Sciences vs. Religion

So all atheists believe for a FACT that God doesn't exist? Then my friends were misinformed because they tell me there is no PROOF that a God or Gods exist. Two different things. Just because you don't have proof of something doesn't necessarily make it fact. A police officer can have no proof that someone is responsible for killing someone else with a gun, but it doesn't make it a fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

If someone (namely you) makes an error in logic, it does not constitute "cherry-picking" to point it out. I didn't search all of your posts to find an error -- it was right there in one of your most recent posts. Are you suggesting that it's OK for someone to say one stupid, incorrect thing, so long as he also says two or three correct ones? That makes no sense.

---

First off, it is only your opinion that it constitutes an error, and you prove that with your next paragraph - it is illogical to believe that prayer is better than medicine, so it's not any kind of stretch to be offended by science being compared to religion.

You're the best thing in the thread, though. At least glenn is just using a flawed argument - all you're doing is making things up try to force errors in my posts.

And failing rather badly.

You should probably realise this isn't your third-form biology class and you will be called if you blatantly misrepresent what someone else has posted.
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

My objection to your approach, Atheist, is that it is not only nasty, but naive and unsophisticated.

---

Ah, at last the true agenda raises its ugly head. I offend your sophisticated outlook.

Like I said, this isn't your third-form class. If you want sophistication, stick to Salon. Why would you expect to find it on an open forum?

Who's naive here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

But shouldn't we be in a post-religious age by now?

---

Well, I said forty years ago that religion would be dead by the 21st century, so I guess we're both wrong.

It doesn't seem all that post-religious to me when we are still battling to get christianity out of schools in 2014: http://www.3news.co.nz/Parents-disag...3/Default.aspx

Or the ongoing battle against evolution in US schools. I wasn't aware christians had given that fight up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

It seems to me that someone calling himself "The Atheist" and arguing for science and atheism on the internet is fighting a battle that is long over, and claiming as his own victories that were won 100 years ago.

---

Ah, the irony. You accuse me of rhetoric then post such a non-rhetorical post. (I am being sarcastic now!)

Where have I claimed any battle winning? You're making it up again because you have no real argument.

Please do carry on; the ability to recognise when one has been out-pointed to TKO is lacking on the internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

So all atheists believe for a FACT that God doesn't exist?

---

I did suggest you read the thread. Thanks for not bothering.

Still wrong, but further from the correct position than you were the first time. You're actually getting worse at this, and I would have bet that wasn't possible.

Plus, if want to retain any of your lost credibility, the place to discuss [/B]what "atheism" means is in that thread[/B], not this one.

Please do try to keep up, there's a good chap.

Then my friends were misinformed because they tell me there is no PROOF that a God or Gods exist. Two different things. Just because you don't have proof of something doesn't necessarily make it fact. A police officer can have no proof that someone is responsible for killing someone else with a gun, but it doesn't make it a fact.[/QUOTE]

I want to make one more point and then I'm done with the topic for good since I have to get back to my work.

When someone starts an argument on which should be more recognized over the other, religion or science (and it doesn't necessarily have to be about those two subjects, it can be an argument on what color is better, red or blue?) then I think that's where the underlying problem lies. You know there are believers of science and you know there are believers of religion, a simple thread titled "Science vs. Religion" automatically creates a conflict between the two, thus not allowing for both sides to come to an understanding. We are in the year 2014, these silly little debates should not be occurring in the first place. We should all work together for the common good of mankind instead of wasting time squabbling about whose belief is strongest. Religion and science can co-exist, but will you allow them to? That's the question both camps should be striving to answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

Religion and science can co-exist, but will you allow them to?

---

As you can see from my exchanges with Pen, I'm quite happy for them to co-exist.

What gets my goat is people making silly and flawed attacks on science.

Nice to see you finally come to your senses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The juxtaposition of your sentence and the next post is pure gold.

---

;) :biggrin5:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

When I read the part about "sacred texts", it reminded me of Yudowsky's LessWrong, or perhaps they should be called "MoreWrong", blog posts.

---

I link to the Yudkowsky articles that I agree with because it saves me the trouble of typing the same thing myself; not because I find his writings "sacred texts." Every time he starts writing about art I have to face palm, and I'm very dubious of his various positions on social matters and politics. I'm also rather clueless about cryonics, or even AI and the technological singularity, so I have no idea of the accuracy of what he says on those matters; but, guess what, neither do any of the non-AI researchers writing Rational Wiki. It would be one thing for an actual AI researcher to engage with Yudkowsky's claims, but it's nonsense that complete non-experts are trying to do so.

What I find nearly flawless in Yudkowsky are his epistemological, linguistic, neurological, and metaphysical philosophies. I link to them because they illuminate many of the problems that people have when these subjects come up. You're free to disagree with them/him, but not once have I ever posted an article that you've actually engaged with. Normally, at best, you pick one sentence and write a whole post that does nothing but demonstrate your lack of comprehension. You've certainly never demonstrated that Yudkowsky is actually wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Here's RationalWiki's account of Yudkowsky: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eliezer_Yudkowsky

---

Yes, I've read it; it's full of lies and half-truths written by people who have clearly not read much of the blog. EG, this statement: "Yudkowsky... is indeed opposed to the scientific method in favor of his interpretation of Bayes' theorem" is a flat-out lie, and almost hilariously wrong for anyone who has actually read a significant portion of his blog. Yudkowsky is constantly praising the values of science and its discoveries. The majority of his epistemological philosophy requires science in order to function. The "citation" that rationalwiki links to is an article where Yudkowsky is discussing one subject where the philosophical approach to science comes in conflict with the philosophical approach to Bayes, and in that instance he stresses why we should listen to Bayes (really, why we should utilize Bayes IN science; he's not actually saying we should reject science altogether, that would be preposterous).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

For someone that has so much hate toward textual information, you tend to use it quite a lot as evidence in your arguments.

---

I have no idea what you're talking about re my hate towards "textual information."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

All I'm saying is that science isn't perfect because of PEOPLE--just like religion.

---

I think everyone, including atheists and scientists, would agree that science "isn't perfect because of people." However, there are honest and dishonest ways of showing the flaws that exist in science; all of your methods have been dishonest in the extreme, many of them flat-out lies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

The person who is trying to discern between the two has to take it upon themselves to make a decision. Their decision should not be made by Bill Nye the science guy or some random priest in a church.

It should be done on their own.

---

We make decisions based on the information we have, so while I agree we shouldn't just blindly believe whatever we're told by anyone, the fact is that science, by and large, have the facts, experiments, engineering, technology, etc. to back up their claims. You can doubt that science understands gravity all you want, but you're going to have an awful hard time explaining how we made it to the moon; you can question science's understanding of electricity and binary logic, but you'll have an awful hard time explaining computers. Like I said, our entire modern world is a testament to the proof that science, by and large, knows of what they speak. This doesn't mean there aren't bad scientists, scandals, unanswered questions, etc., but all of these things are like pointing out paint chips in the Sistine Chapel. Religion, in comparison, is a crumbling ruin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

Bill Nye is trying to stop people from teaching their kids about God, thus he is saying that the theory of evolution holds supremacy over creationsim.

---

Errr, the theory of evolution DOES hold supremacy over creationism in every way one theory can hold supremacy over another. Evolution is just about the most supported theory in the history of science; Creationism is completely unfalsifiable, and its various lies and propaganda have been displayed several times, such as: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo...81149B&index=6

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

I find Krauss' observation of teaching kids about God the equivalent to that of child abuse rather disturbing.

---

And another lie. Krauss has never said anything about "teaching kids about God" being child abuse, but rather teaching them Creationism over evolution is child abuse. Even though I think his "child abuse" claim is overreaching, his basic point that teaching children such falsities rather than the truth puts them at an intellectual and scholastic disadvantage is actually true. It's not terribly different than parents that are arrested for withholding medical treatment for their children in favor of "faith healing."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

But isn't atheism a religion of sorts?

---

I think it's a religion in the same sense that people say politics are religion or art is a religion or football is a religion. What they mean is it's metaphorically LIKE religion. But religion typically requires supernatural beliefs about the origin of life/the universe, typically accompanied by various rituals, laws, holy texts, etc. While you can point out that atheism has things LIKE those things, they invariably differ in key elements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

In addition (to Morpheus): Of course it is true that religions often have an impact on society’s laws, mores, and politics. However, we should be careful not to fall into the error of thinking that the falsity of the postulates disproves the conclusion. That’s (I forget the logical error, something about the antecedent, you probably know).

---

Yeah, Denying the Antecedent: If A, then B; not A, therefor not B. I definitely agree with you that even if we conclude there's no God we shouldn't conclude that any of the conclusions in The Bible about anything (moral or otherwise) are wrong. The key, however, is in not allowing people to justify their morality or philosophy via their religion alone and then having that affect public policy. Issues like same-sex marriage and Creationism in schools are simply modern iterations where people's religious beliefs are in direct conflict with public policy in an obviously negative way. There is no non-religious argument against same-sex marriage (even though certain people can couch them in secular terms, they stem from the same place).

Morpheus, just because you believe in one theory over another doesn't make it supreme over the other theories. Archaeological evidence keeps popping up that proves accounts written in the bible. But of course that kind of evidence does not fit to your belief system so it is automatically worthless.

Abraham’s home city of Ur was excavated by Sir Leonard Woolley, with surprising evidence of near-luxury.

The customs of Patriarchal times, as described in the Bible, are endorsed by archaeological finds at such places as Ur, Mari, Boghazkoi, and Nineveh. These were written records from that day—not just put down in writing many centuries later. They bear the marks of eyewitness reporting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

Morpheus, just because you believe in one theory over another doesn't make it supreme over the other theories.

---

No, being rigorously tested and refined for over 100 years without falsification compared to not being testable at all makes one theory supreme over another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

Archaeological evidence keeps popping up that proves accounts written in the bible. But of course that kind of evidence does not fit to your belief system so it is automatically worthless.

---

Well, there's that (that it doesn't fit with my belief system), and also that it's fictional and doesn't exist; certainly not for Creationism, at least (that some of the Bible is historical I haven't disputed, but there's no evidence for any of its miraculous claims--Noah's Ark, eg.--and surprisingly none for things like the Jews Exodus from Egypt).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

They bear the marks of eyewitness reporting.

---

Eye witness resporting is amongst the weakest forms of evidence on its own. Most of the innocent people in prison were put there by mistaken eye witnesses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

No, being rigorously tested and refined for over 100 years without falsification compared to not being testable at all makes one theory supreme over another.

Well, there's that (that it doesn't fit with my belief system), and also that it's fictional and doesn't exist; certainly not for Creationism, at least (that some of the Bible is historical I haven't disputed, but there's no evidence for any of its miraculous claims--Noah's Ark, eg.--and surprisingly none for things like the Jews Exodus from Egypt).

Eye witness resporting is amongst the weakest forms of evidence on its own. Most of the innocent people in prison were put there by mistaken eye witnesses.

---

Rigorously tested and refined, yup, that's it, because scientists are incapable of lying. They are the beacon of hope for all of mankind and everything they write is truth. Are you serious?

Yes, that's exactly what it sounds like. Because it's in a book you believe it to be fiction. Thanks for admitting that for me. Now let's imagine the tables were turned. What if science was the the one that was discovered before religion and it was written into a book? Would you believe in science less because of that?

"Eye witness reports is amongst the weakest forms of evidence," Even when archaeological finds prove it to be true? Wow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

What if....

---

... I make a really silly hypothesis? Will that make my argument stronger?

Alas, no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

Rigorously tested and refined, yup, that's it, because scientists are incapable of lying.

---

A scientist is certainly capable of lying; to think that 99.9% of all scientists in biology, medicine, archaeology, etc. are lying is the thinking of a conspiracy theory wackjob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

Because it's in a book you believe it to be fiction.

---

That's not what I said at all. When it's written in a book in a way that bears remarkable resemblances to writings we know to be fiction (Noah's ark bearing striking resemblances to Gilgamesh's flood, eg), then it's probably fiction. I already said I admit that SOME of the Bible functions as legitimate history, while others are allegory, some fictional, some history mixed with allegory and fiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

"Eye witness reports is amongst the weakest forms of evidence," Even when archaeological finds prove it to be true? Wow.

---

Archaeology hasn't proved any Biblical miracles true, certainly not Creationism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

I link to the Yudkowsky articles that I agree with because it saves me the trouble of typing the same thing myself; not because I find his writings "sacred texts." Every time he starts writing about art I have to face palm, and I'm very dubious of his various positions on social matters and politics. I'm also rather clueless about cryonics, or even AI and the technological singularity, so I have no idea of the accuracy of what he says on those matters; but, guess what, neither do any of the non-AI researchers writing Rational Wiki. It would be one thing for an actual AI researcher to engage with Yudkowsky's claims, but it's nonsense that complete non-experts are trying to do so.

What I find nearly flawless in Yudkowsky are his epistemological, linguistic, neurological, and metaphysical philosophies. I link to them because they illuminate many of the problems that people have when these subjects come up. You're free to disagree with them/him, but not once have I ever posted an article that you've actually engaged with. Normally, at best, you pick one sentence and write a whole post that does nothing but demonstrate your lack of comprehension. You've certainly never demonstrated that Yudkowsky is actually wrong.


Yes, I've read it; it's full of lies and half-truths written by people who have clearly not read much of the blog. EG, this statement: "Yudkowsky... is indeed opposed to the scientific method in favor of his interpretation of Bayes' theorem" is a flat-out lie, and almost hilariously wrong for anyone who has actually read a significant portion of his blog. Yudkowsky is constantly praising the values of science and its discoveries. The majority of his epistemological philosophy requires science in order to function. The "citation" that rationalwiki links to is an article where Yudkowsky is discussing one subject where the philosophical approach to science comes in conflict with the philosophical approach to Bayes, and in that instance he stresses why we should listen to Bayes (really, why we should utilize Bayes IN science; he's not actually saying we should reject science altogether, that would be preposterous).

---

Although I don't agree with Yudkowsky's many worlds view, the RationalWiki article on him sounded to me more irrational than not. I left the article thinking it's a good thing I don't spend much time on the RationalWiki site.

I also agree with you that quoting someone you find expresses your viewpoint is acceptable. I do the same. It does save time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

You accuse me of rhetoric then post such a non-rhetorical post.
.

---

I never "accused (you) of rhetoric", possibly because I know what the word means. I accused you of rhetorical incompetence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Although I don't agree with Yudkowsky's many worlds view, the RationalWiki article on him sounded to me more irrational than not. I left the article thinking it's a good thing I don't spend much time on the RationalWiki site.

I also agree with you that quoting someone you find expresses your viewpoint is acceptable. I do the same. It does save time.

---

I think the very moment you name a site "Rational," you lose credibility points from people that know better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

A scientist is certainly capable of lying; to think that 99.9% of all scientists in biology, medicine, archaeology, etc. are lying is the thinking of a conspiracy theory wackjob.

That's not what I said at all. When it's written in a book in a way that bears remarkable resemblances to writings we know to be fiction (Noah's ark bearing striking resemblances to Gilgamesh's flood, eg), then it's probably fiction. I already said I admit that SOME of the Bible functions as legitimate history, while others are allegory, some fictional, some history mixed with allegory and fiction.

Archaeology hasn't proved any Biblical miracles true, certainly not Creationism.

---

Did I say 99.9% of scientists were lying? All it takes is one person of authority to sway the opinions of those around him/her. If you don't believe me read this article on the flaws of peer review papers: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/bo...laws-1.2054004

OK, fair enough, archaeology hasn't proven any Biblical miracles to be true, I agree. But science hasn't proven them to be false either. Maybe one day they will, but I doubt it since science in it of itself is limited to human thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

I never "accused (you) of rhetoric", possibly because I know what the word means. I accused you of rhetorical incompetence.

---

You really are at the bottom of the barrel if the best you can come up with one weak opinion on what constitutes incompetence. (and "rhetoric" for that matter)

I tend more to think of incompetence as failing miserably when trying to attack someone, using erroneous conclusions and assumptions, but that's just me.

Please do carry on ignoring the other points I made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

But science hasn't proven them to be false either.

---

Are you serious?

Science hasn't proven a made up story false?

Tell you what - you propose a mechanism for science to prove Hogwarts does not exist and I'll get it right on to proving Moses did not part the Red Sea, Noah did not float a boat and god did not send 42 she-bears to eat kids who called one of his pals "baldy".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Are you serious?

Science hasn't proven a made up story false?

Tell you what - you propose a mechanism for science to prove Hogwarts does not exist and I'll get it right on to proving Moses did not part the Red Sea, Noah did not float a boat and god did not send 42 she-bears to eat kids who called one of his pals "baldy".

---

Now you're just being silly. Show me where science proves that God isn't real. I'll wait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Are you serious?

Science hasn't proven a made up story false?

Tell you what - you propose a mechanism for science to prove Hogwarts does not exist and I'll get it right on to proving Moses did not part the Red Sea, Noah did not float a boat and god did not send 42 she-bears to eat kids who called one of his pals "baldy".

---

Double post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

Now you're just being silly. Show me where science proves that God isn't real. I'll wait.

---

Why don't you try reading the posts instead of making yourself look even more foolish?

Nobody has suggested science proves god isn't real - the only time that idea has even been mentioned in the thread is when you've typed it.

You are the one asking "science" to disprove events that are almost certainly fictional.

I ask again - how do you think something can be proven not to have happened? Feel free to use any of the following to show a mechanism for scientific investigation to prove them false:

Thor
Zoroaster
Mithras
Osiris
Ganesha
The King of Brobdingnag

Away you go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Why don't you try reading the posts instead of making yourself look even more foolish?

Nobody has suggested science proves god isn't real - the only time that idea has even been mentioned in the thread is when you've typed it.

You are the one asking "science" to disprove events that are almost certainly fictional.

I ask again - how do you think something can be proven not to have happened? Feel free to use any of the following to show a mechanism for scientific investigation to prove them false:

Thor
Zoroaster
Mithras
Osiris
Ganesha
The King of Brobdingnag

Away you go.

---

Almost certainly fictional, nice. That explains it all, I'm convinced those stories never took place now.

I would read all the posts, but I don't have time to sift through all the pages since I came into the discussion late. I read in a post on the atheism thread where someone (I forget who) said that ALL atheists know for a FACT that there is no God. Where has this person found this divine knowledge, I ask? Because not even Einstein (who is considered the smartest man ever to walk the Earth by many great minds--religious and scientific and everyone in between) wasn't able to tell for sure. If you can almost certainly prove that Noah didn't build an ark, that no great flood ever occurred, that Moses never set God's people free, then you can almost certainly for a fact believe God never existed, am I right? Aren't those stories interconnected in one way or another with the belief of God?

Is your theme song Chumbawumba's Tub-thumping?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

Almost certainly fictional, nice. That explains it all, I'm convinced those stories never took place now.

---

Yes, almost certainly fictional. How do we know that?

The Flood: No geological records have been found indicating a worldwide flood. Given that our geological knowledge is comprehensive, I'm happy to go with "almost certainly fictional."

2 King 2:24. Heck, you're welcome to say that one's true and I'll let you have it. If it were my god, I'd prefer to think 42 bears ripping little children apart for calling some old guy baldy was allegorical, but if you want to claim it's not fictional, that's fine by me.

Parting of the Red Sea: First off, as done to death in another thread, there is no archeological evidence of Israelites in Egypt, let alone an exodus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

I would read all the posts, but I don't have time to sift through all the pages since I came into the discussion late.

---

And what the heck, you cherry-pick really well, so why read for context or accuracy? (see below)

Protip: if joining a discussion, it's essential to see what was said first. You seem to have plenty of time to type, so maybe you could have spent some of that time reading instead, then you don't make so many errors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

I read in a post on the atheism thread where someone (I forget who) said that ALL atheists know for a FACT that there is no God.

---

Bingo! There's your cherry right there.

I gave you the thread, which posts lots of evidence that that premise is entirely false. That post was made by someone who has no idea what they're talking about, so it's not much of a stretch to see why it would appeal to you.

Go and read the thread, because you're just digging the hole ever deeper in search of an escape.

And it ain't happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Is your theme song Chumbawumba's Tub-thumping?



Yes, almost certainly fictional. How do we know that?

The Flood: No geological records have been found indicating a worldwide flood. Given that our geological knowledge is comprehensive, I'm happy to go with "almost certainly fictional."

2 King 2:24. Heck, you're welcome to say that one's true and I'll let you have it. If it were my god, I'd prefer to think 42 bears ripping little children apart for calling some old guy baldy was allegorical, but if you want to claim it's not fictional, that's fine by me.

Parting of the Red Sea: First off, as done to death in another thread, there is no archeological evidence of Israelites in Egypt, let alone an exodus.



And what the heck, you cherry-pick really well, so why read for context or accuracy? (see below)

Protip: if joining a discussion, it's essential to see what was said first. You seem to have plenty of time to type, so maybe you could have spent some of that time reading instead, then you don't make so many errors.



Bingo! There's your cherry right there.

I gave you the thread, which posts lots of evidence that that premise is entirely false. That post was made by someone who has no idea what they're talking about, so it's not much of a stretch to see why it would appeal to you.

Go and read the thread, because you're just digging the hole ever deeper in search of an escape.

And it ain't happening.

---

No, of course not, there isn't any historical accounts of a great flood ever occurring that spans different texts and eras. All of that is just made up nonsense.

I'm not cherry-picking at all, this is something I read in the link you pasted, then I read you agreeing with the statement wholeheartedly. Do you retract that statement somewhere? If so please send me the link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

I'm not cherry-picking at all,...

---

The only person you might be fooling with that statement is yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

...this is something I read in the link you pasted, then I read you agreeing with the statement wholeheartedly. Do you retract that statement somewhere? If so please send me the link.

---

Read the thread from the start. Laziness is not an excuse for cherry-picking a mis-informed post made by someone who is not an atheist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The only person you might be fooling with that statement is yourself.



Read the thread from the start. Laziness is not an excuse for cherry-picking a mis-informed post made by someone who is not an atheist.

---

If you want me to read a thread from the start why not just give me a link to the first page in the first place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

If you want me to read a thread from the start why not just give me a link to the first page in the first place?

---

This has officially past the extreme stupidity barrier and I'm done with it. Not only are your posts dishonest, you can't even make up a decent lie.

I gave you a link to page 1 of that thread.

Like this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

For an in-depth look, feel free to go to the thread itself: http://www.online-literature.com/for...actually-means!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

This has officially past the extreme stupidity barrier and I'm done with it. Not only are your posts dishonest, you can't even make up a decent lie.

I gave you a link to page 1 of that thread.

Like this:

---

Oh, I see, you were quoting someone from another thread. That's my mistake. I thought it was from the same thread. You say that atheists don't believe in anything. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it's not a religion. A lack of something is the same as not believing in it. It's not logical to twist the definition of something to fit your needs.

I've read about atheism, and most seem to believe there are two groups: the gnostic and the agnostic atheists. The gnostic atheist thinks he/she can prove that there is no God or gods while the agnostic atheist doesn't know for sure.

If you are a gnostic atheist (correct me if I'm wrong) then you believe you can prove that God doesn't exist. That is a belief. Because no human on this planet can prove how the universe came to be, if there's parallel worlds, or if even there is a God. You're placing your system (for lack of a better word) above that of all other religions. That sounds like something religions would do.

I usually leave contentious threads alone, but nevertheless thought I'd make a coupla comments before the thread devolves into ad hominem rants or illustrates Godwin's Law and the administrators shut this puppy down.

1. It's fruitless to contrive a debate pitting science vs. religion. It's the proverbial comparison between apples and oranges-- two different things, LitNutters. The first discipline comes from reason, the second from intuition, or if you will,"faith."

2. Across the human spectrum, reason may be dominant in some people whereas intuition influences others. Science and religion are not necessarily exclusive all the time, as a person can respect each of those concepts. F. Scott Fitzgerald once remarked that holding two conflicting opinions at the same time is a sign of intelligence.

3. If one's faith depends on empirical proof, then his faith is nothing. That didn't come from an early Church father or a present-day evangelical, but noted atheist Douglas ("The Hitchhiker's Guide to the the Galaxy")Adams.

4. Some religious people hold science in high regard; whereas others, such as "Creationists" reject science completely. This group includes the "climate change deniers."

5. Many scientists recognize the difference between the two realms of reason and faith and yet treat the latter concept with respect. An example of this was all over the news last year, when in their research about the origin of the universe, physicists were beginning to close in on a crucial missing piece of the puzzle which they called --without irony--"the God Particle."

6. Reasonable persons of faith recognize that the Scriptures which provide form for their beliefs should not be taken literally, that the Creation story is allegorical. You don't have to have a Ph.D. to know that the earth is older than 6,000 years.The compilers of The New Testament alluded to the figurative nature of scriptural text: "He spoke in parables."

7. Reasonable persons of both science and religion (and those in-between) acknowledge the fact that whether humans were created or evolved, most of us were given brains with the expectation that we use them.

Yes there are good cases for both Science and Religion, I agree. But to say that one is superior to the other is utter nonsense. It's that kind of thinking that tends to create unnecessary conflicts in the world

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

All it takes is one person of authority to sway the opinions of those around him/her.

---

I don't know how you think this "swaying of opinions" can happen when the name of the game is observation, prediction, testability, and repeatability. A great many scientists do nothing by attempt to repeat the results of others, so in such cases there would be no "swaying of opinions," either they could reproduce the results or they couldn't. While there are SOME areas of science that rely on a certain amount of opinion (the interpretations of quantum mechanics being one example), even there scientists are quick to distinguish between theory (a tested/supported hypothesis) and interpretation (an opinion on how to consider the observations). So you don't hear scientists going around declaring their opinion as fact on such matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

OK, fair enough, archaeology hasn't proven any Biblical miracles to be true, I agree. But science hasn't proven them to be false either.

---

Errr, there's no way to prove that most of the things written in The Bible didn't happen. What we can say is that, eg, archeology shows no sign of a Global flood and, what's more, all the data in existence is inconsistent of what we'd expect if such a thing happened. Same thing with the Jews' exodus from Egypt. Really, besides saying "there's no evidence that such things happened," there's no way to "prove" they didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

I don't know how you think this "swaying of opinions" can happen when the name of the game is observation, prediction, testability, and repeatability. A great many scientists do nothing by attempt to repeat the results of others, so in such cases there would be no "swaying of opinions," either they could reproduce the results or they couldn't. While there are SOME areas of science that rely on a certain amount of opinion (the interpretations of quantum mechanics being one example), even there scientists are quick to distinguish between theory (a tested/supported hypothesis) and interpretation (an opinion on how to consider the observations). So you don't hear scientists going around declaring their opinion as fact on such matters.

Errr, there's no way to prove that most of the things written in The Bible didn't happen. What we can say is that, eg, archeology shows no sign of a Global flood and, what's more, all the data in existence is inconsistent of what we'd expect if such a thing happened. Same thing with the Jews' exodus from Egypt. Really, besides saying "there's no evidence that such things happened," there's no way to "prove" they didn't.

---

Well, I posted a link to an article showing how flawed the whole peer review system is. Not sure if you read it or not, but this scientist from Harvard wrote up a study on a new anti-cancer drug, only thing was that it was fake. He then went ahead and sent it out to over 300 journals, more than half of them accepted the study without checking for flaws. This shows that journals--for the sake of keeping their readership--are accepting papers just for the idea alone. Not saying this happens all the time, but it's a problem that should definitely be looked into. Here's the link so you can read up on it: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/bo...laws-1.2054004

Of course, and I'm not saying the flood ever happened. Both sides make good points and bad points. The fact is that we will probably never know for sure. Hopefully, one day evidence does turn up that shows it did or didn't happen. Science and religion aren't bad for society. Both have done great things and bad things for mankind. We have to look at the bigger picture instead of saying who's right and who's wrong. There are things science or religion will never explain because they are both limited to human thinking. I think if scholars and scientists got together and put away their differences, it would definitely make it a lot easier to try and figure out the mysteries of the universe.

EDIT: Found a good article about the great flood. Robert Ballard (you might know him as the scientist who found the Titanic) has unearthed evidence that a Great Flood did happen in the Black Sea around 5,000 BC: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evi...ry?id=17884533

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

Well, I posted a link to an article showing how flawed the whole peer review system is.

---

Quite hilariously, that paper proves something quite different:

Quote:

---

In the end, what he concluded was that “a huge proportion” of the journals were not ensuring their papers were peer reviewed.

---

The problem, quite clearly, isn't in the "peer review system," it's with the magazine that AREN'T DOING PEER REVIEWS AT ALL!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

Of course, and I'm not saying the flood ever happened. Both sides make good points and bad points.

---

There are no "good points" for a world wide flood. There's not a stitch of evidence it happened and all the evidence that exists is irreconcilable with such an event. Your attempt at putting religion and science on the same level ground with platitudes like "they've both done good things and bad things for society" is rather feeble. Science has given us the modern world as we know it, with advances in technology, medicine, and understanding that far surpass anything religion has ever given us. Show an unbiased observer two different world: one with only religion, the other with only science, and one would be foolish to think they'd choose the former.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glennr25

Found a good article about the great flood. Robert Ballard (you might know him as the scientist who found the Titanic) has unearthed evidence that a Great Flood did happen in the Black Sea around 5,000 BC: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evi...ry?id=17884533

---

Actually, because of the prevalence of "great floods" in many mythologies and religions that were circulating around the same time and place that the OT was written, a great many historians have assumed that some major flood probably happened at some point in history in that era. However, Noah (and Gilgamesh) are examples of how a historical event gets subsumed by fiction and allegory. This is not unlike how Shakespeare fictionalizes his historical kings, or modern Hollywood just fictionalized the 47 Ronin. These things are based on real people and real events, but have become so distorted by fiction it's hard to separate the two. That said, we can draw some reasonable limits, such as calling the notion that the flood was worldwide, lasted for 40 days, and that someone built an enormous ark that housed two of every living creature, almost certainly fictional.

Peace be on all.
The source of religion and science is same God.
Religion comes with words of God.
Science is working of same God.
Science leads to 'should be'.
Religion takes to 'is'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelat...edge_%26_Truth

Nice poem YALASH. The first four lines I can agree with or make sense out of immediately. The last two I'm still thinking about. I don't know much about Islam, but Mirza Tahir Ahmad's book referenced in the link might be a good place to start.

Here's a more nuanced take on the question of fading religious faith, from Adam Gopnik in last week's New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...urrentPage=all

Among Gopnik's points: Arguments in favor of naturalism (as opposed to super naturalism) have existed for centuries. One point of interest is how society and culture changes to make these arguments acceptable.

He discusses how physics is more compatable with religion than evolutionary biology.

He talks about how specifically atheistic arguments have been ineffective compared to (his example) Gibbon's discussion of the worldly mechanisms by which Christianity triumphed in Rome.

He says, "...we arrive at what the noes ("no" to God)... really have now, and that is a monopoly on legitimate forms of knowledge about the natural world." Herein lies my disapproval of "The Athiest". His argument is already won. Beating religious folks over the head with it is like the Seattle Seahawks challenging a Pop Warner football team to a game, and then tauntng the 100-pound kids after every bone-jarring tackle.

I'm not sure about Gopnik's conclusion -- which is that life has become so pleasant that we no longer need the opiate of God. However, by reading and commenting on the article, perhaps we can raise the level of this discussion (which wouldn't be difficult).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Here's a more nuanced take on the question of fading religious faith, from Adam Gopnik in last week's New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...urrentPage=all

Among Gopnik's points: Arguments in favor of naturalism (as opposed to super naturalism) have existed for centuries. One point of interest is how society and culture changes to make these arguments acceptable.

He discusses how physics is more compatable with religion than evolutionary biology.

He talks about how specifically atheistic arguments have been ineffective compared to (his example) Gibbon's discussion of the worldly mechanisms by which Christianity triumphed in Rome.

He says, "...we arrive at what the noes ("no" to God)... really have now, and that is a monopoly on legitimate forms of knowledge about the natural world." Herein lies my disapproval of "The Athiest". His argument is already won. Beating religious folks over the head with it is like the Seattle Seahawks challenging a Pop Warner football team to a game, and then tauntng the 100-pound kids after every bone-jarring tackle.

I'm not sure about Gopnik's conclusion -- which is that life has become so pleasant that we no longer need the opiate of God. However, by reading and commenting on the article, perhaps we can raise the level of this discussion (which wouldn't be difficult).

---

Oh, I agree completely. Religion is definitely starting to lose its luster. People are starting to figure out that over time it's been used to manipulate more than anything else. Manipulation is at the heart of every human endeavor, unfortunately. That is not to say that religion hasn't done great things for mankind. Music, poetry, architecture are just some of the things that religion has had a hand in over the centuries. But then you get to the bad, like the crusades for example, which is still affecting us to this very day, or the discovery of the New World, and those tend to overshadow the accomplishments. The same could be said for science, we've had great advancements in technology in such a short time, but those same advancements give us drones, nuclear bombs, missiles that can hit targets from half way around the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Here's a more nuanced take on the question of fading religious faith, from Adam Gopnik in last week's New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...urrentPage=all

---

The link looks like it could be a refreshing way to rationalize this thread. However, it appeared to me to be mainly assertions strung together with rhetoric to make it look like Adam Gopnik was just saying the obvious.

Some of the assertions amused me such as the view that Lennon, far from being the atheist that he sounded like in "Imagine", was as New Age nutty as I am.

Others like his comment about Einstein's God being close enough to a theologian's God to be tolerated I think were plain nutty. Einstein's God doesn't exist. Quantum physics, or rather Bohr's interpretation of quantum physics, falsified it.

Some things about our getting ever more prosperous that we will become more and more atheistic made me think he might be mistaken on more than one level, the most ominous of which is that we may be on the edge of an economic crash. What happens then?