Know your audience

Breaker wrote: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:

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.

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.

Amaster42 wrote:
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

Beldaran wrote: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 don't follow...

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.

Amaster42 wrote: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.

[quote="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.[/quote]

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:

Beldaran wrote: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:

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.

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.

Breaker wrote: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.

Breaker wrote:
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.

Breaker wrote: 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.

Beldaran wrote:I don't follow...

*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*

phattonez wrote: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".

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

Breaker wrote: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.

*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.

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

Starkist wrote: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.

Starkist wrote:
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.

AtmaWeapon wrote:
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.

Beldaran wrote:
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.

phattonez wrote: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.

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?

phattonez wrote:
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.

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.

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

Amaster42 wrote: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

phattonez wrote: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.

phattonez wrote:
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.

phattonez wrote:
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).

phattonez wrote: 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.

phattonez wrote: 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.

phattonez wrote: 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.

Beldaran wrote:It's not my job and I'm not going to spend any more time on it.