Know your audience

[Beldaran]

Preface:
I go to Baylor University, where a large majority of the students are evangelical conservative baptists. In other words they are primarily made up of racists, homophobes, and advocates of non-science (or some combination thereof)

So today I'm sitting in the chemistry class, before class has started and just waiting, working on my computer. There are a couple of other students in the room. One of them starts talking with me about the lecture we attended last night, featuring Nobel Prize winning chemist Sir Harlod Kroto. This lecture was one of the most meaningful and exciting events I've ever attended and I think Professor Kroto is awesome. He lectured on the nature of scientific thought, the direction our society is headed, and what it means to understand and practice "science".

So this kid says to me, "Yeah that guy was an atheist bastard." He is referencing the fact that Dr. Kroto spoke out against religion's deliterious affect on rational thought. Dr. Kroto spoke of the many individuals burned at the stake by the catholic church as punishment for owning and reading books. He talked about the philosopher Espinoza who was banished from his homeland by the Jewish religious establishment for writing a book about the parts of the old testament that are not logical. He talked about how all of the scientific progress we enjoy is based on the principle of "doubt" instead of "belief".

So this kid says that Professor Kroto was an atheist bastard. I just say, totally straight faced. "Well, I loved it. I'm an atheist bastard too." He turned around and hasn't said a word since.

I'm glad Baylor invites honorable people like Harold Kroto to speak. Maybe it will help shed some light on the sad intellectual state of many of its students.

[Modus Ponens]

I like to think that someday, at some point in his life, that kid will stop and think, and that he won't necessarily abandon religion, at least he may abandon some of his closed-mindedness. And that it will be thanks to people like Kroto. Wouldn't that be nice? Of course, what's likely is that he'll continue to be an idiot and he'll marry and have kids and raise them to be idiots, too.

[Lilith]

lol mason-dixon line

[Cloral]

The problem is people are indoctrinated that their belief is absolute. Anyone who makes them doubt it for even a second is automatically a deceiver and therefore evil. What can you do against that?

That kid doesn't realize it, but he's demonstrating the same sort of ideology the terrorists use to justify themselves.

[Beldaran]

The problem is people are indoctrinated that their belief is absolute. Anyone who makes them doubt it for even a second is automatically a deceiver and therefore evil. What can you do against that?

Build robots that are programmed to exterminate them.



That kid doesn't realize it, but he's demonstrating the same sort of ideology the terrorists use to justify themselves.

Exactly. It's the the Christian Right is the American Taliban.

[Starkist]

Exactly. It's the the Christian Right is the American Taliban.

Indeed. I'll be heading to your house with my militia ready to enforce my religion with the sword, err, gun, any moment now. In fact, we have our operatives ready in the highest levels of government and the military. Before you know it, the Constitution will be burned, the Federal Government will be abolished and replaced by the leadership of the SBC, and gays will be taken to death camps. Nonbelievers will be given a choice of deportation, extra taxation, or death.

[Beldaran]

Indeed. I'll be heading to your house with my militia ready to enforce my religion with the sword, err, gun, any moment now. In fact, we have our operatives ready in the highest levels of government and the military. Before you know it, the Constitution will be burned, the Federal Government will be abolished and replaced by the leadership of the SBC, and gays will be taken to death camps. Nonbelievers will be given a choice of deportation, extra taxation, or death.

Christians have done it before [read: middle ages]. There's no reason I shouldn't be constantly wary that you'll do it again. I'm just going on history, behavior, and the underpinnings of your genocidal racist despotic infanticidal schitzophrenic flat earth no science creationistic mysogenistic dictator of a biblical god who not only do I not trust for one second, I don't even believe in him.

Don't try to pretend you don't represent a group of people who obsess over an ancient text written by desert nomads who believed the sun was controlled by magic and who slaughtered their enemies without provocation, their enemies' wives, their enemies kids, their own kids, their own animals, and anyone else who dared to question the supreme authority of the magical being that demanded constant bloody sacrifice to appease his lust for power and brutality.

[The_Amaster]

at least he may abandon some of his closed-mindedness
*Sigh* If only that were true. Wouldn't the world be a happy place with sunshinend rainbows and flowers.
Problem is, the kid is likely surrounded by people, propaganda, etc. that tells him he's right. Once it's been ingrained enough, than no amount of dissuading will change his mind, any more than someone can change our minds about the fact that the sky is blue.


the sun was controlled by magic and who slaughtered their enemies without provocation, their enemies' wives, their enemies kids, their own kids, their own animals, and anyone else who dared to question the supreme authority of the magical being that demanded constant bloody sacrifice to appease his lust for power and brutality.
That sounds more Aztec than anything. The original Christians weren't like that, it was only when the greedy ones came around and realized that fear was a good tool to control and opress people that that sect became active.

Normal religion is fine, I like normal religion, that is to say that which has moved with the times, and no longer hold 15th century or older ideas.

[MottZilla]

Build robots that are programmed to exterminate them.

I was thinking pretty much along those lines. But you make a great point, that these people that have these retarded beliefs in imaginary friends are the same. If you believe in God and that homos and others than are just plain wrong etc etc, the only difference between you and the terrorists we are supposively fighting is that they believe similar retarded things and are killing people over it.

Now many religious retards over here may not be directly killing people over their stupid beliefs, but they do like to make things harder and fuck things up. Example being people against abortion and gay marriage. Sure they aren't shooting anyone (most of them) but they are holding society back and dragging it down.

Anyway, I don't mind people that believe in God, an afterlife, morals, etc. But I don't like people that believe for some reason they have all the answers and everyone must do what they say and other illogical stuff. I mean good will, don't steal, don't murder people, that makes sense for society. But lots of other things don't. The big issue with the middle east is their religion tells them everyone that doesn't believe the same thing as you is evil and you should kill them.

That's why modern (logical) society should group together, and kill them first.

[Starkist]

It is a true bigot who does not recognize the one in the mirror.

[Beldaran]

You are correct. I am bigoted against the following:

Murder
Irrationality
Mind Control
Mysticism
Oppression
Bigotry

I am proud to be "bigoted" against those things.

[Dark Entity]

Listen, if religion works for you, then that's great. I have no problem with someone who finds happiness in religion. I don't believe that all Christians and other religious folk are zombies who reject intellectualism, bash gays, and start wars. Some people are truly happy and actually follow the most important message of the Bible... you know, the one about loving other people and being kind and charitable to fellow humankind.

Just don't... DON'T try to push your beliefs on me or anyone else, and especially not on your children. Let people think for themselves, and draw their own conclusions. And for the love of (insert deity), let's all just get along and coexist! There are wonderful and terrible people, and regardless of their beliefs, it is their character that determines what sort they are.

EDIT:
Heh, the content of that post was fairly off-topic.

At my current school, I frequently encounter people who are stubbonly opposed to evolution, and I am irritated at knowing that these same bastards got it removed from my high school curriculum. I'm not paying to attend university to be ignorant, and so I welcome the objective study of this science. Others are quite lazy and just don't want to do the work.

[Breaker]

Beldaran; you're criticizing others that believe the bible holds absolute truth, and yet, you share the exact same mentality. You're being a hypocrite. Get over it and move on.

How is pushing your beliefs on your children, or anyone for that matter, that a higher being doesn't exist any different than teaching them that it does? Athiests and Christians have a lot more in common than most probably care to realize.

[koopa]

I go to Baylor University, where a large majority of the students are evangelical conservative baptists. In other words they are primarily made up of racists, homophobes, and advocates of non-science (or some combination thereof)

If they deny any truth in science as such, that in my humble opinion doesn't exactly qualify them as a "university". Just two questions: 1) Why did they invite Professof Kroto at all if they don't agree with his statements? 2) What are you doing at that place (except probably getting pissed off at it) ?


How is pushing your beliefs on your children, or anyone for that matter, that a higher being doesn't exist any different than teaching them that it does? Athiests and Christians have a lot more in common than most probably care to realize.
Quoted for truth. I might add that I don't think much of parents who don't "force" any idea of right and wrong at all onto their children. I'm not saying atheist parents are principally worse than religious ones, but there's some concept of "right and wrong" that I believe is universal and that all parents should really teach their children.

[Daarkseid]

How is pushing your beliefs on your children, or anyone for that matter, that a higher being doesn't exist any different than teaching them that it does? Athiests and Christians have a lot more in common than most probably care to realize.

Within the context of our society, its not Atheist politicians being elected by idiotic dogmatic Atheist constituents.

This is where Beldaran's normally abrasive and vitriolic diatribes are most appreciated. He's railing against a very real and menacing presence in our system.

I should also point out that the situation Beldaran described was not him saying to a colleague "That speaker was a fundy douche, wasn't he?", but rather the opposite.

Until Atheists are successfully fielding militant candidates for public office, and trying to through force of law and authority, cramming the belief in no god down people's throats,

I refuse to accept the idea Atheists and Christians within the frame of American society today, have all that much in common. Christianity became politicized within the last few decades, resulting in a large organized interest group capable of wielding considerable influence on our government, and unlike Atheists, who can only rely on separation of church and state to keep from being persecuted, fundamentalist Christians are lobbying wherever the hell they can to sidestep the first amendment so as to force their narrower idea of the pursuit of happiness onto a great many people who don't share that narrow view, even fellow Christians of other denominations.

The only thing in common perhaps is the anger one side has towards the other, but Atheist anger never manifests itself in voter initiatives banning stem cell research or gay marriage.

[Beldaran]

Beldaran; you're criticizing others that believe the bible holds absolute truth, and yet, you share the exact same mentality. You're being a hypocrite. Get over it and move on.

Being skeptical and using reason to think for yourself is completely different than believing in magic without questioning it. This is a basic underlying principle of scientific thought. You don't need to call people names because you don't understand the foundation of the argument.



How is pushing your beliefs on your children, or anyone for that matter, that a higher being doesn't exist any different than teaching them that it does?

I would neaver teach a child that god doesn't exist. I would teach him to use his mind to decide what he thinks exist based on available evidence. Since there zero evidence for god, there is only one rational conclusion.


Athiests and Christians have a lot more in common than most probably care to realize.

Perhaps you should read a book before your talk. This is just a compeltely false statement and shows a grade school understanding the philosophical difference between atheism and religion.

[Dechipher]

I would neaver teach a child that god doesn't exist. I would teach him to use his mind to decide what he thinks exist based on available evidence. Since there zero evidence for god, there is only one rational conclusion.




The absence of evidence does not warrant total disbelief. Rather, it only warrants doubt. For something as big as Christianity, one must allow that there may be some merit based solely on the fact that it is so big (or even religion in general.) 10 Million Chinese can't be wrong about rice. It can't just be merely disregarded, but there is not enough evidence to warrant belief either.

[Beldaran]

The absence of evidence does not warrant total disbelief. Rather, it only warrants doubt. For something as big as Christianity, one must allow that there may be some merit based solely on the fact that it is so big (or even religion in general.) 10 Million Chinese can't be wrong about rice. It can't just be merely disregarded, but there is not enough evidence to warrant belief either.

Scientific fact is not a democracy. An idea does not carry more or less weight based on the number of deluded people who accept it as holy truth. Do you believe Thor is the god of thunder? Do you believe in Zues? I thought not. Just because hundreds of thousands of people believe in a magical wizard who created the universe does not give it any scientific merit whatsoever.

How can a billion people be wrong? Because people are fucking idiots that's how.

I don't believe that a magical unicorn named Steve created the earth. This does not require "faith" on my part. I don't believe it because it's a compeltely random, unsupported notion. Christianity is not disprovable, true... and that is part of it's lunacy. The number of non-disproval notions possible is infinite, and therefore Christianity has a mathematical probability that approaches zero.

[The_Amaster]

How can a billion people be wrong? Because people are fucking idiots that's how.
Anyone who's read my posts in "Evolution vs. Creationism" knows how I feel about this. Science is just a religion too, just one that explains itself with rational thought, and anything we may believe about science could, and likely will be proved wrong in the next day, week, year, decade, century, whatever.

How about the Big Bang? There's almost no rational explentaion for how that could have come about, yet almost all scientists accept it.


The number of non-disproval notions possible is infinite, and therefore Christianity has a mathematical probability that approaches zero.

Proof only works in math, and only as an abstraction. Even a landslide of evidence can't really prove anything, just make it very likely.

I'm not religious at all, but I don't really believe in science either. As of about three years ago, I'm just witholding judgement.

Oh, and at this point, shouldn't this be moved to "Think Tank"?

[phattonez]

Beldaran, I don't follow religion because it is the faith of my parents. I have my own reasons and personal experiences that led me to religion. What that professor said was unintelligent and outdated. The church is not out today to ruin religion. Do I need to point out the fact that previous popes have embraced science? The Big Bang, evolution, etc. Although it is not doctrine, these ideas are not shunned by the church. The church has changed from the mindset of the middle ages and is looking for truth, not for personal gain. It seems to me that science has completely abandoned relgion and is now claiming that religion is stupid. This is bigotry and I don't understand it. I have to give credit to Breaker for calling you out on this. How can you support someone who so blindly hates something?

[AtmaWeapon]

Logical debate on matters of faith is a fallacy. It is a basic fact of logic that should be covered early in any logic book.

A religion, informally, is
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe(source (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion))

I am going to avoid the word "scientist" to refer to those who place faith in science rather than religion, as in many cases the fanatical take this belief far enough they are willing to violate the principles of science to support their claims. I don't know what to call them but for now I'll just use the phrase "supporters of x theory".

By this definition, we see that science is itself a religion in which one must place faith. Science does insist upon finding provable and repeatable proof behind that which it believes, but in many cases it accepts evidence that is not necessarily as sound as others.

For example, the theories of creation of the universe in both Chrisitanity and the big bang theory are strikingly similar. For simplicity, I will use the term "creation" and its variants in both its creationism sense (spontaneous generation) and the evolutionary sense (existence of a new species through mutation). Both propose the universe was created from some fundamental pieces, and that only via a specific order of events could life be created. Both have a flaw in their logic that requires the believer to make a leap of faith.

For the creationist, one must believe in the existence of God. For the big bang supporter, one must resolve the origin of the matter that caused the big bang.

We have not found evidence to support or deny the existence of a diety. We have not found evidence to explain the origin of the initial matter that fueled the big bang. However, many people place their faith in these theories because, in their eyes, there is enough evidence to overpower the lack of logical, rational evidence.

I understand the fear of indoctrination that athiests hold; as a child I was strongly warned I would be subjected to athiest indoctrination while in college. But understand that science is not a subject that interests the common man to the degree it interests the scientist. Does it matter to my life if I think plants operate by magic or if I understand how the cellular respiration for plants is done? Is the origin of the universe useful to my quest for adequate income to sustain my life?

Please do not discredit all of Christianity because some are content with the knowledge man has already obtained. I am a Christian and I fully support the endeavors of science, even into fields that could possibly discredit my religion. For if I am wrong in my choice of faith, surely I would like to be informed. Keep in mind that many of the world's first scientists were monks. Also keep in mind that at the times when scientists were persecuted for ideas that radically threatened religious beliefs, the clergy held as much (if not more) power than the governments that ruled them.

The enemy is not any system of belief; the enemy is the lust for power that leads men to attack anything that shakes their views of life. The terrorist groups that attack us have very different views of Islamic faith than the majority of the Muslim world. The Westboro Baptist Church stands in favor of views that are radically perpendicular to Baptist doctrine. Galileo was not persecuted by the church alone, but also by defenders of Aristotle's geocentrism. I would be willing to support the idea that in all cases where a religious entity persecuted and crushed a scientific theory, the religious entity had at the very least equal authority to the government of the environment.

No religion is guiltless. In any environment where men gain power based on subscription to a belief, there will be harsh opposition to a new belief that threatens the position of those in power. You'd do well to examine the path you tread, Beldaran. Perhaps the man with the closed mind is you?

I'll close with an interesting observation by a brilliant man, Albert Einstein:

science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ...a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. He believed that science and religion were markedly different yet had complex relationships that were inseperable, and I believe this is the most enlightened stance to take on the whole "religion vs. religion" debate we see here.

[Modus Ponens]

All that stuff he said

But...but...

Okay, I agree with you. Religion in and of itself--belief in a higher power, or what will happen after death, or who resurrected whom--is not the problem, and surely Kroto knew that and would acknowledge it. It's people of any persuasion that ignore evidence that stands in the way of progress. I'm sure we can all agree on that?

[Beldaran]

If you are religious, you believe in magic. This precludes you from being a scientist and means your mind is damaged.

Science is not a religion, science and religion are completely incompatible, and people who are religious are suffering from a degenerative self replicating mental virus.

I don't hate religion with a personal prejudice. I feel about religion the way a doctor feels about typhoid fever or malaria. It is a disorder of the mind and I don't like the symptoms it causes society to exhibit, namely intolerance and technological backwardsness.

You are entitled to think whatever you like, but you are not entitled to believe in magical wizards and ancient prophecies and pretend you are a scientist. You forfeit the right to any stance of intellectual legitimacy. You will never be a rational person as long as you believe in magic and any attempt to convince yourself or others is just a symptom of the virus you carry.

[phattonez]

Religion is not magic. How can you call this a disease? How can you say that you are not a bigot when you are calling religious people sick?

Hypocrite, bigot, ignorant, and I don't know what else I can use.

[The_Amaster]

Now now boys, let's not call names. I agree that the guy at your collage was out of line, but you're just at the opposite extreme.

And now, in accordance with my role as the Devil's advocate, I must ask...

Fine, if science isn't a religion, but based on solid evidence, show me how the big bang came about. For that matter, I'm very interested in the origin of life. No theories, now, I want solid scientific proof.

[AtmaWeapon]

If you are religious, you believe in magic. This precludes you from being a scientist and means your mind is damaged.

Science is not a religion, science and religion are completely incompatible, and people who are religious are suffering from a degenerative self replicating mental virus.

I don't hate religion with a personal prejudice. I feel about religion the way a doctor feels about typhoid fever or malaria. It is a disorder of the mind and I don't like the symptoms it causes society to exhibit, namely intolerance and technological backwardsness.

You are entitled to think whatever you like, but you are not entitled to believe in magical wizards and ancient prophecies and pretend you are a scientist. You forfeit the right to any stance of intellectual legitimacy. You will never be a rational person as long as you believe in magic and any attempt to convince yourself or others is just a symptom of the virus you carry.OK good then in my view you are defective and not likely to change.

I was going to pull out phenomenon which science accepts but cannot explain such as gravity, but honestly there's a fundamental difference between what I turn to science to explain and what I turn to religion to explain.

SCIENCEhttp://www.atmaweapon.org/images/emot/science.gif
Let's take ghosts for a fun example that the knee-jerk debater will have a presupposition of my opinion on. "Ghosts are demons or angels and the result of witchcraft"... maybe some Christians believe that but honestly I don't think it's a phenomenon that we should look to religion to solve for us. There's notable research to indicate several natural phenomenon, such as infrasound and heightened electromagnetic activity, that tends to trigger the perception of ghosts in people. There's lots of research to indicate that the brain transmits waves (I'm going to call them brainwaves even though that's really b-movie and I imagine there's probably a scientific term for it) and though I can't seem to quickly locate a source I'm certain I've heard of experiments that seem to suggest individuals in close proximity tend to have brainwaves "in tune" with each other, which suggests the brain can perhaps receive and interact with certain types of wave energy.

Despite all the research into fun science things, there is no proven scientific explanation for ghosts today. Perhaps they are demons and angels. Even if they are, they interact with our physical world and thus there should be a way to detect the presence of a ghost. If the phenomenon is studied enough, perhaps we could create an environment where we could repeatably create a ghost and at this time we will be able to do away with the ghost myths.

I believe there is no reason to say "God made ghosts" and halt research into them entirely. I do believe it's possible they represent some link to the afterlife and therefore too much probing could be dangerous, but I don't think it's probable. Science is clear in its opinion of the afterlife. My doctrine is clear that the afterlife is inaccessible to the living and vice versa. For thousands of years people have reported the existence of ghosts, and it'd be nice if we could have a special on the discovery channel where in several locations they are able to create a phenomenon that looks like a ghost and displays some of the supernatural characteristics that have been reported of them.

Of course, I'm not going to do the research, I'm content to chalk ghosts up to "unknown phenomenon, possibly supernatural in origin" and let scientists that are actually interested in devoting their lives to that study do the hard work. (Actually as of now "supernatural" is appropriate for ghosts since we have no laws in place that explain the phenomenon, but I'm sure you understand I mean it in the "spiritual or magical" sense.)

My point here is that ghosts are an obviously natural phenomenon, and attempting to attribute them to God simply because science has not found the appropriate way to measure them yet is kind of silly. One day someone will make a breakthrough and we will understand them.

Religion
Every day things happen to people. People get sick, people die, people are healed, people have accidents, people have good fortune. Every event in the universe is tied to other events in a complex way (butterfly effect lol). While I don't necessarily subscribe fully to the butterfly effect, I do believe that the universe is deterministic. If you were to capture all of the events of the universe from the start to a particular moment, then start a new universe and make exactly the same decisions, I feel like you'd end up with a universe in the exact same state.

However, noting the state of every event that affects another event is an intractable problem. Suppose I flip a coin. The outcome is affected by the initial velocity of the coin, its mass, its center of mass, the presence of wind, my distance from the center of the Earth, the air pressure, whether it encounters any airborne particles such as dust, and numerous other variables. These variables are all influenced by further variables; eventually we can expand the problem to that of the interaction between billions of particles over the course of a nearly infinite number of decisions.

Because the ability to predict the outcome of an event is so difficult, humans developed the concept of fate to explain why certain events happen. I attribute fate to God because of my religion. A 'scientist' by your definition attributes fate to the inevitable outcome of every event that preceded the event under observation.

I hate the word 'never' based on how many times something that a famous man stated would never happen has been surpassed in my field of science, but I would be willing to put forth the statement that science will never be able to reliably predict the fate of a human. Such matters are the realm of religion and 'magic', which presumably has as much capability to influence fate as does science.

Beldaran, the biggest bigot in this discussion at the moment is you. You put forth the claim that even someone who embraces and encourages scientific study is flawed for attributing fate to the supernatural. You value the concept that people should be able to determine their beliefs free of persecution or threat of force. Yet you simultaneously believe that if someone doesn't believe what you believe, they are wrong and not worthy of being equal.

You, sir, have a mind closed far tighter than this Southern Baptist.

[Dechipher]

Oh, and at this point, shouldn't this be moved to "Think Tank"?

I knew someone would say this, and I think that's a terrible decision. This topic is generating discussion. Putting it in Think Tank would only take it away from the mainstream posters eye (GD) and slowly the conversation would deteriorate.




Scientific fact is not a democracy. An idea does not carry more or less weight based on the number of deluded people who accept it as holy truth. Do you believe Thor is the god of thunder? Do you believe in Zues? I thought not. Just because hundreds of thousands of people believe in a magical wizard who created the universe does not give it any scientific merit whatsoever.

How can a billion people be wrong? Because people are fucking idiots that's how.

I don't believe that a magical unicorn named Steve created the earth. This does not require "faith" on my part. I don't believe it because it's a compeltely random, unsupported notion. Christianity is not disprovable, true... and that is part of it's lunacy. The number of non-disproval notions possible is infinite, and therefore Christianity has a mathematical probability that approaches zero.

The fact that so many people believe in a higher beings lends more weight to it and special consideration should be taken into account. I'm not necessarily referring to biblical events and the like (especially the old Testament. Any book as old as the Bible has to be extraordinarily inaccurate.) However, I am merely referencing the existence of a higher being. When so many people 'feel' the presence of something, regardless of whether it is what they think it is or not, you must lend that some credibility. Without ever experiencing that yourself you can't downplay it, because that's incredibly narrow-minded.

You are arguing against specific beliefs of religion, namely Christianity, rather than the idea of a higher being. This is why I feel that atheism is flawed. No matter how hard you try, you can never prove that a higher being does not exist. There is absolutely nothing you can do to prove that. Therefore no intelligent, thinking person can say "There is no God" and have any credibility. You can believe that all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Just like with religion.

[Beldaran]

Decipher: Even more people "feel" that luck is a completely real entity that has specialized behavior and they put stock in how "lucky" they feel. Probability models have shown luck to be nothing but a construct of ignorant minds. God is no different.

People tend to behave irrationally. You are arguing that if enough people exhibit the same irrational behavior, then it is legitimate and has factual basis. This is INSANE.

[Dechipher]

I don't believe legitimacy was part of my response. I just said, you can't blithely disregard people's feelings, stating that they are complete morons. People don't "feel" about luck, they think about it. I may think that this brings me luck or that does. I don't have feelings about it, or emotionally respond to it anymore than I would any other facet of my life. However, with religion people do feel so much more, which is part of the problem. They go off how they feel and that leads to friction and all that good stuff. You can't just blindly write off any religious person as a complete moron.

That kid you spoke of in your first post is just as narrow-minded as you are.

[phattonez]

Decipher: Even more people "feel" that luck is a completely real entity that has specialized behavior and they put stock in how "lucky" they feel. Probability models have shown luck to be nothing but a construct of ignorant minds. God is no different.

People tend to behave irrationally. You are arguing that if enough people exhibit the same irrational behavior, then it is legitimate and has factual basis. This is INSANE.

Then why does the scientific community believe in global warming? It cannot be proved, they believe that it is fact through general consensus.

Also, since science tends to believe in the rational and explainable, then why does it believe in paradoxes, which is neither rational nor explainable.

[The_Amaster]

Then why does the scientific community believe in global warming? It cannot be proved, they believe that it is fact through general consensus.
That may not be your best example, cause we may soon be able to prove global warming. I still stand by the Big Bang and the origin of life.

[Glenn the Great]

I just said, you can't blithely disregard people's feelings, stating that they are complete morons. People don't "feel" about luck, they think about it.


In the world of scientific and objective thought, "feelings" have no place. Only experimental observation is meaningful. Many people have far too much confidence in the human mind.

[phattonez]

^^^Yet science does not completely understand it.

[The_Amaster]

One scientific theory says that it's impossible for anything to understand how itself works, i.e the human brain can never understand itself.


To quote one of my favorite authors: "There is one theory stating that if people ever actually figure out the meaning of life and how everything works, it will instantly dissapear, and be replaced by somthing infinitly more bizzare.

There is another theory stating this has already happened."

[phattonez]

^^^What's your point?

[Saffith]

Geez, I'm away for a couple of days, and I miss out on all of this?
I'm gonna pick and choose a few things to respond to. I haven't got all day here.


How about the Big Bang? There's almost no rational explentaion for how that could have come about, yet almost all scientists accept it.It was the result of a quantum fluctuation. They happen all the time. This one happened to be an extremely large one with a total energy of 0 (due to the negative potential energy resulting from gravity).
Such a thing is extremely unlikely, but, y'know, give these things enough chances...


Then why does the scientific community believe in global warming? It cannot be proved, they believe that it is fact through general consensus.Are you a climatologist? How many years have you spent in school studying the workings of the weather?
Do you really think the people who devote their lives to this stuff don't have good reasons for thinking what they do?
Gravity hasn't been proven, either, you know. Science doesn't do proof.


You are arguing against specific beliefs of religion, namely Christianity, rather than the idea of a higher being. This is why I feel that atheism is flawed. No matter how hard you try, you can never prove that a higher being does not exist. There is absolutely nothing you can do to prove that. Therefore no intelligent, thinking person can say "There is no God" and have any credibility. You can believe that all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Just like with religion.Do you think the same thing of people who don't believe unicorns exist?
Most atheists I know, myself included, acknowledge there's a nonzero chance that some sort of God exists. But I see no more evidence of any such thing being out there than of Cloris Leachman secretly plotting to kill the Pope. There's some amount of faith involved in believing she's not, but it's so little that it seems foolish the give the idea any credence at all.

[Beldaran]

AGN would be so boring without my inflammitory and uncompromising rants.

[AtmaWeapon]

I guess you saw through my plan to point out none of my points were really addressed by anything but an ad hominem attack thus outing you as a troll. :mad:

[Beldaran]

The bottom line, Atma, is that you believe in magical faries and wizards and so forgive me if I don't take your arguments seriously.

If you can convince me that your magical beings are real, then I'll hear you out, but until then you can just forward your lengthy attempts at showing how being a non-insane person is "close minded" to the flying spaghetti monster.

[phattonez]

Gravity hasn't been proven, either, you know. Science doesn't do proof.

Then why am I being told that I need to prove that God exists?

[Beldaran]

Then why am I being told that I need to prove that God exists?

The theory of gravity may not have a formal proof, but it is based on an insanely huge pile of observable evidence. You don't understand science. A theory can be disproven at any moment if it is ever observed to contradict reality. However, accepted theories have been tested thousands upon thousands of times under strict observation of highly trained scientists.

Not only can you not prove a god exists, you can't even provide one single instance of observable, testable evidence.

[Dechipher]

Not only can you not prove a god exists, you can't even provide one single instance of observable, testable evidence.
You can't argue religion on scientific terms because they are two separate concepts. You have to argue religion on religious terms.

[shadowboxer2007]

Far be it for me to say everyone here is a moron. Christians or the worst of them all. Don't even get me started on others. If you really beleave in something beleave in it. Don't try to thow it down on people. Any group that whats money is a rip off. Why do you really need them to help you? Can't you even read on your own. understaining it is easy. The USA is the beast that it speacks of. We have forurced our selfs on soo maey others it an't funny. So keep this fight going you will just make it a lot worst try to prove you points. I bet 99% of you are port of a group that thinks one thing and thats it. No one here is really thinking 100% on there own. You where told it at one time or other. The thing is it got stuck in there so now you call it you own! this kind of thing sould never even come up. beleave what you will keep others out of it. unless they ask ya.

[redmage777]

So, Athists have persecuted the church in communist countries for years now, and will very likely continue to do so. I blame human nature more so then religion, or lack there of. I beleve in both Christ and Science, and don't see how they are incompatable apart for from people on both sides of the argument wanting them to be.

[Beldaran]

You can't argue religion on scientific terms because they are two separate concepts. You have to argue religion on religious terms.

Oh I completely agree. Unfortunately for religion, scientific terms are the only terms under which anything can be rational. Anything non-scientific is nonsense. A belief in god is as precisely reasonable as a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Believing in "god" is absolutely no different from beleiving in ghosts, voodoo, luck, Zeus, Thor, or imaginary friends. People who believe these ideas have a damaged rational faculty. Worse, the condition is designed to spread itself from host to host. Religious people feel cosmically driven to infect others with their crippled logic and world of magic and fairy tales.

And atheistic communist oppression was guilty of the same evil as religion, because they merely supplanted "the state" for "god". It was the same self-sacrificing delusion under which individuals were expected to surrender their intellect and will to a higher concept which is completely bogus. The communists believed in god just like you do, and their god was the empire.

[The_Amaster]

Anything non-scientific is nonsense

Interesting....

I love my parents, however love can't be proven or tested by science, so my love of my family is nonsense. Huh, interesting.

[Beldaran]

Interesting....

I love my parents, however love can't be proven or tested by science, so my love of my family is nonsense. Huh, interesting.

Your love for your family can be explained in terms of the sciences of psychology, genetics, and biology.

Now if your family was invisible and you believed they created the universe, then yes your love would be nonsense.

[Dechipher]

Oh I completely agree. Unfortunately for religion, scientific terms are the only terms under which anything can be rational. Anything non-scientific is nonsense. A belief in god is as precisely reasonable as a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Believing in "god" is absolutely no different from beleiving in ghosts, voodoo, luck, Zeus, Thor, or imaginary friends. People who believe these ideas have a damaged rational faculty. Worse, the condition is designed to spread itself from host to host. Religious people feel cosmically driven to infect others with their crippled logic and world of magic and fairy tales.

And atheistic communist oppression was guilty of the same evil as religion, because they merely supplanted "the state" for "god". It was the same self-sacrificing delusion under which individuals were expected to surrender their intellect and will to a higher concept which is completely bogus. The communists believed in god just like you do, and their god was the empire.
I was pretty much drunk when I wrote that, but I'm glad you agree :D

My point is merely that just because people do put some faith into religion doesn't automatically exclude them from having any kind of intelligence whatsoever, which from your posts you appear to believe. I personally don't believe anything. Religion is too big of a thing for me to just say "No. That's totally wrong." But I certainly can't say it's right either.

[phattonez]

The problem here is with someone's beliefs. Beldaran thinks that he is right, and I think I am right. It is the only thing that makes sense, so that is all we can see. The only difference though is that I am not mocking science (because I believe that science and religion can come together), but Beldaran is calling me a fool for what I believe.

[Beldaran]

Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo all believed in a God. It doesn't make you un-intelligent. It doesn't corrupt your ability to reason through problems in front of you.

However, they believed in God because they lived in a culture where Religion had a stranglehold on all thought. They made the discoveries in spite of the religion that surrounded them, and never because of it.

An otherwise rational person can believe in god, but that doesn't make a belief in god a rational act. I used to believe in god. I was raised a devort, Jesus loving christian. And you know what? I could still do my math homework without drooling and clawing at my eyes.

The danger in belief lies in the absence of doubt. It trains your mind to accept profound ideas without questioning their legitimacy. And much much worse, it can inspire horrible, irrational behavior that no sane person would engage in.

There may in fact be a god. Jesus may be exactly what he said he was. Any number of amazing and unbelievable things may be true. But to accept their truth without evidence is a dangeroud act of mysticism and irrationality.

Until the day when we can scientifically verify the answers to the great unanswered questions in the universe, any unfounded belief is little more than a tribal mysticism that an enlightened soceity should work to eliminate through education, argument, and example.

[The_Amaster]

explained in terms of the sciences of psychology, genetics, and biology.

Interesting. You define psychology as science? But it goes against what you define science as. Psychology is almost impossible to test, and nothing it ever states is certain. It's a very unprovable field.

[phattonez]

I have reasons for what I believe. It is not a completely blind faith. Through personal experiences and my own reasoning, I have led myself to believe that there must be a God. I can understand your frustration with religion. The church of old was against anything new, but now it has changed and has started to embrace the beliefs of others. It no longer has the stance of only one way to God. It embraces Judaism, Buddhism, and has started to allow scientific evidence that challenges teachings in the Bible.

It seems to me that you were raised up in the wrong kind of religion and that it did not allow you free thought. I would just ask you to look at the Church today and see how it has changed.

[The_Amaster]

but now it has changed and has started to embrace the beliefs of others. It no longer has the stance of only one way to God. It embraces Judaism, Buddhism, and has started to allow scientific evidence that challenges teachings in the Bible.

Yeah, that's my one big beef with Relig-fanatic homophobes who say "Oh, the Bible says that homosexuality is evil. Ohhhh". I mean, the Bible also said that men were far superior to women, and that misbehaving children were to be dealt with in the strictist of manners. The Bible was a document of philosophy for the people of the time, and it was written for people of that time. It has lost some of it's revelance because the world has changed.

[phattonez]

^^^And we have to remember that it is fallible. Even if it was inspired by God, the people who chose what books to be in the Bible were human.

[Glenn the Great]

Interesting. You define psychology as science? But it goes against what you define science as. Psychology is almost impossible to test, and nothing it ever states is certain. It's a very unprovable field.

Um... no.

A few days ago I finished a college Psych course, and I can tell you it is definitely a scientific field of study.

The field is full of experiments. Experiments involving observation of behavior, as well as the whole chemical aspect that goes along with it.

Nothing science ever states is certain. Science isn't a field where you "prove" things. Anything we regard as truth is susceptible to being stuck down in one blow by a disproof delivered by new information.

[The_Amaster]

Eh, I have to concede, I've never studied psychology outside of a casual enviorment. (Not for lack of want. Dang my schools 8 credit limit)


Even if it was inspired by God, the people who chose what books to be in the Bible were human.
Yeah, heck, not even that, it was written in the first place by man.

[Beldaran]

but Beldaran is calling me a fool for what I believe.

I don't think you are a fool. I think you are infected with a form of contagious insanity that causes you to believe in magic. I used to be infected too.

If believing in a magic wizard who created the universe and then commited suicide to prevent you from going to a never ending dimensionof ultimate torture makes you feel like a fool, then that is something you need to deal with, not me.

[The_Amaster]

If believing that somehow, with the millions of possible permutations somehow some chemicals came together and formed somthing called DNA, and then, against the odds that DNA somehow generated a container around it, and little organelles inside it, and that those cells were somehow able to group together, and actually recognize each other and specialize, and that somehow all the complexity of the human body could come about by a strand consisting of the same four chemicals over and over again, and that somehow those cells could become concious of theselves, if that makes you look like a fool,
then that is something you need to deal with, not me.

[phattonez]

Both ideas have flaws, one is imossible to prove (and extremely unlikely that it happened), and the other takes a considerable amount of faith.

My belief is supposedly foolish because it does not agree with Beldaran's conclusion.

[Breaker]

Whether or not you believe in God or the Big Bang is a personal belief. It's not something that you need to argue on the internet or convert other people to your idea of what's right, and it sure as hell doesn't make you who you are.

For example, I'm an athiest, but I've met many christians that are far more respectable, enjoyable, and tolerable to be around than Beldaran here. Regardless if he believes in a god or the big bang, he'll still be a douchebag. And from some of the statements he's made in this thread it sounds like he has much larger issues to work out with himself besides religion.

So why argue with him? Besides, he's just bullshitting you guys into a senseless straw man debate. It's getting sad to read through.

[Glenn the Great]

W
For example, I'm an athiest, but I've met many christians that are far more respectable, enjoyable, and tolerable to be around than Beldaran here. Regardless if Beldaran believes in a god or the big bang, he'll still be a douchebag. Why argue with him?

For what it's worth, Beldaran is a lot more of all of these than you are. :shrug:

[The_Amaster]

It's not something that you need to argue on the internet or convert other people over to, and it sure as hell doesn't make you who you are.
I don't know about other people, but I never came into this to try to convince anyone, because I know it would be impossible. I came to debate simply for the sake of it.

Beldaran, Religious fanatic crazy people who are all the way at the end of the spectrum are wrong, but so are the science fanatic people at the other end. It's all about a happy medium.

[Beldaran]

Beldaran, Religious fanatic crazy people who are all the way at the end of the spectrum are wrong, but so are the science fanatic people at the other end. It's all about a happy medium.

We use our brains to reach logical conclusions. Religious people make things up and believe in magic. We are right, they are completely wrong and deserve no intellectual respect.


Breaker, flaming me will not change the fact that I'm completely correct and that your inability to see this means that you have compromised yourself intellectually. Scientists should try to convince people that scientific reasoning is correct, because the proliferation of non-scientific thought leads to disease, strife, war, idiocy, and suffering.

I think the reason you feel the need to flagrantly disregard rules and flame me (despite the fact that I am banned any time I am even remotely hurt your feelings), is because you are not mature enough intellectually to consider facts outside of your personal and irrational bias.

Amaster: If you think evolutionary biology is something that requires faith then your educators have failed you. Science has shown time and time again that just because something is unlikely, or surprising, does not mean it does not happen. I fail to see how a belief in wizards and magic is superior to a rational understanding of protein interaction. They are not equivalent. A scientific viewpoint is completely superior to a mystical one.

As far as me being a douchebag:

"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you. If you really make them think they'll hate you." --Donald Robert Perry, Marquis

[phattonez]

Scientists should try to convince people that scientific reasoning is correct, because the proliferation of non-scientific thought leads to disease, strife, war, idiocy, and suffering.

Ethnic Cleansing?

[Beldaran]

I don't follow...

[The_Amaster]

just because something is unlikely, or surprising, does not mean it does not happen

Interesting. But you can't accept the suprising and unlikely possibility that there's some kind of higher power out there.

Altough for all I know, maybe my education has failed me. Certainly in biology we covered just enough of molecular biology to make me wonder at the odds of it, but not enough to explain the rationale behind it. I think my education is less than half of what I'd like.

I don't know what to think.

[Beldaran]

Interesting. But you can't accept the suprising and unlikely possibility that there's some kind of higher power out there.


I accept surprising and unlikely results of scientific analysis. I don't accet surprising or unlikely results of delusional imagination.

[gdorf]

If you are religious, you believe in magic. This precludes you from being a scientist and means your mind is damaged.

Science is not a religion, science and religion are completely incompatible, and people who are religious are suffering from a degenerative self replicating mental virus.

You are taking too much of an absolutist stance on the issue. Obviously, many of the worlds greatest scientists have followed one form of religion or another. They have functioned well because religion and science don't have to butt heads. Who cares what beliefs one cares to subscribe to about things outside the realm of science? Science is, after all, just a list of rules created by man to explore natural phenomenon. By Golly, it works well, but that doesn't mean it works well for everything. How can you expect a man-made set of rules to EVER be able to validate a supernatural phenomenon. Just leave it well enough alone or enjoy the thrill of exploring something outside your comfort zone.

I understand Agnostics, but self-proclaimed Atheists amaze me. Having the balls to dismiss the notion of any deity existing seems absurd and arrogant. :shrug:


Well, I did it. I had the vasectomy. It feels like I've been repeatedly kicked in the balls. I'm just laying around all weekend reading and recouperating.

So, onwards to the future! No kids! =D

I honestly take some solice in the fact that you had such a procedure. :shrug:

[Beldaran]

Raising children with religious beliefs is child abuse. The biggest reason I have for not wanting children is I don't want to bring any more human beings into this world to live amongst the disgusting stupidity of religion that dominates every culture on this planet.

So while you're relieved that I won't be raising any children that you or your kids might have to interact with, I'm relieved that I won't be condemning any human beings to have to learn to interact with religious people.

[Breaker]

lol, just because you call yourself an intellectual doesn't make you any less of an idiot.

I'm not intellectually mature? Haha... Sorry, but I have an awesome job and a pretty good life outside of the internet. It's that I don't find you intellectually stimulating enough to carry on a debate with, least of all Glenn who lives with his parents and collects disability.

Forgive me for not putting very much stock in the opinions of either of you narcistic hypocrites.

[Beldaran]

lol, just because you call yourself an intellectual doesn't make you any less of an idiot.

I completely agree with you. That's why I'm not afraid to point out that "intellectuals" who respect or adhere to religious thinking are idiots.



Forgive me for not putting very much stock in the opinions of either of you narcistic hypocrites.

I don't have to forgive you. I'm not offended by your lack of clarity or depth.


I have an awesome job and a pretty good life outside of the internet..

Well, I'm happy that you managed not to become a homeless bum. Despite that amazing achievement, I hardly think that throws anything I've said into any sort of doubt. Congratulations though on managing to do what just about everyone else does too. You must feel like a real winner.

[phattonez]

I don't follow...

If you're using the argument that religion starts wars, then you also have to admit that science has done the same. The reason behind ethnic cleansing is darwinism. If they can't defend themselves then they deserve to be killed . . . acc. to that belief.

[The_Amaster]

*sigh* Why can't these debates ever stay civil...

*Stares out the window and dreams of a world in which both science and religion just shut up about each other and resolve to hold their peace*

[Beldaran]

If you're using the argument that religion starts wars, then you also have to admit that science has done the same. The reason behind ethnic cleansing is darwinism. If they can't defend themselves then they deserve to be killed . . . acc. to that belief.

This is a such a bad argument it almost doesn't deserve to be responded to.

Almost.

I agree that darwinism has caused wars. Darwinism also causes lions to eat gazelle. It causes bacteria to infect humans. It causes people to have sex.

Science, however, does not cause darwinism. Science discovered that darwinism is what drives these behaviors.

Science is an analytical tool, not a force of nature.

And the vast, vast, majority of ethnic cleansing that occurs is perpetrated by religious groups. The Nazi's rationale for ethnic cleansing was based on the worst kind of pseudo science you can imagine.

The idea that a religious person would blame science for ethnic cleansing is ridiculous. Read the old testament. 1000 pages of ethnic cleansing because "god said so".

[phattonez]

I thought I already told you about the Old Testament. I guess I have to repeat it: written by man, selected by man, fallible.

The Nazis were religious? They believed in science. Stalin followed science. All other recent genocidal maniacs follow science. They have used Darwin's findings as rationale for their actions. How can you say that science is not responsible? Well that's easy.

Science and religion are not the true cause of war. People want power, people are racist. If you blame religion, you must blame science. If you don't blame science, then you can't blame religion.

[Beldaran]

You are unable to distinguish between science, and pseudo-science. Not everything that says "SCIENCE!" on the bottle is actually science. Millions of people think they are being scientific because they come up with some floozy opinion and then attach some numbers to it and use some big words.

Science is a careful process of analytical thinking based on observable phenomena and the use of reason to make conclusions. If you think careful analysis of data and the formation of logical conclusions is what drives genocidal maniacs, then you are outrageously deluded.

I'm done arguing this. The responses are getting increasingly baffling and I no longer care to try and share my love of rational thought with a group of people who, for the most part, have already embraced mystical fantasy as their modus operandi.

Not one of you can provide one single scrap of scientific evidence to support your irrational faith in an invisible magical superhero. Anything you say absent this evidence is just a further waste of my time. If you decide to embrace reason, you will do so on your own. There are a lot of interesting books out there by renowned atheists far more qualified than me who can address your questions and set you back on the path to thinking correctly. It's not my job and I'm not going to spend any more time on it.

[The_Amaster]

And with that he threw away the key to his closed mind....

I don't believe in some magic fantasy, I just don't think you should be so, I don't know, bigoted, rude, close-minded. Those adjectives seem to do a good job.


(PS: Heres a tip. If you want to try and convince someone, don't call them or their beliefs stupid. It doesn't work)

[phattonez]

Bel, just so you know, the people who used religion to start wars as much misinterpreted the scripture and doctrine as much as the genocidal maniacs misinterpreted scientific data.

[redmage777]

Lets say I am a wizard... I do preform magic, but I can not or will not preform it for the mere sake of proving that I can. Does that mean that I am an idiot for beleiving in it? No, I would be an idiot for NOT beleiving in it when I myself have taken part in it. Would you be a idiot for beleiving that I'm full of crap? No, its prety far-fetched and unproven and therefore very a reasonable conclusion for you to come to.

It the same with Christ, some people can hear about it, even go to church all their lives and never get it... Those who do get can not prove scientifically that what they have is real, but it is real to them.

Please refrain from calling those who disagree with you Idiots, It not really a question of intelegence so much as a question of perception. Nobody is stupid for beleiving what they do, and its not like you make you point any more real by calling those who disagree with it stupid.

[Starkist]

Look at it this way: In the "morality" of science Adolf Hitler was a great man for what he did. He washed away the undesirables of society and tried to use scientific research to improve the species.

It is from religion that comes the idea that all people are intrinsically valuable, not science.

[AtmaWeapon]

Regardless if he believes in a god or the big bang, he'll still be a douchebag. And from some of the statements he's made in this thread it sounds like he has much larger issues to work out with himself besides religion.

So why argue with him? Besides, he's just bullshitting you guys into a senseless straw man debate. It's getting sad to read through.Quote dis if u are down

*edit*

Also since I'm tired of fighting with logic and having fallacies thrown at me it's time for some ad hominem

Not one of you can provide one single scrap of scientific evidence to refute my irrational faith in an invisible magical superhero. Anything you say to present this evidence is just a further waste of my time. If you decide to embrace Jesus, you will do so on your own. There are a lot of interesting books out there by renowned Christians far more qualified than me who can address your questions and set you back on the path to thinking correctly. It's not my job and I'm not going to spend any more time on it.

[Beldaran]

Ok I have to keep replying since Starkist just said something so blatantly false and stupid that I can't believe it.


Look at it this way: In the "morality" of science Adolf Hitler was a great man for what he did. He washed away the undesirables of society and tried to use scientific research to improve the species.

This is hillarious on your part, because Hitler did EXACTLY what Christians do... which is make up random unprovable shit and use it to control people. Last I checked, the Theory of Jewish Undesirables was not published in the Journal of Nature. It is a load of psuedo-science created to control people and fulfill the deluded fantasies of a madman. You need to learn the difference between rational science and psuedo science.



It is from religion that comes the idea that all people are intrinsically valuable

I submit to you the countless instances of God ordering mass genocide in the old testament. I submit to you the crusades. I submit to you the inquisition. It is from religion that comes the idea the mind is not to be trusted and that men should sacrifice themselves for an invisible magic being that at any moment could throw them into eternal suffering.

It is from science that comes the idea that we should use reason and cooperation to learn the truth about the world around us, and use that truth to improve our lives.


And as for you Atma, I'm going to use your own [lack of] logic against you.




Not one of you can provide one single scrap of scientific evidence to refute my irrational faith in an invisible magical superhero.

You can say that about ANYTHING. There is precisely the exact same amount of evidence for your god as there is for the flying spaghetti monster. The burden of proof is on you to support your claim. Scientists don't have to go rushing about trying to disprove any insane wad of nonsense that magic worshippers throw out there.

As it stands, your entire life is based on a claim with the intellectual integrity equal to that of the flying spaghetti monster. Congratulations.

[phattonez]

I submit to you the countless instances of God ordering mass genocide in the old testament. I submit to you the crusades. I submit to you the inquisition. It is from religion that comes the idea the mind is not to be trusted and that men should sacrifice themselves for an invisible magic being that at any moment could throw them into eternal suffering.

I don't remember God ordering the Crusades or the Inquisition.

[Beldaran]

I don't remember God ordering the Crusades or the Inquisition.

I don't remember god existing. My concern is with religious people. They are the problem, not the imaginary god they believe in.

[phattonez]

Then the problems that you mentioned are with the people who interpreted religion, not with God. You cannot judge a community by its worst members. Actually, those people should not even be in the community. They are like the communist politicians in a democratic government.

"It is from religion that comes the idea the mind is not to be trusted and that men should sacrifice themselves for an invisible magic being that at any moment could throw them into eternal suffering." - Beldaran.
It is not ridiculous that you should be sacrafice yourself for the person who created you. It still seems to me that you have the idea of a vengeful God and I blame the people who raised you (not necessarily your parents) for giving you this false image. God does not want to throw people into hell, in fact, I don't completely understand the concept of heaven and hell. I don't know how they work, but it really doesn't matter to me. All that matters is my relationship with God.

Could I ask, what turned you away from God?

[Beldaran]

Could I ask, what turned you away from God?

I stopped believing in god when I realized there is no reason to believe in magic invisible people that control the universe.

There is zero evidence for god. None. The possibilities for why the universe exists and how it came to be are infinite. To arbitrarily choose one and decide it is true without evidence is the most irrational thing I can imagine.

I suppose all of us could keep arguing back and forth about various points of historical interest, but the bottom line is this:

You hold an idea to be true. You have no evidence to support this idea. An infinite number of ridiculous notions are equally likely to be true. You believe in invisible magical beings that control the universe.

I urge you to reread that paragraph and consider that I am not the one who is operating under a flawed set of assumptions.

[The_Amaster]

If you're allowed to judge religion based on the members who mis-interpereted it and intistuted the Inquisition and the Crusades, then we're allowed to judge science based on the members who mis-interpereted it and used "pseudo-science" for their own agenda.

[phattonez]

I urge you to reread that paragraph and consider that I am not the one who is operating under a flawed set of assumptions.
So you are operating a set of assumptions?

What makes evolution and the big bang more likely than creation? Life out of nothing? I thought that sponatneous generation was diproved by Pasteur. So then how can science claim that it came out of nothing? It is nearly impossible. Why does creation seem so crazy when you take into consideration the faith that it takes to believe that the big bang happened?

[Beldaran]

we're allowed to judge science based on the members who mis-interpereted it and used "pseudo-science" for their own agenda.

No you are not allowed to judge science based on idiots who make things up, since that is the exact opposite of what science is.

However, feel free to judge religion based on idiots who make things up, because that is exactly what religion is.

EDIT: replying to phat


So you are operating a set of assumptions?

Yes. I operate under the assumption that reason is superior to mysticism as a means of acquiring and analyzing information.



What makes evolution more likely than creation?

50 years of observational data and detailed genetic analysis by brilliant and highly educated researchers as opposed to a ridiculous story made up by people who believed the sun was controlled by magic.




What makes the big bang more likely than creation?

The big bang has a great deal of mathematics and cosmological physics supporting it. However, scientists don't "believe" in the big bang. They accept as a likely model for a universe producing mechanism. That said, it is only a mechanism and does not disprove the notion of a creative impetus. (nor does it support such a conclusion, however).



Life out of nothing? I thought that sponatneous generation was diproved by Pasteur. So then how can science claim that it came out of nothing?

Pasteurs research deals with non-visible organisms, and not with cosmology so it doesn't apply at all. However, the idea of the universe being created out of nothing is not what scientists are advocating. Unlike religious people, science doesn't make wild claims about things it knows nothing about. We don't know where the universe came from, what created it, if it was even created at all. You are assuming, quite narrow mindedly, that time is linear and that everything happens in a nice and neat 4 dimensional way. This is, in all likelilhood not the case at all. Higher dimensions, non-linear time models... all of these and even more unfathomable ideas are support by different branches of mathematics and theoretical physics. We have very limited minds in comparison with what may ultimately turn out to be the true nature of the universe. The important thing is to stay rational, focused, and not formulate simplistic conclusions just because we don't know something.

Science is very hard on itself. Scientists basically do nothing except sit around trying to disprove everything they know. It is a rigorous discipline in which every piece of knowledge is painstakingly crafted out of physical experiment and/or mathematical proof. It is beautiful, and real. Science knows it's limitations, but even more importantly, it knows the limitations of just accepting untestable, unlikely notions without any kind of evidence.



Why does creation seem so crazy

Creation doesn't seem crazy at all. It may have happened. Believing in creation seems crazy, because there is no evidence for it.



the faith that it takes to believe that the big bang happened?

No scientist "believes" in the big bang "on faith". They consider it with varying levels of probability based upon years of research and a dearth of very elegant and interesting mathematics.

[AtmaWeapon]

It's not my job and I'm not going to spend any more time on it.Please to be keeping your word tia I'm keeping mine by reminding you of your pledge rather than biting on your troll bait.

[The_Amaster]

Science is based on theories. Theories are, by their very nature made up, or at least not concrete. There is no evidence of the Big Bang, but it's widely accepted.

(By the way, I've mentioned the big bang twice before, as have other people. I notice you still haven't even adressed it)

[phattonez]

No you are not allowed to judge science based on idiots who make things up, since that is the exact opposite of what science is.

However, feel free to judge religion based on idiots who make things up, because that is exactly what religion is.
It's not about people making things up, it is about people twisting information and using it for violence, opression, and everything else that is bad. People use science and religion to accomplish the exact same goal. What does it say? Human nature remains constant no matter what people believe.

[Beldaran]

Human nature remains constant no matter what people believe.

Do you believe arabs would be cutting people's heads off and blowing up buildings if they were atheists who believed in reason, progress, and loved knowledge?

Do you believe Isaac Newton would have still invented calculus if had been an atheist?

The answers to these questions say it all.

[The_Amaster]

if they were atheists who believed in reason, progress, and loved knowledge?

Those two things don't automaticly go together. I know plenty of religious people who believe in progress and knowledge. I know plenty of ahteists who are amazingly stupid and backward(by backward I mena holding onto outdated bigoted opinions like racism, sexism, etc)

[Beldaran]

There is no evidence of the Big Bang, but it's widely accepted.

If by "no evidence" you mean "years of research and the support legendary physicists" then yes there is "no evidence".

I didn't realize you wanted to make a big deal out of the big bang. Anyway I responded to it above when I responded to Phattonez. There is a dearth of math and theoretical physics that points to the big bang. It isn't just some stupid thing someone made up. You know, like god.

[redmage777]

You say grew up in church, so I'm intrest in your story, (If you don't mind me asking) Did you strugle with the idea of there being no god? Was it a hard pill to swallow at first? Was it a matter of you sitting though church as a child thinking it was a waste of time? It is hard to beleive you came to this point over night.

Science has tought me a lot about the universe, and increases my admiration of my God. I look at how large and complex a galaxy is and the tiny minute details of atoms that make it up. I see it as a work of art whose details we have yet to fully understand. Then there in the mind itself, what are the mysteries locked with in are own heads? I've given plenty of thought to evolution and the big bang theory, even from the context of there being no god, things make make alot sence and I have a lot of thoreys and questions in my head that are hard to put into words. But when I think about all those things with God back into the picture, it all seems even more special and wonderful.

[phattonez]

Sure, but it doesn't explain where all the matter came from. Even if the big bang happened, you still have to prove the origins of life.

"Do you believe arabs would be cutting people's heads off and blowing up buildings if they were atheists who believed in reason, progress, and loved knowledge?" - It's not arabs that are terrorists, it's extremists who are terrorists. It's not just arabs who can become extremely devoted to a cause. But even if they were atheists, they would still be doing it.

"Do you believe Isaac Newton would have still invented calculus if had been an atheist?" - Newton did not "invent" calculus, but he still would have been a genius.

[AtmaWeapon]

If by "no evidence" you mean "years of research and the support legendary physicists" then yes there is "no evidence".

I didn't realize you wanted to make a big deal out of the big bang. Anyway I responded to it above when I responded to Phattonez. There is a dearth of math and theoretical physics that points to the big bang. It isn't just some stupid thing someone made up. You know, like god.Actually yeah there's quite a bit of evidence that makes the big bang the most likely theory but also


I'm done arguing this.

Just sayin

[Beldaran]

I got sucked in by arguments that were so patently false I just had to say something.

/me = obsessive compulsive disorder.

[Saffith]

If believing that somehow, with the millions of possible permutations somehow some chemicals came together and formed somthing called DNA, and then, against the odds that DNA somehow generated a container around it, and little organelles inside it, and that those cells were somehow able to group together, and actually recognize each other and specialize, and that somehow all the complexity of the human body could come about by a strand consisting of the same four chemicals over and over again, and that somehow those cells could become concious of theselves, if that makes you look like a fool,It didn't start with DNA. Before that, there was RNA, and something else, probably simpler, self-replicating molecules, must have come before that (I'm pretty sure we don't know precisely what, though).


I understand Agnostics, but self-proclaimed Atheists amaze me. Having the balls to dismiss the notion of any deity existing seems absurd and arrogant. :shrug:Is it any more absurd than claiming that the origin and meaning of the universe are revealed in a millenia-old book of stories that don't fit with available evidence and often defy common sense? Is it any more arrogant than believing that God rewards people for thinking the same things as oneself and punishes them for disagreeing?


The reason behind ethnic cleansing is darwinism.
[...]
The Nazis were religious? They believed in science.

Everybody who has the right kind of feeling for his country is solemnly bound, each within his own denomination, to see to it that he is not constantly talking about the Will of God merely from the lips but that in actual fact he fulfils the Will of God and does not allow God's handiwork to be debased. For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will.
[...]
Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures [Aryans] would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise.
[...]
And, further, they [Aryans] ought to be brought to realize that it is their bounden duty to give to the Almighty Creator beings such as He himself made to His own image.

From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump, as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.

Look at it this way: In the "morality" of science Adolf Hitler was a great man for what he did. He washed away the undesirables of society and tried to use scientific research to improve the species.
There's no such thing as "the morality of science," with or without quotation marks. Humans are fond of combining it with other things, but science itself deals only with objective fact. It doesn't favor Einstein or Hawking any more than it does anyone else.
And, frankly, you've got a pretty bizarre way of mixing science and morality if you can call Hitler a great man for attempting to improve the species by killing a sizable portion of it and trying to minimize its genetic diversity.


It is from religion that comes the idea that all people are intrinsically valuable, not science.
I hope you don't mean to imply that atheists don't value human life.


What makes evolution and the big bang more likely than creation? Life out of nothing? I thought that sponatneous generation was diproved by Pasteur. So then how can science claim that it came out of nothing? It is nearly impossible.Abiogenesis is not the same as the classical concept of spontaneous generation, which refers to complex organisms appearing fully-formed.
Experiments have shown that organic compounds can be created from inorganic matter. The most basic possible forms of life really aren't significantly different from simple, self-replicating molecules.

[phattonez]

Experiments have not created life :).

The concept that one class is better than another and will survive the other is one that is brought up in science. Quote Hitler all you want, it still doesn't say that Hitler did not get this idea from science.

Once again, I do not blame science or religion for any wars. The only thing that starts wars is human nature.

[AtmaWeapon]

The concept that one class is better than another and will survive the other is one that is brought up in science. Quote Hitler all you want, it still doesn't say that Hitler did not get this idea from science.
Or perhaps he got the idea from religions that support rigid class structures such as Hinduism? What about the several centuries of people perverting Judaism and Christianity to institute a system where the clergy carries more power than the governing body? Or since you put a survival factor into there, what about the several wars that have been fought on the belief that they were supported by a deity and the holy people would win?

Fact is, throughout history people like to believe they are better than other people and will use any excuse they can find to justify it. Those who are swayed by religion will make their wars holy wars; those who are swayed by logic will prove their superiority with logic; those who like to kill will do it for fun.

It is unclear exactly what inspired Hitler, and the only person who could answer that question with authority is dead.

Science has no intrinsic moral value. Religion has no intrinsic moral value. It is only within the context of specific circumstances that we can judge the morality of an act, and even then we judge it from our own viewpoint and not the viewpoint of another. Both can be perverted and used for purposes other than the good of man. We could go through history and attempt utilitarian analysis of the "good" and "bad" both science and religion have done for us, but I think in the end you would find that both science and religion have done immeasurable amounts of both good and bad.

[phattonez]

^^^Which is why I said that I don't blame science or religion for any wars. Those are just excuses, and my arguments were hypothetical.

[Beldaran]

I don't blame religion for any wars.

http://www.themuslimwoman.org/images/r_suicide_bomber1.jpg

[Dechipher]

http://www.themuslimwoman.org/images/r_suicide_bomber1.jpg

That's not religion, that's stupidity. Thinking that only you are right and being unwilling to change or even consider change.

[Beldaran]

That's not religion, that's stupidity.

a = b



That's not religion

That is religion. They are extremely religious, they commit acts for religous purposes, and they are extremely vocal about the fact that religion drives their actions. To claim that is not religion is to deny facts. You are factually, historically, and otherwise completely incorrect in every sense of the word.

You think muslim terrorists are not acting because of their religion. That is the most illogical, borderline insane thing I have ever heard. I question your ability to think accurately.

[AtmaWeapon]

Guys seriously could you stop and think about stuff for maybe 2 or 3 minutes before you post them you are just giving Beldaran really easy headshots and making yourself look like morons in the process. Religion has been the overt cause of several wars and religious conflict is still part of the world's problems today.

Yes the problem is fanatics but pretending like they aren't religious doesn't make them go away.


Also Beldaran I have this peace offering for you I found it on the interwebs while I was divining the future with Jesus goggles it is a message from a good friend who says you should know him
http://www.atmaweapon.org/images/schrodinger.png

[Beldaran]

hahaha! :)

[Glenn the Great]

Wow. When we find you and if you are still alive, you'll have to tell us what it is like to be alive and dead at the same time.

[Beldaran]

I would tell you, but if I observe the state of my life, I will change it.

[MasterSwordUltima]

That's not religion, that's stupidity.

Totally right. That camo serves no purpose indoors.

[redmage777]

Totally right. That camo serves no purpose indoors.

Even if he was outside...

Sgt. Slaughter- Pvt. Pinkle what do you see?

Pvt. Pinkle- All I see are ten masks and a bomb.

Sgt. Slaughter- Shoot the bomb, that way it will look like the idiots set it off early, and we'll save 9 bullets.

[phattonez]

Religion is the excuse for a war, just like science. If you say that religion has caused wars, then you also have to say science has caused wars. Basically, without either, wars would still occur. It's human nature, you cannot blame religion for starting wars.

[Glenn the Great]

I've always felt that the political reasons have always been the superficial justification for going to war, while it is the religious reasons that are true and heartfelt.

The religion makes people want to kill others, and the politics just make the actions look more reasonable and justified to a more level-headed person. People seem to feel less guilty if they are following the will of a modern legal document that says "so and so violated this, and can legally be punished." The law is there to trip up others so there will be "good reason" to start killing them in the name of [usually] Allah.

[Beldaran]

A commitment to rational analysis of observed data and the formation of appropriate hypotheses has never directly caused a war.

A belief that a group of people are making your god angry simply by existing has directly caused numerous wars.

[Starkist]

I just need to poke my head in here and point out that most wars are fought over power and land. Religion has often been a convenient excuse and rallying cry.

[phattonez]

^^^Finally someone finds the real issue. Greed, lust for power. That is the cause for war.

[Dechipher]

Religion is stupid but that doesn't mean that people are more stupid and worthless just because they follow one.
You can't blame anything other than humans for their actions.

[Beldaran]

I just need to poke my head in here and point out that most wars are fought over power and land. Religion has often been a convenient excuse and rallying cry.

This is almost a good point, but incorrect. Religion has not been used as an excuse. It has been used as a tool to control people. The reason you can can control religious people so easily is that in order to accept religion in the first place, you must shut off a part of your brain. With that firewall of reason gone, you can be taught to accept just about anything because your mechanism for parsing input has been scrambled by a virus, and that virus is religion.

Without religion, the power hungry leaders wouldn't have had the same ability to rally people to their banner.

You would never convince a hundred thousand invididualistic, rational scientists to go on a genocidal crusade without giving them a damn good reason to.

[phattonez]

^^^I never knew that you could control religious people easily. Could you please try to control a Buddhist? I would really be amazed to see that.

I think Hitler rallied his people pretty well without religion.

[Beldaran]

^^^I never knew that you could control religious people easily.

http://www.skyenet.net/~shuff/images/hvnsgate.gif

http://www.crimelibrary.com/graphics/photos/notorious_murders/mass/heavens_gate/5b.jpg

http://www.37thtexas.org/image/crusades.jpg

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/SSPOD/superstock_995-125_b~Richard-I-and-Saladin-in-Battle-of-Acre-1191-Posters.jpg

http://img.infoplease.com/images/home/jonestown.jpg

http://www.runet.edu/~wkovarik/class/images/BE061112-Martyr.Hendriks.religion.jpg

http://www.imageofsurgery.com/Circum_Egypt.jpg

http://whgbetc.com/mind/inquisition1.jpg

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/mes/images/boyprayingwithdad.jpg

http://www.metransparent.com/images/terrorists.jpg

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/missionary/mormon_missionary.jpg

http://training.scientology.org/img/train_hd.jpg




Could you please try to control a Buddhist?

Are you claiming that this is a group of indivdualistic free thinkers that aren't under someone's control:

http://www.tamilnet.com/img/publish/2003/12/Buddhist_Monks_Dec4_1_20365_435.jpg

Because they look pretty controlled to me.



I think Hitler rallied his people pretty well without religion.

Nazism IS a religion. It uses exactly the same methods for infecting a person's mind with irrational beliefs that aren't backed up by scientific fact. One of the reasons I dislike religion is because it's basically no different than Nazism in it's psychological architecture.

[biggiy05]

I saw something on heaven's gate a few weeks ago and went looking for a site. This made me laugh.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/biggiy05/mkh.jpg


How a Member of the Kingdom of Heaven
might appear

[Beldaran]

The Heaven's Gate cult is some of religious thought's finest work.

[AtmaWeapon]

Guys you are seriously giving Beldaran free points; perhaps I should join this crapfest...

Show me an example of religion being used as the excuse for a people to feel superior to another group, leading to war and possibly genocide YOU HAVE 24 HOURS AND THIS HAS SERIOUSLY NEVER HAPPENED I WIN!

Also look I'll give you another point too Beldaran! Religion has NEVER clashed with scientific thought you will never disprove this point either!

[Beldaran]

atma FTW.

[AtmaWeapon]

Well I mean they just kind of seem to fail to realize that you are an intelligent individual who has placed his faith in science based upon the way you view the world, and it's not like you don't have reasons for disliking religion.

Honestly the only point you made that I was willing to debate over was the concept that someone who places faith in religion is somehow inferior to another who does not. I feel like my viewpoints leave religion for the nasty little problems that science can't really explain yet but leave me open to accept a scientific explanation when one is found. Personally I feel the "correct" mode of belief is one that you are comfortable in firmly defending despite arguments against it but in addition the firm denial of the concept that your particular belief system makes you superior to another. Honestly science has had its dark days as well and some of the world's problems are the result of scientific thought advancing more quickly than the ethical analysis of research can be made. A reciprocal argument can be made that religious thought can lead to superiority complexes and additionally the relentless quest to ethically verify every scientific decision stifles important discoveries.

At first I seriously tried to put forth this view of firm belief with an open mind but then the thread was quickly filled with arguments against atheism that you have: Already heard several times Likely already prepared arguments against since they are fundamental elements of any faith The ability to laugh at since they can be countered by a 3-second Google searchAt this point, the thread became pretty lopsided as it mostly consisted of my views opposing your views and several expert witnesses supporting your claim that religious thought and logical thought cannot coexist. It became increasingly difficult for me to point out that a religious scientist is not necessarily a ridiculous concept when I am surrounded by examples to the contrary.

I have some more to add to this but I'm late for (appropriately) my World Religions II class at the moment so I'd better scoot.

[Beldaran]

I was in a really bad mode and studying for a test at the same time when I wrote most of my replies. So they are particularly acidic.

I don't think religious people are inferior to me. I think they are incorrect in their analysis that it is logical to decide what is true about the universe without evidence.

I also think that a big swath of them are influenced by their religion in a way that causes them to act horribly stupid.

There are and have been religious people profoundly more educated and at least as smart or smarter than I. However, the fact remains that they hold ideas based on something other than scientific evidence and I consider this to be illogical behavior, and I consider illogical behavior to be a slippery slope to destructive and ultimately insane behavior.

The reason I respond to the simple arguments of the others here is beacuse it might do them some good to hear their ideas challenged in a dramatic way. I know it did me a lot of good when I was younger.

[The_Amaster]

Just to point out, Buddhism, lke Taoism, is on shaky grounds for being classified as religion. Both are more really life philosophies than anything else.

[Beldaran]

Just to point out, Buddhism, lke Taoism, is on shaky grounds for being classified as religion. Both are more really life philosophies than anything else.

I almost pointed that out too, but I didn't want to get involved in a technical discussion over what exactly a religion is.

[Glenn the Great]

Show me an example of religion being used as the excuse for a people to feel superior to another group, leading to war and possibly genocide YOU HAVE 24 HOURS AND THIS HAS SERIOUSLY NEVER HAPPENED I WIN!

Republicans use religion to make themselves feel superior to Democrats.

I also point to the major Sunni vs. Shia infighting in Islamic countries that has been erupting these days. Mass murder, being caused by divisions in the interpretation of a religion. These people are brothers in every way besides their interpretation of Islam.

[AtmaWeapon]

Republicans use religion to make themselves feel superior to Democrats.

I also point to the major Sunni vs. Shia infighting in Islamic countries that has been erupting these days. Mass murder, being caused by divisions in the interpretation of a religion. These people are brothers in every way besides their interpretation of Islam.Did you just fakepost a reply to my fakepost or did you seriously think I was serious :confused:

[Glenn the Great]

Did you just fakepost a reply to my fakepost or did you seriously think I was serious :confused:

Glenn's PC Speakers: "HEADSHOT!"

Atma: "I was AFK!!!"

[phattonez]

Republicans use religion to make themselves feel superior to Democrats.

I also point to the major Sunni vs. Shia infighting in Islamic countries that has been erupting these days. Mass murder, being caused by divisions in the interpretation of a religion. These people are brothers in every way besides their interpretation of Islam.

I thought that the groups were seperated because of their religion, but that the fighting is because one group lost power and the other gained power.

[Glenn the Great]

I thought that the groups were seperated because of their religion, but that the fighting is because one group lost power and the other gained power.

There wouldn't be "groups" gaining or losing power if the groups didn't exist. Those "groups" are there because of the religion.

Religion is an agent of division, and division creates conflict.

[The_Amaster]

Because as everyone knows, every scientist is in perfect agreement over all of science, and there's no discord or dissension at all.

[Glenn the Great]

Because as everyone knows, every scientist is in perfect agreement over all of science, and there's no discord or dissension at all.

Unfortunately, you have a point, referencing Beldaran's post from the other week about death threats resulting from dissent on Global Warming.

[Beldaran]

The dissent and discord in science is what makes it great. It's the constant questioning, arguing, and experimenting... the doubting, which make it so powerful.

It's a different kind of disagreement than in religion, though. In science, disagreement can be settled with experiment, analysis, and mathematics. For example, all (real) scientists agree that force equals mass times acceleration, but some scientists disagree over the causes of global warming (inconclusive evidence, for some). In Religion, disagreement can either never be settled, or can only be settled wth violence because there is no way to prove your idiotic magic being is more correct than someone elses.

[AtmaWeapon]

The dissent and discord in science is what makes it great. It's the constant questioning, arguing, and experimenting... the doubting, which make it so powerful.

It's a different kind of disagreement than in religion, though. In science, disagreement can be settled with experiment, analysis, and mathematics. For example, all (real) scientists agree that force equals mass times acceleration, but some scientists disagree over the causes of global warming (inconclusive evidence, for some). In Religion, disagreement can either never be settled, or can only be settled wth violence because there is no way to prove your idiotic magic being is more correct than someone elses.But what about the chill guys like me who are just kind of like "OK man whatever yeah you think that Islam is the right way I think Christianity is the right way so I guess the real question is which one of us is going to get screwed over more if the Jews turn out to be right?"

Also I need to stop posting when I don't really have the time to commit to words the thoughts I actually have. Someone reply to this in the next 3 or 4 hours so I can post what I wanted to post I'm supposed to be packing my car right now (it is actually a pretty interesting (to me at least) analysis of how and where I apply religious beliefs and an attempt to further reinforce my stance that with the right mindset science and religion can reinforce each other and make it through the difficulties of growing up together. PG (language) Lifetime 8:00 PM)

[Dechipher]

So I guess we have Science Vs. Religion Vs. Science and Religion Vs. No Science and No Religion.
Very interesting thread.
Here's your reply Atma.

[AtmaWeapon]

Actually I'm not quite ready to post it; I had a discussion about it today (I discuss my beliefs to help me decide if there are flaws in them or to see if I truly believe in them) and there's a few spots where my mind is going "Hey man do you really believe that or are you just saying it because it fits well with something you want to believe?"

It's going to take a little bit of reflection for me to stand behind it. Also I made this (http://www.armageddongames.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1118238#post1118238) and earlier I stepped on a bee and the benadryl I took to avoid maybe dying from allergic reaction is kind of making me pretty tired.

I mean while I'd love concrete proof/disproof of my faith and coming back to haunt Beldaran and possibly be all "Ha ha you were wrong eat it jerk" seriously "death by bee sting due to inadvertently stepping on a bee while fetching his laptop from his car" isn't what I want on my obituary.

[Beldaran]

Newton did not "invent" calculus,

Yes he "did".