Sciences vs. Religion

[The Atheist]

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. Do a little better at analyzing what he's trying to say while you're watching, it helps.

The humour just keeps on keeping on!

In no way does what Nye says about teaching creationism even get close to your statement. (ToE does hold sway over Creationism, btw, but it's not a "you cannot question science" position.)

Your next example's no better, no matter that his idea is flawed anyway.

Can I get you a shovel to widen the hole you find yourself stuck in?

[glennr25]

Stephen Fry might be the only atheist I've come across that doesn't show his/her irrationality when discussing the topic. And trust me, I have many friends that are atheists, so I'm not exaggerating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqibqD4fJZs

[The Atheist]

Stephen Fry might be the only atheist I've come across that doesn't show his/her irrationality when discussing the topic. And trust me, I have many friends that are atheists, so I'm not exaggerating.

No, and it's not as though you haven't established a track record of exaggerating....

I'm a big fan of Stephen Fry myself. What kind of scientist is he?

(If you want a thread on atheism/atheists, that's a different subject and you'll find two ready-made allies in Ecurb and JBI, so maybe you should have a go at that after your spectacular and ongoing failure in this thread.)

[glennr25]

No, and it's not as though you haven't established a track record of exaggerating....

I'm a big fan of Stephen Fry myself. What kind of scientist is he?

(If you want a thread on atheism/atheists, that's a different subject and you'll find two ready-made allies in Ecurb and JBI, so maybe you should have a go at that after your spectacular and ongoing failure in this thread.)

I'm a fan of Stephen Fry as well. He may not be a scientist, but he approaches the topic much more rationally than other so called "scientists." He's providing his opinion and not trying to sway the opinion of the public to his beliefs.

As for the allies bit, why turn an honest discussion into a battle of sorts? What do you hope to accomplish by doing that?

[Ecurb]

So do I.

You're wrong there as well, sorry, it isn't metaphorical use at all - I do find anti-science posts backed up by statements like "Newton died from eating mercury" to be actually humorous in the extreme.

I also find your desperate attempt to defend glenn's nonsense by cherry-picking one of a large number of quotes to be pretty funny, too.

You really need to find better ammo.

.

You are easily amused. When are the stand-up comedians going to catch on and quip, "Newton died from eating mercury."?

I never defended glen. Instead, I pointed out your logical errors and rhetorical deficiencies.

No need for better ammo. Arguing with you is like shooting an unarmed man. Victory is easy, but there's not much glory in it.

[The Atheist]

I'm trying to help you out, because it looks like you need some. Honest discussion? You haven't been honest the entire time you've been posting in this thread, so don't come that rot.

Also, the title of this thread is Sciences vs Religion. You're the one trying to turn the discussion into something else. I'm quite happy to stick to science, but as you admit, Fry is no scientist. That makes me think you want to move the goalposts to atheism. If not, stop posting on a different subject.

This forum business is pretty simple once you get the hang of it: different subject = new thread.

[The Atheist]

Arguing with you is like shooting an unarmed man.

Yet you keep missing so badly.

Try reading your own posts to see where you went wrong, but if, like glenn, you're incapable of seeing your own nonsense for what it is, I'll gladly re-post to elucidate you on yourself.

The day you even understand logic, let alone point out deficiencies in mine, will be a long time coming, toots.

The feeble effort above where you cherry-picked one of many examples in a failed attempt to "attack logic" is testament to your own intellectual dishonesty, so please do keep trying. You're probably impressing the hell out of yourself.

[glennr25]

I'm trying to help you out, because it looks like you need some. Honest discussion? You haven't been honest the entire time you've been posting in this thread, so don't come that rot.

Also, the title of this thread is Sciences vs Religion. You're the one trying to turn the discussion into something else. I'm quite happy to stick to science, but as you admit, Fry is no scientist. That makes me think you want to move the goalposts to atheism. If not, stop posting on a different subject.

This forum business is pretty simple once you get the hang of it: different subject = new thread.

But isn't atheism a religion of sorts? I mean just because you BELIEVE that no God exists doesn't mean that it can't be labeled as a religion; since the very term emphasizes in the belief of one thing or the other. Buddhists don't believe in God but do you not consider Buddhism a religion? In fact one of the smartest people ever to walk the earth also believed atheism was a religion. His name was Einstein.

"To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong in the ranks of devoutly religious men."

Source: Albert Einstein, in Living Philosophies: The Reflections of Some Eminent Men and Women of Our Time, edited by Clifton Fadiman (Doubleday, 1990), p. 6

[The Atheist]

But isn't atheism a religion of sorts? I mean just because you BELIEVE that no God exists doesn't mean that it can't be labeled as a religion; since the very term emphasizes in the belief of one thing or the other.

Oh dear, you really are a bit behind the times aren't you?

That idea doesn't wash, I'm afraid, and we have a thread on that very topic, so I'm not going to re-hash it all again here.

The short answer is, atheism is not a religion nor is it about a belief that no god exists. For an in-depth look, feel free to go to the thread itself: http://www.online-literature.com/for...actually-means!

[Ecurb]

The feeble effort above where you cherry-picked one of many examples in a failed attempt to "attack logic" is testament to your own intellectual dishonesty, so please do keep trying. You're probably impressing the hell out of yourself.

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.

AS for "science vs. religion", it's a silly discussion. Of course penicillon cures a strep throat better than prayer. Every reasonable person knows that. Indeed, the reason some attempts to manipulate the physical world are called "religious" and others are called "scientific" is that there is evidence that some of them work, and no (or little) evidence that others do. I'll add that bleeding didn't work very well, either, and it was more akin to a scientific approach to healing than it was to a religious one (albeit a primitive and incorrect scientific approach).

My objection to your approach, Atheist, is that it is not only nasty, but naive and unsophisticated. I'll grant that if you're arguing with a naive and unsophisticated evolution denier, you may have a more persuasive argument than he does. But so what? Why bother? Isn't it time to move on? ONe hundred years ago, it might have been reasonable to inveigh against Christianity, because it was such a dominant belief system. I'll give Voltaire a pass. But shouldn't we be in a post-religious age by now?

We are not only in a post-religious age (in my case, I don't think any of my grandparents were religious, let alone my parents), but we are also in a post-modern age. Modernist faith in grand scientific theories that can represent all knowledge and explain everything has been replaced by the notion that master narratives of that sort reflect the prejudices of dominant institutions and point of views of particular scientific paradigms. Localized and contingent theories have gained cache; reality only exists from a particular perspective, within a particular paradigm.

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. The modernist faith The Atheist has in "science" is also dated. Since Religion is one of The Humanities (at most Universities), and studied as a cultural achievement along with literature and art history and music, it seems strange to me that someone would come to a message board devoted to admiring and discussing the Humanities and (instead) denigrate and dismiss them. What's next? A thread about "science vs. fiction"? How about "science vs. poetry"?

[glennr25]

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.

[The Atheist]

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.
.

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?

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?

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.

[The Atheist]

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]

[glennr25]

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.

[The Atheist]

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.