm sorry but your point of view on this debate is neither new or inventive or whatever. It's just boring to answer you.

Quote from: miguel on Sat 15/06/2013 11:52:06
Well, science is indeed responsible for Nagasaki and Hiroshima. There was a joint effort of top leading scientist and a powerful nation to build a bomb that would and did kill a large amount of humans. Because most of us were on the allies field, the bomb may be seen as the "right" way to end the war.
The USA did drop the bomb, because they had the leading technology and the funds to do it.

Sorry, but a few scientists are not science as a whole, just as a few fundamentalists are not religion as a whole. So the USA had the leading technology to drop the bomb? Oh, of course this means poor USA had no choice, they simply HAD to throw it, because of science, you know? This is just ridiculous.
If you make technology responsible for any possible misuse, you should stop using technology right now. Your PC has technology in it (developed by evil scientists) that can and will be used to kill thousands of people. The same technology that you use everyday to browse these forums is used by dictatorial states to control people and to suppress their free will. And you are telling me I should blame Konrad Zuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_Zuse)?

  Had the bomb not been dropped, the alternative plan for the Allies was the invasion of the Japan.  The mainland, not the other countries they had taken over. (http://www.wisconsincentral.net/People/People/People/WWIIJapanInvasion_files/japempire1942.jpg) 

  To be more on-topic, Shinto Buddhism combined with a state religion was used to help control the masses.

Problem,

QuoteSorry, but a few scientists are not science as a whole(...)

Maybe, but they were the best of the best. Some of them are even universal iconic like Einstein.

QuoteSo the USA had the leading technology to drop the bomb? Oh, of course this means poor USA had no choice, they simply HAD to throw it, because of science, you know? This is just ridiculous.

Yes it is ridiculous. Because you wrote it, not me. I did not say USA did not have a choice. In fact, as a reply to many posts here, my focus is that men is as "dangerous" to humanity than god.
Anyway, the Americans did spend 2Billion dollars to make the bomb. Not because, but through science they did manage do built it.
The rest of your rants about technology is not even funny. Humans create technology and decide what to do with it. Not God and obviously not technology itself. Why you retrieved that from my words is a complete unknown.

kconan,
I am nobody to judge if the bomb was better than invading Japan or not.

Quote from: miguel on Sat 15/06/2013 13:28:53
Anyway, the Americans did spend 2Billion dollars to make the bomb. Not because, but through science they did manage do built it.
The rest of your rants about technology is not even funny. Humans create technology and decide what to do with it. Not God and obviously not technology itself. Why you retrieved that from my words is a complete unknown.

Well, my point is that you made science responsible as if science was a person. Science is a method to find out the truth, or at least to come as close to the truth as possible. Science is neutral. It can be used for good and for bad. Science can't be held responsible for the bomb, because this would be insulting towards scientists in general. I'm not blaming christianity for the spanish inquisition, but if I applied your logic, I would.

QuoteWell, my point is that you made science responsible as if science was a person

No I did not make science responsible. In fact, I want to expose the fact that men creates science and then applies it to whatever means. If you took the time to read this thread you would know what are my thoughts on the subject.

QuoteScience can't be held responsible for the bomb, because this would be insulting towards scientists in general.

Those particular scientists can surely be held responsible for the bomb. And scientifically the bomb was a huge technology breakthrough.
But I can separate things, I have no problem with that.
Scientists are men and women just like the rest of us. They have the notion that what they are creating may kill. Removing any responsibility from them because they are scientists is a very dangerous path. But of course I'm not blaming the guy that researches a cure for a disease.

Quote from: miguel on Sat 15/06/2013 11:52:06

QuoteWhy do you keep making science responsible for Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Did science decide to kill hundreds of thousand civilists to decide war in favor of the Allies? Or where it the USA who finally dropped the bombs?

Well, science is indeed responsible for Nagasaki and Hiroshima. There was a joint effort of top leading scientist and a powerful nation to build a bomb that would and did kill a large amount of humans. Because most of us were on the allies field, the bomb may be seen as the "right" way to end the war.
The USA did drop the bomb, because they had the leading technology and the funds to do it.

It's senseless to talk further on this topic as you obviously abolish your old arguments and just invent new ones so you can keep your opposition. [EDIT] Your new posts have just proven that.

Quote from: miguel on Sat 15/06/2013 11:52:06

QuoteDo you agree that god and religion are responsible for hundreds of wars where millions of people died because of their different beliefs? If not, then stop pissing on things that you obviously will never understand.

As long as I don't piss at your door, I'll piss everywhere I want, dude. Lot's of people have died in wars. Land and resources are what drives people to fight. Then they use "excuses" to justify it. Religions was/is one of them.
I'm sure you obviously will never understand that there are other "justifications" to attack a nation.

You are totally right and actually you have just agreed on my opinion. The kings, emperors, the popes and the clerks they did justify war because of god and their religion. People wouldn't have killed to millions if the only reason would be land. Because religion exists, the emperors could abuse it to make people believe war is good. So if there were no religion many wars wouldn't have existed and many wars wouldn't be so disastrous. I also did never say that all wars are because of religion. There were thousands of wars but a few hundreds mostly because of religious belief/abuse.
[EDIT] Just wanted to mention this, so I'm not that boring, but this was an excellent example of how differently atheists and theists think. I did always just argument on the things that you actually posted, in oppose to you automatically assuming that I'm talking of every war and every killing.

Quote from: miguel on Sat 15/06/2013 11:52:06

QuoteCould you come up with an example of why atheists are boring? People who are open for new ideas, new inventions, new experiences do you call boring? Just my opinion but people who live like they used to live 2000 years before and not trying new things are boring.

I'm sorry but your point of view on this debate is neither new or inventive or whatever. It's just boring to answer you.

I'm sorry that I bore you but what do you want? If you like I can invent a new definition of atheism and/or theism but I don't think this would make this debate more clever.

@miguel: In this case, our opinions aren't that far apart. Of course you can make individuals responsible, and of course there were scientists who wanted the bomb, but this is not science in general. 
By the way, this is what you said:

Quote from: miguel on Sat 15/06/2013 11:52:06
Well, science is indeed responsible for Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Quote from: miguel on Sat 15/06/2013 13:55:56
No I did not make science responsible.

I know what you probably wanted to say though (and I read the whole thread), but we shouldn't confuse individuals with science, just as we shouldn't confuse individuals with religion in general.

Lt. Smash
I don't blame science for all the bad things in the world but do blame science for inventing the bomb.

QuoteYou are totally right and actually you have just agreed on my opinion. The kings, emperors, the popes and the clerks they did justify war because of god and their religion. People wouldn't have killed to millions if the only reason would be land. Because religion exists, the emperors could abuse it to make people believe war is good. So if there were no religion many wars wouldn't have existed and many wars wouldn't be so disastrous.

Well, kings, emperors, popes did justify many wars with religion, this is a fact. If there was no religion back then I believe the kings and emperors would have had to become much better politicians. Your idea that all the wars ended during the monarchy era is wrong. People still fight as we speak. And sorry to tell you but land and resource is still the main prize.

QuoteI'm sorry that I bore you but what do you want? If you like I can invent a new definition of atheism and/or theism but I don't think this would make this debate more clever.

Don't bother.

Problem,

QuoteI know what you probably wanted to say though (and I read the whole thread), but we shouldn't confuse individuals with science, just as we shouldn't confuse individuals with religion in general.

Thanks for that.
I totally agree with what you just wrote.

Quote from: miguel on Sat 15/06/2013 14:23:56
Well, kings, emperors, popes did justify many wars with religion, this is a fact. If there was no religion back then I believe the kings and emperors would have had to become much better politicians. Your idea that all the wars ended during the monarchy era is wrong. People still fight as we speak. And sorry to tell you but land and resource is still the main prize.

Just wanted to mention this, so I'm not that boring, but this was an excellent example of how differently atheists and theists think (it could actually be just you and me but who knows). I did always just argument on the things that you actually posted, in oppose to you automatically assuming that I'm talking of every war. I also did never say that all wars ended during the monarchy. You are twisting my words so they fit your beliefs.

People are in fact still fighting for their freedom just look at Syria, Turkey, Tunesia, Libya,... Suppressed because of politics and power, many of these Islamic countries (ab-)use their religion to justify the cruelties against freethinkers and people of different religion and culture.

Miguel:
You're conflating science and ethics. Building a bomb is neither bad nor good. Using the bomb is what matters. Science can't tell us whether we should use a bomb or not. It can only tell us what happens if we do (or don't).

By saying that religion is basically the same thing, and whenever people do bad things in the name of religion, their religion isn't to blame, you're ignoring that religions contain ethics, which science does not. All religions ever do is tell people how to behave, and you have used this argument repeatedly to point out why religion is good.

The other thing is, if you ask fundamentalists why they do the bad stuff they do, they will point to their religion. The bible itself says that God isn't the author of confusion (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+14%3A33&version=NKJV), and the people who burned witches or went on crusades were no different.

What you're doing boils down to arguing that whenever somebody religious does something good, it's due to their religion, and whenever they do something bad, it's because they are a bad person.
It should come as no surprise to you that some people are going to disagree with that assessment.

The other thing is that if there are so many people who do bad things despite being religious, what does that say about the effectiveness of that religion...? What I'm saying is that independent of whether Christianity is true, it obviously has failed. Your own stance is that most Catholics are not true followers of Jesus. Have you ever wondered that maybe there's something wrong with Catholicism, and not necessarily with 90% of Catholics?

Yeah, the better analogy would be if they dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a scientific experiment: Science as the motivation for an atrocity, not just the means that made it possible. (In fact, I believe that was a contributing reason; it was certainly a factor in later nuclear tests, some of which also did harm people.)

Of course, there have been horrible things perpetrated in the name of science too, like Nazi medical experiments and the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, lobotomies and tests of certain drugs (notably, most of the obvious examples are medical experiments).

Quote from: Khris on Sat 15/06/2013 14:52:28
Miguel:
Building a bomb is neither bad nor good. Using the bomb is what matters.

I'm really unsure about this. Once created, bombs go nowhere, do nothing else, only until they are detonated and kill people. The person who makes it essentially contains that result within the casing, postponing it - nobody builds bombs just because they can - there's a clear goal to making a bomb, it only has one purpose. Building is not the same as using it I know, but by the actual physical act of creating a bomb, the ONLY thing you are doing is directly increasing the capacity to kill other people (even if the bomb is not used, the bomb's 'potential' is brought into existence, when it did not exist before), I think does have some unethical flavour to it as well.

We can talk about Oppenheimer's and his colleagues' motivation all day; when all is said and done, the notion that science dropped the bomb is still nonsensical.
Even if every scientist tortured monkeys, built bombs and created viruses all day, every day, science would still be an amazing, unparalleled achievement.

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/bbfe6b783b6eb02f7359b8470696d5c8/tumblr_mnto1s6MYc1qiavcao1_400.gif)

Science is a great achievement, but it's ethically neutral. Good or bad - that depends on what we do with the knowledge that science provides us with. So, of course we still need ethics. Ethics and science don't contradict each other, that's a common misunderstanding. Science is about gaining knowledge, and ethics is about what we do with it. That said, ethics doesn't necessarily require a religion.

Science is neutral, obviously. In my post I was only discussing those few words alone, 'building a bomb is neither good nor bad', without even referencing science.  Actually, even in context of whether science is good or bad, I still don't see why building a bomb can be considered ethically neutral? Indeed, science really has nothing to do with the statement.

The process of building a bomb can be considered good or bad depending on the purpose it serves. If you build a bomb to use it to blast rocks in order to build a street or a tunnel, it may be considered good. If you use it to be able to defend your country, it can also be considered good. But of course you can use every bomb to destroy enemy cities or kill innocent people, which the average person would call bad.

Someone may consider this ethically neutral, as it can serve the good and the bad.

There are some very odd discussions going on here.

What useful, "good" purposes exactly does a nuclear bomb serve?
Who or what achieved "science"?
What does it mean to achieve science?
What happens when you apply the same criteria ("you can't judge science on its results or the actions of its 'followers'" or "science has been used for good and bad things") to religion or theism?

I know Andail stringently removed all traces of "Is this a useful discussion?" from this thread, but I am curious. We've had a couple of religious threads over the years that ended up as some sort of debate, someone earlier here mentioned how their understandings of theism and faith and belief were "forged" by such discussions, how exactly does that happen? Were they forged, or just reinforced?

The closest thing I can even vaguely remember is some thread about homophobia where a particular (somewhat religious?) member made some comments and was called out on them, and then years later mentioned that thread when they came out, but I don't think there was forging taking place there...

If we're talking about extremely powerful bombs in general, one application would be to move an asteroid on a collision course with earth out of its trajectory.

When I said, science is an achievement, I was talking about the scientific method, double-blind trials, peer review, etc. The establishment of a reliable way to find "truth", with demonstrable results and built-in self-correction.

Science is just a tool, while religions address questions of why and morality.
Science tells us that humans are just animals, it doesn't say how we should behave though. Comparing science to theism is useless, it's like comparing a hammer to an instruction booklet.

Regarding the forging of understanding: somebody who wants to hold personal beliefs or opinions for good reasons, who's interested in what's actually true, might encounter arguments for or against their positions and change their mind, or at least shift a view point slightly.
It is true that whenever I'm arguing with religious people, my belief that religions are useless, false and can be actually harmful gets reinforced. I didn't wake up one day and decide that that's going to be my belief from now on though, my stance on religions was "forged" over years, mostly by listening to or reading arguments from atheist and theists. It could have gone either way, and had I found the religious side more convincing, I might be religious today.
I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that people who are following this debate and get to hear some of the arguments for the first time could draw something useful out of it.

Science is not an instruction booklet?

No, not in the sense that the bible is.
Science says "to get X, do Y" or "X works like this". It doesn't say "do X" or "do not X". I don't know why this is so difficult to grasp.

Sorry, I've been away.  Life....

Quote from: Khris on Fri 14/06/2013 10:54:28
Again, I don't trust anything that calls itself science blindly. I am well aware that proper science doesn't have all the answers and maybe never will.

I don't think this opinion is that far off of what I've been trying to express.  I think when approaching a "fact", whether promulgated by a scientist in a research paper, his agent in the field (medical opinion, for example), or indeed a person with deep religious convictions, my first impulse is to be sceptical.  How do you (not you, but the person saying he's right.... well, maybe that is you too) know you're right?  If the scientific methodology easily produced airtight results, there would be a lot more scientific "laws".  Especially when something is going to affect me directly, I am not inclined by disposition to just rely on the opinions of people representing themselves as experts.  I want to be convinced.

Quote[Science] IS the only way to get actual answers though.

There's lots of ways to get answers.  When I'm thinking up a way to make an adventure puzzle work, I don't use anything resembling a methodical approach.  If I'm really stuck I have a beer and think at it laterally, and something usually just pops into my mind.  Some people are divinely inspired, some people rely on instincts, some people find answers in the past, and others are just really good at guessing.  I wholeheartedly concur that science is a very good way to approach problems, but its not the only way and I'm sure there are some circumstances where it's not even the best way.

QuoteIt also sounds like you're saying that until science is 100% perfect and has all the answers, you might as well reject it.

At no point did I say this.  I said I doubt science can produce all the answers, and will critically consider what it has answered and come to my own conclusions.  For the record, I am convinced that global warming is human induced, the ability to cure cancer would be awesome, and the stars are giant orbs of gas and not various quarrelling deities.  On the other hand, I'm not so sure massive genetic engineering of plants to augment the food supply is such a good idea.  I know we could use extra food, but other branches of science have determined that lack of genetic diversity makes a population vulnerable to disease.  What happens if/when the world's rice supply is reduced by 50% due to an unforeseen blight?  A reasonable person ought to conclude that this is risky and that we should think about this for a bit.  You are probably going to say "but science doesn't implement the invention, so it's not the methodology's fault."  But like the nuclear example already beat to death, the foreseeable consequence of knowledge is that it will be used, usually by people with short-term goals that don't entirely understand the long-term ramifications.  Some genies are best left cooped-up.

QuoteIf you don't have access to clean water and keep getting sick, wouldn't you treasure a device that destroys 50% of the pathogens? This is what science does, as opposed to religion, which simply tells you that you'll get all the clean water you'll ever want after you die.

I'm not saying religion overtly has the best approach, but inadvertently it may have a better one.  Humanity has survived for millions of years without devices that destroy pathogens in water.  Yes pathogens in water kill many people, but the remaining population is stronger from a Darwinian point of view.  The elimination of pathogens, which is scientifically rational (especially from an individual's perspective, 'cause you don't want to be the one dying!), may have the unintended consequence of making humanity much more susceptible to mass-death later on.  And this is what I'm talking about in terms of science, compartmentalized and looking only at specific problems in isolated circumstances, not considering the broader implications.  I would reason that a better approach would be to develop a method of ensuring that all people are exposed to all known pathogens in as safe a manner as possible, so that they can handle them later on in the event of shit happening.  This would be a robust solution.  But this would be hard to study/develop/implement.  Science lends itself better to quick-fix solutions to smaller problems, the bigger picture be damned.

QuoteBecause even if we start charging up the good against the bad, the good will always win. Accumulation of knowledge and understanding about the universe will always win out against psychopaths who decided to use new technology to kill.

What?  Is this like a comic book lesson or something?  Good vs. bad?  We are THE BAD, brother!  Our ancestors were the best at wiping out the competition, and so it's their descendants that have inherited the earth.  Ever heard of gentle australopithecus robustus?  Whatever happened to the Neanderthals?  Your and my great-great-great-grand-daddies wiped them out, probably with the technology that the best minds of the day could invent!  I bet those Neanderthals were thinking "Ah, we're good natured folk.  We shall overcome."  If being righteous is your survival strategy I hope you've got your fingers crossed.

QuotePlease point out "successes of religion". Note that in order for these to count, the success must be explicitly based on religious belief or morality. Mentioning a pastor who saved Jews from the Nazis does NOT count.

As I've said, I am even more sceptical about religion than I am about science.  Having said that, credit where credit is due.  Religion has proven itself to be a fairly good instrument of education over the years.  I know it's been pointed out that this is likely "indoctrination" for the religion's own nefarious purposes, but much good has come of it.  The scientific revolution would hardly have been possible without the protestant reformation: suddenly it was important to teach good Christians to read so that they could read the bible themselves, and this mass literacy enabled the scientific revolution to proceed in a way it probably wouldn't if priests still held a near monopoly on the dissemination of ideas.  The abolitionist movement was intimately intertwined with various religious movements, notably the Society of Friends (but there were many others).
   I think a lot of the flack that religion gets is that it has been co-opted by secular powers that use it as a tool for their own devices.  Jeshua's teachings were mostly positive, as I interpret them, but once the institution built by Paul and especially Constantine took over as universal governing body the movement was twisted almost beyond recognition.  At a personal level I still believe it's possible to embrace the good teachings of good teachers, but once it becomes institutionalized it takes on a life of its own.  Blaming religion for what kings used it for might not be fair, I suppose, but then the religion was an accessory to the crimes, wasn't it?  The religion benefited from the proceeds of power (money, influence...).  But wait.... The kings nowadays are governments, and they base all of their decisions on scientific studies.  They can and do co-opt perfectly innocuous research and overtly weaponise it (ie Manhattan Project).  Science benefits massively from its relationship with government (grant money, influence...).  So if you get to blame religion for all the injustices of the past, I don't see how me blaming a few of the injustices of the present on science is unfair.  It is, like religion was, an accessory to the crime.

QuoteIt's pretty frustrating, because I have lots of respect for you and think you're a funny, creative and intelligent guy. Seeing you talk like that about the greatest human achievement ever really makes me sad.

I like these debates, and I'd never hold anyone's convictions against them unless they were completely intolerable.  I respect what you do around here on the forums, and I respect your opinions in this thread.  Heck, I might even agree with half of them.  But I don't think you're 100% right about how to see the world, and I think we can respectfully debate that without taking it to the personal level.  You big poop head. :)

QuoteIf the scientific methodology easily produced airtight results, there would be a lot more scientific "laws". Especially when something is going to affect me directly, I am not inclined by disposition to just rely on the opinions of people representing themselves as experts.  I want to be convinced.

So every research that doesn't produce something like E=mc² is merely an opinion, and should be met with skepticism? Sorry, no.
Published papers line out what they did and how they did it, and anybody who's an expert in the same field can put it under scrutiny, and they will. Bad stuff gets weeded out by this. Granted, peer review doesn't catch all bad papers, but before something is used to for instance actually treat patients (except in the studies themselves of course), it is going to be under years of more scrutiny (not true for pseudoscience of course, like alternative medicine).

A religious person is talking out of their ass 100% of the time.

QuoteThere's lots of ways to get answers.  When I'm thinking up a way to make an adventure puzzle work, I don't use anything resembling a methodical approach.

You're talking about creativity, and you know perfectly well that science doesn't do that. When I said "actual answers", I was talking about stuff like "how do the planets move?" or "let's engineer a bacterium that eats crude oil".

QuoteYou are probably going to say "but science doesn't implement the invention, so it's not the methodology's fault."

Exactly. You're talking about ethics and politics, not science.

QuoteYes pathogens in water kill many people, but the remaining population is stronger from a Darwinian point of view.

"Let's just let all these African children die; if we hadn't invented methods to clean the water, they would die anyway. Their children will be stronger, right?" Right.
Even if this isn't what you said (sure sounds like it though): please note that my point was that religion does NOTHING to save those kids, and it can't, and it never will.

QuoteAnd this is what I'm talking about in terms of science, compartmentalized and looking only at specific problems in isolated circumstances, not considering the broader implications.

This is pure prejudice, entirely disconnected from reality. It's also again about the ethics of science though. Scientists do consider the broader implications of their work all the time. A scientist who works on improving a plant gene without considering what the implications are will get flack for it by the scientific community.

QuoteNeanderthals

That they were killed by other humans is just one hypothesis. Also, if you have to go back in time that far to find something, I'd wager what I said holds up today. We are not THE BAD. Most people are caring.

Quote[Science] is, like religion was, an accessory to the crime.

Like I said in my previous posts, science is a tool, religion is much more. The logical pathway from "I believe holy book X is written by the creator of everything" to "let's kill group X" is much more robust and obvious than the one from "I only believe hypotheses that have been verified lots of times, and until they're disproven" to "we must drop two bombs on japan" (hint: there is none).
If you want to be mad at the hammer for hitting yourself on the thumb, go ahead. But don't expect me to follow.

Ah, the annual religion topic. I missed these, they usually occur when the community bonds at a great degree. I can remember a bunch of people that left or decided to lurk the forums because of these kind of topics. Want me to share?

By all means.

I'd just like to say that I've personally found it much harder to remain a Christian when surrounded by the gun-lovin, Obama-hating,  Fox-watchin, Young-earth folks in this part of Colorado than I did surrounded by the relatively enlightened Scots...

That is all. I've done my share of internet religious debate. http://xkcd.com/386/

(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/atheists.png)

That's a cool cartoon, Khris. I guess we all should learn from it in a positive way.
I wanted to ask you guys this for a long time and never got the chance:

- Are you comfortable with the scientific notion that before the Big Bang there was nothing? Literally nothing. Does that "compute" fine in your minds? I know it can be explained by extremely intelligent guys but does it really make sense to you?
- Quantum stuff... how big is planet Earth in the cosmos? Can we relate our size in the cosmos to the size required to experience quantum effects as studied today on sub-atomic levels? If so, is it possible that we (the planet) can simply shift position, disappear and reappear on a different location? Can it happen without us being aware? Can it happen, period?
- The fact that the outcome of quantum experiences is different IF we are "looking" at it or not, does it raises the question: If planet Earth doesn't change position (we watch the skies since the Sumerian, at least) as it was never reported so, is something watching us or not watching us?

Not an expert on quantum physics, so I'll just answer the first question.

Quote from: miguel on Tue 25/06/2013 10:26:41
- Are you comfortable with the scientific notion that before the Big Bang there was nothing? Literally nothing. Does that "compute" fine in your minds? I know it can be explained by extremely intelligent guys but does it really make sense to you?

The thing is, we just can't know. Science deals with what's inside of the universe, because this is everything we can observe. So the question what is outside or what was before the universe doesn't make sense from this point of view. This is something that science usually doesn't deal with, because there's nothing to work with. That's also the reason why (serious) scientists don't try to prove the existence or nonexistence of a god, because there is no way to verify or falsify it.
As for me, I'd like to believe that there is more to the universe, that there was something before and that there is something "outside", whatever this may mean. But that's out of reach, nobody knows anything about these questions, least of all any "holy books". And I'm sure we'll never find out.

It sure is incredibly difficult or maybe even impossible to really know what happened before the BigBang. But my questions weren't about gods.
I can relate better with the notion that the BigBang was the immediate start of a universe that had extinguished the immediate moment before. A tiny portion of almost nothing giving birth to another one that reproduces itself makes sense to me.
A cycle makes more sense to me than the idea of nothing. I can't comprehend nothing.
Problem, some scientist do try to prove or understand what happened or what was before the Big Bang. No gods again, here. If they are "serious" or not that's out of my league.

Basically, what you can do is take the physical laws and calculate backwards in time until you've reached a point before the big bang. But this is just math, and there's no real data to verify this. This may lead to interesting theories, but none of them can be validated in any way.

Quote from: miguel on Tue 25/06/2013 10:26:41- Are you comfortable with the scientific notion that before the Big Bang there was nothing? Literally nothing. Does that "compute" fine in your minds? I know it can be explained by extremely intelligent guys but does it really make sense to you?

I'm fine with the Big Bang theory, in general. It's neat, it's dramatic, it explains a hell of a lot and it's a lot more logical to me than the concept of God.  I do struggle though when people say that time itself began with the Big Bang, that you can't ask what was the 'before' the Big Bang because there was no 'before' since time didn't exist.

I don't like this. I would like one day in my lifetime for that part to be proven wrong, but it probably won't be, since it is physically impossible to see or to measure.  I personally like to think there 'was' a 'before', that our universe is just one cycle in an eternity of big bangs and expansions and contractions.  I also like to think that there are other universes besides our own that do exist 'outside' our own despite assertions that there is no 'outside', but I am happy to accept that these thoughts are born from a need to be able to answer questions that are (for now and maybe for ever) beyond human understanding... which I guess is not too dissimilar to the reasons why people started believing in gods before we had many of the answers that science gives us today.

QuoteBasically, what you can do is take the physical laws and calculate backwards in time until you've reached a point before the big bang.

I knew that, like most of us here sure know it. I'm not trying to be a wise-guy here.
What I mean is that we all assume that the BigBang theory is right, we (me included) take it as certain.
But we cannot study what was right before it because the data we get through observation and maths calculation returns zero. Or nothing. And so (some) scientists say that before the Big Bang there was nothing.
So, can we prove that there was nothing before the Big Bang or we don't know and assume that there was nothing?
Anyway, it's interesting that you want to believe that there is more to the universe than we scientifically know, you want to believe that there was "something" before the BigBang and "something" "outside" of what we scientifically know.

Quotebut I am happy to accept that these thoughts are born from a need to be able to answer questions that are (for now and maybe for ever) beyond human understanding

I agree with you Stu, and I stopped quoting you before you went on mentioning gods. My understanding of things is that we humans will forever try to disclose what's happening here beyond our short lives. We never in our lives consider ourselves to be a mere dust in the universe. We, as individuals question things that are really far from the boundaries of what we can see. I believe that that is part of being human.

Quote from: miguel on Tue 25/06/2013 11:36:44
So, can we prove that there was nothing before the Big Bang or we don't know and assume that there was nothing?
Anyway, it's interesting that you want to believe that there is more to the universe than we scientifically know, you want to believe that there was "something" before the BigBang and "something" "outside" of what we scientifically know.

No, we can't prove that there was nothing. It's all assumptions. And the fact that I like the idea that there is more is probably just human. You already said it, we can't comprehend "nothing". Even a vacuum is not nothing. It's in our thinking that there is a reason for everything, so a universe that starts to exist out of nothing is something we can't really imagine.

Interesting. I feel the same.
I'd love to hear from people here that support Hawkins "nothing" theory.

Edit:
Hawking.
The other guy is called Dawkins.

As far as I understand the Big Bang Theory, it doesn't include what happened at time = 0, just immediately afterwards. According to Wikipedia, it describes the early development of the universe. It's not a hypothesis, it's a scientific theory, which means it explains observed facts and makes accurate predictions, and it can be tested and verified and has actually passed those tests.
The notion that "nothing exploded into the universe" is not part of the Big Bang Theory afaik, just like abiogenesis isn't part of the theory of evolution.

The problem with deism is that it boils down to a huge argument from ignorance ("I can't think of another reason therefore god"). The notion that a god started the universe is useless and intellectually unsatisfying because it doesn't explain anything. An explanation is something like "the window is broken because I smashed it with a hammer". In contrast, stating that an undetectable, magic force smashed the window is not an explanation, because it just moves the mystery somewhere else.

Edit:
If you believe physicists like Laurence Krauss, the total energy of the universe is actually zero. In my book, this is a pretty strong indication of the universe occurring by natural processes.

QuoteEdit:
Hawking.
The other guy is called Dawkins.

Thanks.

Khris, regarding the questions I raised I did not consider god into the equation.
All I asked was pretty simple.
I took the Big Bang theory as a start and since scientists can't go beyond that 0 period and because they consider it "the zero period" in time, then it is safe to say that there was nothing before the Big Bang.

No, because I already disagree with the "before" part.
But you asked whether I'm comfortable with our limited knowledge on the origin of everything. Actually: no. Still no reason to just make stuff up though.
(Why are you bringing this up? I assumed you consider this an argument for deism.)

You didn't disagree, you kind of told me how far the BigBang theory goes/starts. You actually prefer to not consider a "before".
I start to conclude that not considering equals nothing.

QuoteStill no reason to just make stuff up though.

This was unnecessary.

QuoteWhy are you bringing this up?

Because I want to know how non religious deal with the possibility of nothing. I am not bringing god to the subject, please.

Edit: Okay, this last phrase didn't sound right, but can we discuss this without you assuming that I am trying to convince you of anything?

It is both impossible to predict what happened before the Big Bang, and meaningless to talk about it anyway; at the singularity, the laws of physics did not apply, meaning anything that happened is inconsequential and had absolutely no effect on how our universe is today. So it can be taken completely out of the equation. miguel, that is why most people say there was nothing before the Big Bang.

Atelier, interesting. Actually it's not.
It fails to fill my thirst for knowledge about the beginning of the universe. I still want to know more, even if you (most people) tell me that it is irrelevant.
It also kind of chains people into the belief that only things where the laws of physics can apply do matter/ are relevant.
I am not satisfied with this explanation at all. I think men and women are much more than apples falling on the head.

Now here's something we can talk about: you think that we are more than just molecules, correct? Why?

Quote from: miguel on Tue 25/06/2013 13:33:29
I think men and women are much more than apples falling on the head.

Why would humans be independent from the laws of physics? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

Three posts since I wrote this.

Quote from: Atelier on Tue 25/06/2013 13:27:29
It is both impossible to predict what happened before the Big Bang, and meaningless to talk about it anyway; at the singularity, the laws of physics did not apply, meaning anything that happened is inconsequential and had absolutely no effect on how our universe is today. So it can be taken completely out of the equation. miguel, that is why most people say there was nothing before the Big Bang.

I agree that it is (currently, and probably eternally) impossible to predict what happened before the big bang, if indeed there was a 'before'.  But I don't think it is meaningless to talk about it.  The laws of physics ALWAYS apply.  That's why they are laws. If there is a mismatch between 'our' laws and the 'actual' laws, then we need to make amendments, even if that amendment is 'utter immeasurable chaos'.  but lets at least keep talking about it just in case someone does think of a solution, even if that involves writing off everything we think we know about maths and physics and starting from a totally new model.  We should ALWAYS keep asking.

QuoteNow here's something we can talk about: you think that we are more than just molecules, correct? Why?

Now, Khris, this is not how it works. First you answer my questions.
How do you deal with the possibility of nothing?

QuoteWhy would humans be independent from the laws of physics? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

Well, I imagine that in the grand scale of cosmos, planet Earth is less than a grain of dust. And just like what happens to sub-atomic molecules where laws of physics do not apply, there is the possibility that humans and our planet escape the same laws of physics considering the same quantum principle.

...yeah.
I don't understand the question. How do I deal with it? Like I said, "before the Big Bang" is not defined. I deal with it the same way I deal with the result of 1 divided by 0: not defined. If you asked me "what was there 14 billion years ago, at the place where there's now the universe", it's the same thing: not defined. It's like asking "where were you 10 months before your were born?"
I guess the most reasonable answer would be "in a state of non-existence".

Regarding your "earth is small in relation, so the laws of physics don't apply": that's nonsense. Subatomic particles don't follow Newton's laws of motion, but they still follow the laws of physics.

Quote from: miguel on Tue 25/06/2013 15:10:55
Well, I imagine that in the grand scale of cosmos, planet Earth is less than a grain of dust. And just like what happens to sub-atomic molecules where laws of physics do not apply, there is the possibility that humans and our planet escape the same laws of physics considering the same quantum principle.

So, because the Earth is small relative to the universe, and because particles are small relative to us, and they're not affected by physics (which is just ridiculous anyway), one can extrapolate that to the Earth not being subject to the laws of physics? By that logic, any arbitrary planet or star would also be removed from physical laws, because they are all tiny compared to the universe.

Quote from: Khris
It's like asking "where were you 10 months before your were born?"
I guess the most reasonable answer would be "in a state of non-existence".

Interesting analogy, but the thing with this is that prior to the existence of the foetus, the ingredients for his formation are still there. 10 months before I was born, I didn't exist as an entity called 'Stupot' yet but bits of my DNA were being formed inside my parents' reproductive organs, which in turn was formed from the various molecules from the elements and substances that make up DNA. A generation before that, the exact same process formed my parents, and their parents before them. As far as my existence is concerned, time began on the night of my conception, And if I didn't have a mind such as we humans are gifted with I might have assumed that nothing ever had come before me.

So why can't the same be said of the universe?  Sure, the big bang gave birth to all the matter known as the entity called 'our universe', but who's to say that it wasn't just one in a long line of generational big bangs.  Perhaps on a cosmic level, we humans just aren't quite gifted enough to be able to see what came before us.

I really can't help myself... Someone has to do it...

I guess you can say we all came from a... Big bang *Duh-dum-dum-tsh*

On topic - I have to agree with Stupot, here.

I was talking about the personality, the product of the brain we call "I". This clearly doesn't exist before the conception, and not for several weeks (?) afterwards. The molecules are all around somewhere, sure. But yeah, it wasn't a very good analogy, because the question is whether it makes sense to say that my consciousness is something that exists (as opposed to being a property of a living brain).

Quote from: miguel on Tue 25/06/2013 10:26:41
- Quantum stuff... how big is planet Earth in the cosmos? Can we relate our size in the cosmos to the size required to experience quantum effects as studied today on sub-atomic levels? If so, is it possible that we (the planet) can simply shift position, disappear and reappear on a different location? Can it happen without us being aware? Can it happen, period?

I don't think it's possible for that to happen. As far as I understand, the differences in the way the macro-scale world and the micro-scale world work is not to do with the size difference from our perspective, it's to do with the number of particles and interactions between them. In large systems, there are many dynamic sub-systems which are all interacting with each other, observing each other, which is not the case for the microscopic scale.

Quote from: miguel on Tue 25/06/2013 10:26:41
- The fact that the outcome of quantum experiences is different IF we are "looking" at it or not, does it raises the question: If planet Earth doesn't change position (we watch the skies since the Sumerian, at least) as it was never reported so, is something watching us or not watching us?

The observer effect isn't talking about whether or not a process is being perceived by conscious being, it's about particle interaction. If we want to observe an electron visually for instance, we have to bounce at least one photon off it. To my understanding, this is what 'collapses' the wave-particle duality of the electron, and causes it to change into a non-quantum state (one place at one time, etc.).
The photon later ending up in an instrument or someone's eye is of course important for us to know about it, but that is not the observation which caused the change.

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvYYYlgVAao) is an interesting talk on the topic of why large objects don't behave like quantum particles. He and his team managed to make a small, but macroscopic (approximately 60 micrometers long) wafer of silicon inhabit two states of vibration simultaneously, just like a quantum particle. This is made possibly by removing all the external forces which are acting as observers to the wafer.

He speculates how, in theory, the concept might scale to larger objects, but the fact that for this to occur for the wafer required a vacuum, completely without light, and had to be cooled to a hundredth of a degree above absolute zero, suggests that these conditions would be unattainable for anything significantly larger (which ties into your first question).

Quote from: Khris on Fri 14/06/2013 16:22:45

What I hate about religion is not jesus or the bible, what I hate is how religious people remain willfully ignorant, and how they get people killed (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57586726/pregnant-el-salvador-woman-denied-life-saving-abortion/) over unfounded and superstitious beliefs.

Cough. Cough. (http://unitedwestandky.com/2010/08/genetic-engineering-a-cure-for-homosexuality-would-anyone-want-it-share-your-thoughts/) There is a treatment for a genetic disorder, and LGBT groups oppose it because - oh my God! - this may turn the girl heterosexual instead of lesbian. Would it be better to let the girl live with the disorder, instead?

(sorry for digging up an old reply, btw)

What exactly is your point? And are you comparing a group's fundamental doctrine to the personal opinion of a few members of another group?

Quote from: Cyrus on Fri 28/06/2013 16:28:22

Quote from: Khris on Fri 14/06/2013 16:22:45

What I hate about religion is not jesus or the bible, what I hate is how religious people remain willfully ignorant, and how they get people killed (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57586726/pregnant-el-salvador-woman-denied-life-saving-abortion/) over unfounded and superstitious beliefs.

Cough. Cough. (http://unitedwestandky.com/2010/08/genetic-engineering-a-cure-for-homosexuality-would-anyone-want-it-share-your-thoughts/) There is a treatment for a genetic disorder, and LGBT groups oppose it because - oh my God! - this may turn the girl heterosexual instead of lesbian. Would it be better to let the girl live with the disorder, instead?

(sorry for digging up an old reply, btw)

I bet they can genetically engineer a 'cure' for heterosexuality as well.

QuoteRegarding your "earth is small in relation, so the laws of physics don't apply": that's nonsense. Subatomic particles don't follow Newton's laws of motion, but they still follow the laws of physics.

QuoteSo, because the Earth is small relative to the universe, and because particles are small relative to us, and they're not affected by physics (which is just ridiculous anyway), one can extrapolate that to the Earth not being subject to the laws of physics? By that logic, any arbitrary planet or star would also be removed from physical laws, because they are all tiny compared to the universe.

Khris and Atelier,
the notion that quantum mechanics is solely in the realm of the nano world is being debated as we speak.
I am no expert and I based my comments on what I watch on TV and read in specific sites. I'm no academic then, just (badly?) informed.
What I found out was that Newtonian Laws are actually a private case of Quantum Mechanics and even at subatomic level Newton Laws can describe (in some cases) the behaviour of particles. But what is accepted this days is that generally all is quantum, not the other way.
This goes to show that, yes, as I write, more and more scientists are assigning quantum mechanics to things like it was considered heretical a few years ago.
Things like photosynthesis (!), where scientist observe that plants, while building the molecules they need using the energy from the sun, its particles appear in more than one place (superposition). Doesn't sound important? Well, plants do it in warm, wet and damp places (!).
More amazing is the way birds use quantum mechanics to navigate. The "entangled" effect applies here, bird eyes molecules are entangled to molecules at the destination point, meaning that both molecules always know where one is. Apparently birds also communicate this information among them.
Even the way we smell is being discussed right now. Here, the "tunnelling" quantum effect is being tested and studied right now.
I do not mean to impose any truth here, I just researched a bit and found out some pretty cool stuff regarding quantum mechanics. It seams that every day scientists are discovering new fantastic stuff about it. Things that may be shaping what is commonly accepted in a very different way.

This said, does it sound that nonsense what I wrote about bigger scale quantum mechanics?
If so, I do apologise for being ridiculous. I don't assume that I know things, I try to find out about it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superposition: A particle exists in a number of possible states or locations simultaneously - strictly, an electron might be in the tip of your finger and in the furthest corner of the Universe at the same time. It is only when we observe the particle that it 'chooses' one particular state

Entanglement: Two particles can become entangled so that their properties depend on each other - no matter how far apart they get. A measurement of one seems to affect the measurement of the other instantaneously - an idea even Einstein called "spooky"

Tunnelling: A particle can break through an energy barrier, seeming to disappear on one side of it and reappear on the other. Lots of modern electronics and imaging depends on this effect

Yes, it's still nonsense.
The Newtonian laws are an approximation that is extremely close to reality for "big" objects (like a cannonball). In a microscopic scale, they don't hold up any longer. But going bigger is no problem. Saying that they aren't a good approximation because the earth is microscopic relative to the universe doesn't make sense. You have only changed your viewpoint, your "zoom level" if you will, why would a cannonball not still behave extremely close to what Newtonian laws predict? The universe didn't change.

You are falling for the "quantum stuff means, anything is possible" canard. And entanglement doesn't mean both molecules "know" where the other one is. Quantum physics isn't magic.

Yes, we will discover lots of cool stuff in the future, and we will rewrite parts of current theories. But we won't upend everything we know about the universe.

Btw, the birds don't use magic quantum connections to navigate, they still use earth's magnetic field. Their compass is just much more precise due to them being able to maintain entanglement for slightly longer than what we currently can do in a lab. Still way below one second though. And they sure as hell don't have a particle in their eye that's entangled with another at their destination.

No it's not nonsense.
And the next time you put magic in my words think twice because I didn't. You're just being irritating.
You have a grudge on me and that is becoming childish, to not mention radical.
Scientists just made an experiment where an object visible to the human eye can be at 2 different places at the same time.
Quantum mechanics are developing faster than your ignorance.
Quantum mechanics do depend on your point of view.

Entanglement in quantum mechanics specifically allow molecules to precisely know where the other one is. It's not magic, no.

QuoteBtw, the birds don't use magic quantum connections to navigate

again, you're the one thinking quantum mechanics is magic, you keep saying it.
And, excuse me but you say that birds aren't using quantum mechanics to navigate but then you say they maintain entanglement longer? Make up your mind.

QuoteAnd they sure as hell don't have a particle in their eye that's entangled with another at their destination.

Yes they do. It has been studied.

Just google for it my charming friend.

Jesus Christ. The only way I'm "holding a grudge" is that I'll plainly call it nonsense when you talk nonsense. I'm not aiming to be irritating or spiteful.

1) The notion that the laws of physics don't apply to earth because the universe is large is nonsense. If it isn't, state your sources.

2) You don't understand quantum mechanics and I don't understand quantum mechanics. But it's just about some curious and counterintuitive properties of small particles, it does NOT mean we're on the cusp of discovering a entirely new reality. That's what you seem to think though, and I decided to label that as magic thinking, to make my point better. Can we get over it now?

3) Please point to an article that says that a particle in the bird's eye is entangled to one at the destination. I read this article (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/01/quantum-birds/), containing this quote:

QuoteWhen a photon enters the eye, it hits cryptochrome, giving a boost of energy to electrons that exist in a state of quantum entanglement.

One of the electrons migrates a few nanometers away, where it feels a slightly different magnetic field than its partner. Depending on how the magnetic field alters the electron's spin, different chemical reactions are produced. In theory, the products of many such reactions across a bird's eye could create a picture of Earth's magnetic field as a varying pattern of light and dark.

You made it sound like the bird travels along the entanglement connection, and I called that "magic". I should have said "bullshit".

1) The possibility of it to happen is not nonsense, how I cannot explain it well may outcome in nonsense sentences.
   I'm quoting "nature" (international weekly journal of science) following the experiment where they managed to submit a visible object in two different places at the same time using quantum mechanics:

According to quantum theory, particles act as waves rather than point masses on very small scales. This has dozens of bizarre consequences:
it is impossible to know a particle's exact position and velocity through space, yet it is possible for the same particle to be doing two contradictory things simultaneously. Through a phenomenon known as 'superposition' a particle can be moving and stationary at the same time â€" at least until an outside force acts on it. Then it instantly chooses one of the two contradictory positions.
There is no obvious reason why the rules of quantum mechanics shouldn't apply to large objects. Erwin Schrödinger, one of the fathers of quantum mechanics, was so disturbed by the possibility of quantum weirdness on the large scale that he proposed his famous 'Schrödinger's cat' thought experiment.

2) Quantum mechanics is not just some curious property of small particles, in fact, leading scientists lean on every thing being quantum mechanics and notions like Newton laws to be part of it.
   So, if I'm basing my comments on scientific findings why do you keep calling it "magic" thinking? It doesn't make your point better, in fact it contradicts all you've been writing in this thread.
   I have the feeling that if me, or Monkey, or another person you don't quite like would come up and say that programming is cool you'd be writing essays on why it's not.
   I'll get over it if you stop that "magic" crap.

3) I've found a lot of articles on the subject and the ones that do mention the fact are a bit "general" for me to use as "proof". Meaning they are based on other sites that are also based and so on. So, I guess you're right on this one. But that doesn't mean I'll tolerate your insults. If you want to keep debating with me you have to stop the "crap","magic" and "bullshit" that's always in your so hygienic mouth.
I mean it, Khris. This isn't the rumpus room and no way I'll tolerate your constant lack of education.

I guess you mean "lack of manners", not "lack of education".

You misunderstood the bird thing and thought it is much more mysterious and inexplicable than it is. I called it magical thinking, referring to the fact that religious types like Deepak Chopra try and use lots of scientific sounding big words (of which "quantum" is currently their favorite) to try and justify their superstitions, because I saw (and still see) you going down that road, too.

To me it seems like your entire point here is that quantum mechanics is somehow separate from materialism, and that science itself will at some point "find god" in there.
Please correct me if that isn't what you're trying to say, because everything I say to you is based on that assumption.

And if you want me to stop calling what you say "bullshit", why are you insinuating stupid bullshit like this:

Quote from: miguel on Sat 29/06/2013 13:54:08I have the feeling that if me, or Monkey, or another person you don't quite like would come up and say that programming is cool you'd be writing essays on why it's not.

Writing dumb stuff like that makes it look like you are incapable of reasoned discussion.

You assume and assume and assume but just don't listen.
At least you know you don't have manners.
Anyway, I will not get down to your level.
Have a nice Sunday.

If all you do is throw out random stuff about nothing and quantum theory, I have to try and interpret it somehow.

Make a concise point and I will listen.
If I misunderstood, clarify.
Tell us what you believe and why.

But don't say "Quantum mechanics are developing faster than your ignorance" and then get all sulky when I react appropriately.

Not sulky, Khris,
just explaining that ignorance is a adjective that can be taken lightly, while bullshit gets on my nerves. To most people as well, I guess.
You have been considering all I say/write as "magic bullshit" and that's not cool, man.
I've tried my best to explain what I mean and most of the time taking God out of the equation so that we could have a conversation.

All that I'm saying is that quantum mechanics are quickly leaving the nano world and new breakthroughs come up every day.
I am truly sorry to have called you ignorant, honestly, you don't deserve that, but I'm telling you man, it's not what you say but how you say it.
You make me pass as somebody I'm not and your language makes my blood boil.

Sometimes to get an idea pass one must take one step back.
I thought I was doing that: discussing science instead of religion, allowing the debate to be more open minded.
You come with 2 rocks in your hands and that's just not cool.

I'm trying to convince you that people can be religious without being dogmatic, because in the end I value your opinion.

The only thing I actually called "bullshit" (apart from your paragraph about monkey and coding) was the thing about birds traveling along "entanglement lines". And this wasn't even really something you said, you were just paraphrasing something you had read. AND I only did so after you had told me to google it, which means that your stated something that was demonstrably false without linking to a proper source and then told ME to google it on top. I thought at this point that calling it "bullshit" is more than justified. I don't use the word lightly, and I don't call other people's informed(!) opinion(!) bullshit on a whim.

And again, when I said "magic", I was referring to the fact that quantum mechanics is the current favorite go-to fake explanation for anything paranormal.
Just because scientists are discovering cool stuff everyday doesn't mean that suddenly anything is possible.

To give an analogy: when humans discovered radiation, which was a pretty radical and world-altering property of some elements, we didn't turn superhuman or could read minds. We can use it to look inside the body without opening it, but that's pretty much it.
I'm not saying that quantum stuff will turn out as disappointing, I'm just saying that it's a bit early to declare materialism dead.