Titania22 Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 That is entirely off topic but would be a great debate for anyone remotely familiar with Darwin and/or Fort. Start a new thread, perhaps? Wow, you knew who it was, I never heard of him before tonight. I think people might get upset starting a thread like that on a dating forum.
Trojan John Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 There are natural phenomena that every single person alive can observe with their own two eyes to figure it out. Often yes, but then often we are still relying on individuals and groups in labs etc. Many things that have been "proven" are unproven again etc. In science, one would not necessarily say that something is "proven", but rather that the evidence leads one to conclude x, y, z. The nature of science is that things are constantly being tested, and hypotheses, facts and scientific theories are being revised to support new data. Notably, this is done by scientists and not theologians. With science, you and anyone else can repeat the same exact experiment and see whether you get the same results. That's what makes it science and not guesswork. Again, these things are based on testimonies of others, we trust that the experiments have been done in other places and achieved the same results. I am not saying that it is wrong but rather that both science and religion are dependent upon people sharing the information. Often in both fields information gets tweaked or has a certain 'spin.' Frankly, I put my faith in both because I have found through my education etc, more spaces where they link-up then where they differ. I believe Science vs. Religion to be a false choice. You miss the point that ANYONE CAN REPEAT THE SAME EXPERIMENT. Think back to your chemistry or biology classes in which you had to propose a hypothesis, then go about observing and collecting data and making conclusions from them. The "spin" may come from the interpretation of the data (e.g. a scientific body vs. politicians on climate change), but the data are readily available for ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE to see. That's the fundamental difference. You say that proof of God comes from within, and, yes, I absolutely believe you if you mean that's where people get their belief. But scientific proof does NOT come from within: it comes from observations and tests in the physical world. Based on the human interpretation of it and our own limited scope of the universe and its phenomena. Not saying that it is wrong per se of at all a foolish venture, but quite frankly we have no idea how much we don' t know. So both science in its current state and religion are both limited by our perspectives. All we have is human interpretation because all we are is human. Our view of the universe is limited by our brain's (and certain other parts) ability to interpret the data it receives. We are physical beings in a natural universe. All the things we observe are natural phenomena. There is zero proof of the supernatural, and, granted, no way to test for it either. We don't know things, of course, but what is the sense in fabricating supernatural things -- to fit our beliefs? To make us feel better? Science and religion are quite different, almost polar opposite. Religion, by is very definition arises from a set of strong beliefs in the supernatural. It requires no evidence other than faith. Believe hard enough and you will find truth and salvation. Science requires no belief, but rather hard, reproducible evidence. Religious views are divergent -- there are a myriad of interpretations of god(s), and even numerous views as to what exactly is "religion". Scientific views are convergent -- a myriad of hypotheses are presented then discarded as data are observed until one arrives at a consensus-based theory.
TheBigQuestion Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Wow, Pot meet Kettle! You know what? Agreed. Most people don't know how to justify what they believe to another person. Especially younger people who have a sense of what they believe but not entirely sure why. If anything, it's older people who have been broken by the world and use religion as a means of dealing with their misfortunes and misgivings that have the least sight on why they actually believe why the believe. Alright. Go ahead. Justify your belief in god/gods as a being without resorting to anecdotal evidence, laughably arrogant anthropocentric premises, appeals to emotion, or any variation of the cosmological, teleological, or ontological arguments, since all of those 3 are fatally flawed. You asked me to try you, and here it is. If you succeed, you may be the smartest person alive, and every university should award you Ph.D's in both philosophy and religion.
TheBigQuestion Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) Oh, and dreaming of tigers. You call me close-minded? Fine. You've been through 5 religions apparently. It seems pretty obvious to me from this that you're so open-minded your brain leaked out of your skull. Edited March 21, 2011 by TheBigQuestion
Woggle Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Atheists just like anybody else have their zealots who don't want to listen to anybody else.
dreamingoftigers Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 I don't think that you read my post for context. You stating that there is no point in introducing empirical evidence runs in direct contradiction to what I was addressing. We get into these emotionally charged debates because we are simply trading anecdotes, not making actual, testable statements of fact. Bringing up scripture (more anecdotal evidence) only adds fuel to the fire. To be blunt, I was a little unsteady about my opener. But I do think that it should be as an academic viewpoint strictly that the books that claim to show "the truth" have directions to get there. By providing other evidences, the path becomes obscured. So providing empirical evidence (and I will follow-up in another thread with this) is actually limited when taking into account that it is written that essentially: you have to find it yourself and you are not going to be able to "show" it to anyone else. So pretty much if you want to prove or disprove it, you can only do it for yourself. Does that make sense? So having people sling mud back and forth etc. isn't going to change anyone else's perspective. I think that is where a lot of believers/non-believers get confused. The believers think that they can "persuade" a non-believer or that a non-believer should take them at their word and a non-believer needs to see the proof, when it has been stated that 'proof' is not going to be the way to know. Regarding faith and psychology, your claim that people are happier and better is not a testament to the power of faith but rather the power of the mind. Yes, I agree. By having a faith, one can either be perceiving things that provide them with health and psychological benefits OR they could actually be blessed with 'divine wisdom' or 'better health.' Either way the true or false perception of that faith would be the influencing factor. The human mind is capable boosting one's physical and emotional well-being, or conversely greatly diminishing it. Faith or belief in the supernatural just happens to be one focus. Meditation is another. Exercise. Sex. Et Cetera. Your anecdote simply and better explained by psychology. Faith just tends to be a major focal-point and it has actually been shown that different faiths tend to work different parts of the brain, for instance Pentecostals tend to work more of the 'communication centers' they are trying to commune with the other side (i.e. tongues and so forth). I do agree with you that there is no point of being rude, but thread titled like this one tends to bring it out easily in people. No kidding! On a cute side-note I found a question as I was surfing around the net the kind of cracked me up: Christians: If God asked you (and you knew it was God) to go become an Athiest, what would you do?
dreamingoftigers Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 If anything, it's older people who have been broken by the world and use religion as a means of dealing with their misfortunes and misgivings that have the least sight on why they actually believe why the believe. Alright. Go ahead. Justify your belief in god/gods as a being without resorting to anecdotal evidence, laughably arrogant anthropocentric premises, appeals to emotion, or any variation of the cosmological, teleological, or ontological arguments, since all of those 3 are fatally flawed. You asked me to try you, and here it is. If you succeed, you may be the smartest person alive, and every university should award you Ph.D's in both philosophy and religion. Oh, and dreaming of tigers. You call me close-minded? Fine. You've been through 5 religions apparently. It seems pretty obvious to me from this that you're so open-minded your brain leaked out of your skull. I will return to this thread by the end of Thursday, I have to dig up some of my resources to quote. or we can go via email at [email protected] I will be frank, the initial reason that I came to realize that there might be a higher power was personal perception under interesting (and possibly co-incidental) circumstances. After that my journey became about trying to figure out if my perception was "real" or even if there was the possibility for it being real. If I had to discard all of the physical evidence of my life and the nature of the Earth that has been repeatedly shown to be true, then yes my perception would be the error, not the rest of the world. So I did about 10 years of digging through superficial things, odd churches, many beliefs and many odd people to find a reasonable case for a higher power. Most of it has been an intellectual exercise as opposed to an emotional one. I have gotten attached to groups and people along the way, but I will not sacrifice truth for whatever sobbing emotional reaction that I might have. Again, I cannot prove anything beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt to another human being. That would be between you and your Flying Spaghetti Monster. But I do have what I believe to be reasonable grounds for believing in my faith. (btw, what is flawed about certain cosmological arguments? Just curious.) And to your wonderous comment above on the state where my brain went: Do you have trouble getting to work in the morning? It would seem that if you can't find the car keys in one room that your natural conclusion would be that they never existed in the first place. Perhaps I would retain more credibility had I stayed in one faith, no matter how internally flawed it might be?
zengirl Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Atheists just like anybody else have their zealots who don't want to listen to anybody else. Sure, it's just like any group. Though I know plenty of peaceable atheists who are easy to get along with. And atheists might raise an eyebrow or laugh at my spiritual practices (I'm more Buddhist than anything) but they'd never discriminate against me for them in the workplace, the way Christians in my area would if they knew I was non-Christian, nor would they call me names or say I was going to hell. They might have a spirited debate with me, but I don't mind that. I've experienced some annoying atheists, but the people who've mistreated me the worst have been Christians (which is not to say it is ALL Christians, just that Christianity being a majority opinion in this country perhaps draws a bit more power, and power makes the rude in any group more empowered to act ugly). Statistics show most scientists and researchers are agnostics, atheists, or natural pantheists. And I would say my experience bears that out. Most scientists I know are lovely people, though they tend to be very smart and not so lovely to the willfully ignorant or uneducated. I'm not saying all religious people are ignorant, but there are certain sects of major religions that greatly encourage ignorance (in realms of science and knowledge) in order to keep their hold of power. This is only certain sects, of course. At any rate, I disagree that atheists are generally ornery, though they are likely to get their hackles up if they feel attacked because if they are open about their atheism, and live in the U.S., they've likely experienced some discrimination.
dreamingoftigers Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Having been on both side of the panel, I tend to find up here the more athiestic voices are a little more vocal. That may be because of the power dynamic you mentioned. Up here they don't do Christmas Carols at school anymore etc. Christians (the nutty ones) tend to tell you that: 1. You might end up in Hell 2. They know the truth 3. You are going to be sorry 4. Usually talk to you like a parent that has shame issues 5. They talk as though they have some super-special authority and that your peception is invalid because they know what you don't. 6. Usually talk in a way that makes you never want to become a part of their philosophy if it made them so rude. Athiests (nutty ones) tend to tell you that: 1. You are an idiot 2. You are wasting your life 3. That you are closed-minded and pushy and "how do you account for crazy Christian group over here in Someobscureplace then?" 4. Very very selected parts of the Bible get taken out and twisted and overblown (if they know enough about it, very rare) 5. Usually there is some comparison to Fairytales and the world being 6000 years old (common misconception among Christians and Athiests). 6. Usually it is mentioned in a condescending way that they live a better life because they are "Free" from all of "that stuff." 7. Usually talk in a way that makes you never want to become a part of their philosophy if it made them so rude.
zengirl Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Having been on both side of the panel, I tend to find up here the more athiestic voices are a little more vocal. That may be because of the power dynamic you mentioned. Up here they don't do Christmas Carols at school anymore etc. Christians (the nutty ones) tend to tell you that: 1. You might end up in Hell 2. They know the truth 3. You are going to be sorry 4. Usually talk to you like a parent that has shame issues 5. They talk as though they have some super-special authority and that your peception is invalid because they know what you don't. 6. Usually talk in a way that makes you never want to become a part of their philosophy if it made them so rude. Athiests (nutty ones) tend to tell you that: 1. You are an idiot 2. You are wasting your life 3. That you are closed-minded and pushy and "how do you account for crazy Christian group over here in Someobscureplace then?" 4. Very very selected parts of the Bible get taken out and twisted and overblown (if they know enough about it, very rare) 5. Usually there is some comparison to Fairytales and the world being 6000 years old (common misconception among Christians and Athiests). 6. Usually it is mentioned in a condescending way that they live a better life because they are "Free" from all of "that stuff." 7. Usually talk in a way that makes you never want to become a part of their philosophy if it made them so rude. Hmm . . . I compare Bible stories to fairytales, because not being a Christian, that's what they are to me (they are not sacred, they are not true, they are just stories, and the genre of fairytale or folktale would fit, anthropologically and literature-wise). They are stories that have much in common in many cases with fairytales (and genre-wise, that fits). I think wanting someone else to accept your sacred text is very condescending, as much as calling someone an idiot for believing a text is sacred. I approve of neither practice. I do not find Christians idiotic, except when they cannot accept that others do not find their views sacred and will not tiptoe around that fact. Religious songs should not be sung in public schools, in the U.S., as it's against our Constitution. Down here, they sing Carols (even some of the religious ones -- and it doesn't bother me, really, though I find it mildly illegal if it's a religious song, which is essentially a religious text, particularly if they ONLY sing Christian songs and not also Pagan songs, Buddhist songs, Jewish songs, Hindi songs, etc). "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" shouldn't offend anyone though. Though in my district, Christians protested our Halloween parties, so that cuts both ways, and I find following the Constitution more reasonable than say banning Harry Potter books, personally. But you're in Canada, so not sure how that alters things. In the U.S. school system, Christian "activists" are a real problem. At least every district I've ever been in. They promote intolerance, illegal religious activites, and try to confuse science with their own moral and religious codes.
dreamingoftigers Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Hmm . . . I compare Bible stories to fairytales, because not being a Christian, that's what they are to me (they are not sacred, they are not true, they are just stories, and the genre of fairytale or folktale would fit, anthropologically and literature-wise). You know what, that is a fair opinion. But it isn't a fair opinion when someone says it to you in a demeaning way to specifically insult your intelligence. For instance, you can acknowledge that Iraq has been, well, beaten up lately but you wouldn't say to someone from Iraq: "So I hear that your nation is the new global garbage dump?" instead of: "I hear things are very difficult over there. It must be tough to get the basics." They are stories that have much in common in many cases with fairytales (and genre-wise, that fits). I think wanting someone else to accept your sacred text is very condescending, as much as calling someone an idiot for believing a text is sacred. I approve of neither practice. I do not find Christians idiotic, except when they cannot accept that others do not find their views sacred and will not tiptoe around that fact. I find it idiotic when anyone expects the other to simply acknowledge their "greater" wisdom when they clearly don't ascribe to the same beliefs. What is a person to say? "Well yes I am an Athiest, but I truly believe in the power in the Word of God." Not smart. Religious songs should not be sung in public schools, in the U.S., as it's against our Constitution. Down here, they sing Carols (even some of the religious ones -- and it doesn't bother me, really, though I find it mildly illegal if it's a religious song, which is essentially a religious text, particularly if they ONLY sing Christian songs and not also Pagan songs, Buddhist songs, Jewish songs, Hindi songs, etc). "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" shouldn't offend anyone though. Though in my district, Christians protested our Halloween parties, so that cuts both ways, and I find following the Constitution more reasonable than say banning Harry Potter books, personally. They used to sing the carols up here but it was an "opt-in" thing. Voluntary (thank God, I HATE Christmas Carols). They took out the "opt-in" option but there are other holidays etc. that are taught. I find that weird. I think that there should be some kind of cultural class up here where we could learn a little about the more common belief systems just because it seems to be something that causes so much misunderstanding. I know, it's a pipe dream because one parent who worships the Alien Overlord or whatever will start demanding class time. I think protesting Halloween is pretty much a waste of time. Who are you trying to reach by protesting Halloween, really? People put too much energy into fruitless endeavours. To be honest, I can't stand Christmas but protesting it is not going to get me any friends (and less presents). But you're in Canada, so not sure how that alters things. In the U.S. school system, Christian "activists" are a real problem. At least every district I've ever been in. They promote intolerance, illegal religious activites, and try to confuse science with their own moral and religious codes. I don't think that there are too many up here. Often I have heard teachers gently touch on the fact that not everyone agrees with the science but that it is what is taught in the class and will be on the test. You just kind of accept that that is the material the scientists figure and you are in a Science class. We don't talk about evolution in math class, just like we don't practice soccer inside church. In Catholic schools here, they do have Religion class. (I dreaded it even when I was Catholic).
zengirl Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 I don't think that there are too many up here. Often I have heard teachers gently touch on the fact that not everyone agrees with the science but that it is what is taught in the class and will be on the test. You just kind of accept that that is the material the scientists figure and you are in a Science class. We don't talk about evolution in math class, just like we don't practice soccer inside church. In Catholic schools here, they do have Religion class. (I dreaded it even when I was Catholic). I'm all for World Religions study, for the record as long as it's truly used to study VARIOUS world religions objectively. I do not believe that can be done prior to the high school level, and even then, I'd say better left for college. Beyond that, I'd just say, people have different beliefs, maybe teach some of the holidays if kids ask about it, but leave it out of school as much as possible. In regards to science, I don't agree with capitulating to faith (and I'm not an atheist, and am a very spiritual person) in any way. Science is science. It's a place for facts and well-researched scientific theories (very different from "I have a theory"), not beliefs. Evolution is the commonly accepted scientific theory. It is based on a wealth of research and data. Anybody 'fighting' its worth in a science curriculum based on their personal faith looks a little ignorant to me. And also it seems like the willful ignorance I discussed. If your faith is tested so much by accepting the well-researched facts of a scientific principle, so you want your children to be ignorant to it, well that's a crappy kind of faith. Personally, I'm tolerant of all religious views. I'm not tolerant of religious views that want to be capitulated to, which many Christians seem to want. To me, asking that I not call Bible stories fairytales or not teach something factual because your religion opposes it, is asking me, a nonbeliever, to capitulate to your religion. That's just arrogant. (Again, I'm not speaking to you---just expressing a view.)
elaina Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) Anyhow, is it common for atheists to act in such a abrasive,cynical, and unappealing manner? Seems every atheist I run into these days, act in such a manner. Is this common? I think this post is very much showing stereotypes and is generalizing a group of people big time! I am a Christian, though not a perfect one by any means. However, I have friends who are Atheist who I absolutely adore! They are fun, witty, intelligent, caring, and good people. They are cynical of religion, but mainly because 1. They haven't experienced anything that makes them believe that God (or gods) truly exists. 2. They have seen (as have I) what people do in the name of religion against other people. (Crusades, Inquisition, oppression, forced conversions, wars, suicide bombs, ...) not good So, I perfectly understand why they don't believe in God (or gods) and that's fine. It's a free country, last time I checked (thank God and of course the people who made it "free") Nobody should stereotype/generalize any group of people. There are wonderful Atheists. There are wonderful Christians. There are wonderful Muslims. There are wonderful Agnostics. There are wonderful Jewish Orthodox people. There are wonderful Buddhists. There are wonderful Hindus. There are wonderful Wiccans. ... There are also people in every group who have issues. That's life. We should just watch ourselves and make ourselves to be the best people we can be, and help others however we can! We all live on this earth together, after all! What good does insulting or stereotyping any group do? Anybody who insults and stereotypes another group of people, whether because of belief or ethnicity or sexual orientation or gender, is actually not helping. However, those who learn to tolerate and respect and even appreciate the good points in any group of people are helping make this world a better place! Edited March 22, 2011 by elaina
zengirl Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 There are also wonderful Pastafarians. Well, they've been touched by His noodly appendage.
elaina Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 There are also wonderful Pastafarians. Lol...and wonderful Chocolatiers too.
Recommended Posts