Religion, or the lack thereof

biggiy05 wrote:I'm his God. Now your god wants a cookie. GET TO IT!

Yes, my Lord. I got You eight types of cookies because I am so awesome.

Oh, I definitely want to put down Jedism as my religion on state exams now. I can smell the bonus points. 😃

AlexMax wrote:Are you even paying attention?

Also Pinconn you fool! He asked for a cookie not several! You are going to be sooooooo smitten!

Aha! But that is okay! One of the perks of my religion is that I can switch between whether or not I believe in a god, so I now believe in no god! Now biggiy can't smite me. 😃

Book of Pineconnizanity | Statement 1 wrote:I believe in whatever I want, and I'm free to switch among believing in a god, not believing in a god, and not caring if there is one or not.

There's an 'e' in my username, btw. [noparse]😉[/noparse]

Pineconn wrote:Yes, my Lord. I got You eight types of cookies because I am so awesome.

Oh, I definitely want to put down Jedism as my religion on state exams now. I can smell the bonus points. 😃

First of all some of those cookies look like someone took a shit and threw it in the oven. You fail!

Pineconn wrote:Aha! But that is okay! One of the perks of my religion is that I can switch between whether or not I believe in a god, so I now believe in no god! Now biggiy can't smite me. 😃

No but I can hit you with a stick.:whap: I'll teach you not to believe in me.

I didn't address the Galileo thing because nothing you said about it threatened my argument at all.

AtmaWeapon wrote:are we to believe that religion has not changed in the past two centuries?

Muslims are currently murdering people for religious ideas. It has not changed at ALL. Catholicism has changed, only because science has driven them back from the abyss of horror and stupidity over which it stood astride for five hundred years. Now they just fritter around the edges saying retarded nonsense like "birth control is evil".

AtmaWeapon wrote:
So, at the time, there was no compelling scientific evidence to show that Galileo was more right than any of the current accepted models.

Explain how this excuses burning people alive for heresy.

Also, the irony of you demanding compelling scientific evidence is not lost on me, since you are defending the notion of a magic superfriend.

AtmaWeapon wrote:Furthermore, your facts do not check out and since you cite no sources I can't cross-check to see if perhaps mine are wrong.

I am quoting Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space by Carl Sagan.

The Galileo example is poignant and correct, and you can't escape it. Religion is a disgusting, evil disease. It is completely different from science, which is not a religion, but a recognition that logic and reason are superior to mysticism and fiction.

I don't know what you're trying to accomplish by arguing with me. There's no way you are going to convince me to ignore logic and believe in your imaginary friend. You will also never convince me that religion isn't wholly evil, from the ancient to the modern. The best you can hope for is to earn my intellectual respect, and I highly doubt that's of much value to you. Also, you won't be able to by arguing the merits of personal fantasy.

RELIGION IS NOT MEANT TO SUBSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE! Sorry for shouting, but once again, Beldaran, I think you miss the point. Okay, so maybe mainstream religions try to imply that the two are interchangable, but look harder, and you'll see religions that don't try to meddle in the affairs best left to science.

rock_nog wrote:religions that don't try to meddle in the affairs best left to science.

Any philosophy that makes a claim about the reality of the universe, expects people to believe that claim with no evidence and then alter their living habits based on that claim, is meddling in affairs best left to science. I think all, or very nearly all, religions or belief systems fall under this description.

The only system I can think of that doesn't do this is deism, which is belief in a creator of some kind but offers no dogma and views the universe naturalistically. I still think that belief in the creator is unfounded by evidence.

^^Except that the Big Bang theory makes no sense and offers no explanation to where the energy required for such an explosion came from.

phattonez wrote:^^Except that the Big Bang theory makes no sense and offers no explanation to where the energy required for such an explosion came from.

Correction: it makes no sense to you. It makes perfect sense to people with advanced degrees in theoretical physics. Just because you don't understand a scientific idea does not make it invalid. Do you fully understand quantum mechanics? Do you doubt it's veracity?

And the question of where the energy came from currently has no answer, much in the same way as the question of what the moon is once had no answer. History has shown that making up delusional fantasies to answer difficult scientific questions is not an effective mechanism for determining the truth.

You believe in religion or you don't believe. That simple.

If someone wants to believe there is a higher being then let them, it's not hurting you. It gives people hope like moocow said and a good example is terminally ill patients. Some pull through and go on to live another 10-20 years and a few believe it was the work of God. Let them believe that if it makes them happy.

The people in this world are like two kids fighting over who is right. Science vs. Religion. Fuck you're both right if you wanna be.

/random 2am rant.

Beldaran: While I believe you have the right to free speech, I also think you have the right to get beaten round the head with Fillet o' Fish if it makes no sense.
Most scientists believe that the moon is the result of a planet-sized meteorite colliding with the Earth back when it was still young and cooling. The collision almost destroyed the Earth (though thankfully it did recover), and the resulting dust and rock formed over a period of a month or so to form the Moon. So says the Museum of Natural History's Planetarium. My trip to America was not in vain! More info here. This is not a delusional fantasy, this is a generally accepted and scientifically supported theory. Admittedly, yes, theory is not fact, but it's pretty much impossible to prove what actually happened without building a time-traveling spaceship to go back and see for ourselves. Or, y'know, just asking The Doctor.

phattonez: The energy for the big bang came from God lighting a fart on fire. Do you not watch Family Guy?

biggiy05 wrote:If someone wants to believe there is a higher being then let them, it's not hurting you.

A single person, no. However, when you have shown that you can check your critical thinking at the door in the name of a 'gut feeling', what else are you capable of? Do you ever consider how easily you could be manipulated by those who in a pulpit precisely because of said qualities? You might think that atheist 'dogma' or beleifs are on equal terms with your religious ones, but where is your scientific method?

How can you figure out for sure if you are living a truely blessed life if there have been so many disagreements over silly little things, like if you're allowed to have a picture of the very thing you worshop, with no way to find out for sure.

Maybe Jesus really wants you to picket soldiers funerals? No? The Phelps family sure thinks so. You don't think that's a very christian thing to do? They're convinced it is. How do they know? Because their god told them so? How do you know? Because your god told you so? What's going on here, is your god two-timing you and trying to pit people against each other for his own amusement to find out later it's all just a three's company-esque misunderstanding? Maybe they didn't really hear the voice of their god? How do you know you heard the voice of your god?

And then you bring out "Faith" and all the wonderful things it does, as if that answers anything at all or is any better than just saying "Your gut feeling". And do I really have to bring what blind obedience and faith can do to ordinary people, because I really don't feel like pulling the tired old Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia analogies out. The bottom line is that if you're tossing out inconvenient parts of reality and prefering to believe in the improbable because you have a gut feeling about it, you're quite capable of hurting other people and not even realizing it because your faith has no mechanism of any meaningful sort of sanity check. Does this not bother you?

It gives people hope like moocow said and a good example is terminally ill patients. Some pull through and go on to live another 10-20 years and a few believe it was the work of God. Let them believe that if it makes them happy.

Studies are inconclusive. I can think of at least one study where those who were religious or had prayed beforehand actually on average developed more complications after surgery than those who had none. Irony.

Although, yes, science cannot determine if God exists or not just the same as it can't determine with 100% certainty that your left arm exists.

However, it can say something about the likelihood of God existing.

One point is that God is exactly as unlikely to exist as, say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There is no exception to this even if one grants God the right to defy science and chance, because you would have to extend the same argument to the Flying Spaghetti Monster too. The truth is we only believe in God over the Flying Spaghetti Monster because that's what's been taught in our public institutions for so long now.

If someone tries to claim that God is probable because he is "simple" i.e. has few attributes, this is a deception of language. Any God who designed the entire universe must be at least as complicated as his creation, and therefore as unlikely.

Aside from this, there is no evidence FOR God existing other than looking at the by-products and rationalising. Everything we know about the world stems from the principle that the simplest hypothesis is the best when both are equally supported by secondary evidence. We have two hypotheses, apparently equally supported in their outcomes: evolution and design. Design requires a massively complex and unlikely entity who is capable of processing information at universe-scale. Evolution requires random fluctuations followed by a simple process of natural selection over time. We must prefer the simplest hypothesis, and so God is now both unneccesary and extremely unlikely.

Finally, God and religion cause active harm in this world by consuming resources, causing wars, conflict and justification of unjustfiable actions like suicide bombing. I don't see many secular suicide bombers today, but we hear about the frankly evil actions caused by religion every day on the news. It is more consistent and better for the world's population if we derive our moral values from social consequences rather than improbable, intangible beings.

There is no absolute reality, though, and that's the problem I have with science. If we believe something is real, then in a way, we make it real. If I claim that God exists, then in my perception of reality, God's existence matters. Now, obviously this has GREAT potential for abuse, but it also has great potential as a powerful tool. I mean, rather than submit to the beliefs of others, you could create your own beliefs, ones that do not hurt you but rather help you.

Now my take on religion doesn't have much to do with whether or not some divine being is really out there, personally I don't think it matters, 'cause we'll never know, so why worry about it? It's more about how the belief in such things, whether real or not, can greatly change your life. The beings in question could be utterly made up, but that's not the point. We all, I think, recognize the power of religion. I mean, I feel it's like atomic power, only magnified a million-fold. It's incredibly dangerous, if used incorrectly, but it has the potential to change the world.

Now to be sure, Beldaran, you're on to something there with your idea to cut out the middle man, and be totally in charge of your own life. However, it's not possible for a lot of people. Maybe religion's a placebo, maybe we all have the strength within ourselves to accomplish whatever task we set out to do, but the fact is, religion is a very handy way to access that inner strength, so should we really discount it is quickly?

Darth Marsden wrote:Beldaran: While I believe you have the right to free speech, I also think you have the right to get beaten round the head with Fillet o' Fish if it makes no sense.
Most scientists believe that the moon is the result of a planet-sized meteorite colliding with the Earth back when it was still young and cooling. The collision almost destroyed the Earth (though thankfully it did recover), and the resulting dust and rock formed over a period of a month or so to form the Moon. So says the Museum of Natural History's Planetarium. My trip to America was not in vain! More info here. This is not a delusional fantasy, this is a generally accepted and scientifically supported theory. Admittedly, yes, theory is not fact, but it's pretty much impossible to prove what actually happened without building a time-traveling spaceship to go back and see for ourselves. Or, y'know, just asking The Doctor.

phattonez: The energy for the big bang came from God lighting a fart on fire. Do you not watch Family Guy?

Darth I don't get your point. I know what the moon is. I was saying that at one time, people did not know. Religions made up a bunch of ridiculous answers, and then science eventually answered the question.

Rock Nog:

The idea that there is no reality is really insane. I suppose if I kidnap you and cut off your genitals you won't mind since it's not real, right?

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

Guys what are we really arguing here anymore? I was typing up some rebuttals to points but then I realized I had no clear goal other than attempting to disagree with the point or pointing out false logic behind the support. In this post I'll try to stick to my major argument, which is as follows:

A person who follows scientific practices runs the risk of holding science as a religion; in this state of mind the One True Path involves everything scientific and any who believe in something that is, as of now, supernatural, is wrong and must be chastised as a failure.

A case
I believe science as religion is guilty of the same follies as the more traditional forms of religion. Let's take something completely supernatural like ghosts for my illustration. Enough people through history have recorded ghostlike phenomenon that one would be foolish to assume all accounts were completely fabricated. Religious views on the subject vary widely. Some believe ghosts are the spirits of the dead, others believe in demons/angels, and many other explanations exist. The appropriate scientific approach to ghosts is to state that they are obviously a phenomenon that is not understood by current scientific understanding.

My question
Now, as I understand it, Beldaran and most atheists have a particular distaste for those who would say that ghosts are angels or spirits. To me, the distaste is not necessarily wrong but I feel like whether it is correct or not depends upon the individual's reaction to being proved wrong.

I'll try to illustrate with preposterous examples from both viewpoints so as not to appear biased.

Let's say some real-life Egon Spengler stumbles upon a previously-unknown form of energy/brain reactions and that the appearance of apparitions can be reproducibly produced in repeatable experiments. The scientist who believed ghosts were an explainable phenomenon has no struggles here. Someone who interpreted a religious text as indicating ghosts were the spirits of the departed now has some choices to make:[list=1][*]Completely ignore the research on the basis that it clashes with religion.[*]Take note of the fact that apparitions are only one form of supernatural event, and believe that other phenomenon such as poltergeists are what the religious text meant as manifestations of the dead.[*]Decide the religious belief of the afterlife was perhaps an allegory or a theological device to promote ethical living via the promise of a reward for selfless actions.[*]Abandon the religion entirely.[/list]I will discuss them out of order. To me the second and third choices indicate the most mentally healthy individual. The person is comfortable enough with their faith that they are able to accept scientific evidence that contradicts it, yet they only let it discount a particular aspect of their beliefs. The last choice, to me, is not as desirable as the previous two because it indicates the person's sole reason for keeping the religion was to explain the existence of ghosts, which is not the primary function of a religious system. The first choice is completely wrong; when valid scientific evidence is presented one cannot ignore it. Sometimes the theory presented is a poor model that happens to be correct in a particular case but this is so rare I'd consider anyone who routinely uses it to resolve religion/science as kind of weak.

Now let's consider an alternate example. This time Egon Spengler discovers ways to manipulate a previously undiscovered form of energy that leads to communication with voices that can speak in English. The voices indicate they are the spirits of those who have died. The experiment is reproduced by other scientists, and historians who are present are satisfied that the knowledge the voices present are knowledgeable about enough things that their claim must be true (or perhaps another historian playing a prank on them). Several religious viewpoints are now validated. Now, the scientist (and several religions) have choices to make:[list=1][*]Declare the experiment wrong and continue believing what it disproves, because the concept of an afterlife is irrational.[*]Decide that the previous views of the afterlife must be reconsidered.[*]Convert to a religion that supports the notion of an afterlife.[/list]The second choice is the most mentally healthy in my opinion; it represents a person who is not afraid to admit their beliefs are wrong in the face of valid proof. The last choice is wrong because it indicates an individual who seeks religion out of a need to belong, rather than an attempt to understand the supernatural. The first choice is completely wrong.

The point
My problem is everything about Beldaran's arguments seem to suggest to me he would be completely unwilling to accept, as unlikely as it is, any scientific discovery that would support the validity of a religion. The generalization was made that all people who practice religion are irrational and mentally defective. I pointed out my opinion that some people do not turn to religion for scientific knowledge but for explanations of the supernatural, and suggested that this too was a healthy viewpoint so long as the individual is willing to:

• Support scientific research in topics that might disprove their beliefs
• Acknowledge scientific knowledge that does contradict their beliefs
• Avoid holding others in low esteem because they hold a different theory to explain the supernatural.

To me, the primary purpose of religion is to provide ethical and moral guidance. I didn't choose Christianity because of pressure or because it provided a convenient explanation for things I don't understand; I chose it because I felt like if everyone else acted as Jesus taught and lived then perhaps there'd be less jerks in the world, and I felt like if I'd work on being a better person in general then perhaps people would be more inclined to be nice to me. I do believe in the existence of my deity, but if the existence were disproved I would still argue the teachings of Jesus would remain an important guide to correct behavior.

In short, my faith is not based on whether man was created or evolved; it is not based on whether there was once a flood that wiped out all life on the planet; it is not based on the notion that after death there is a great reward for believers. The core of my faith lies on the teachings of a man who suggested that if everyone worked to hurt each other as little as possible then the pain of self-sacrifice would be outweighed by the benefits of peaceful living and the assistance of others. I like the concept of and do believe in a reward/punishment type of afterlife, but at the same time I could comfortably continue with my Christian beliefs if science built an Elevator to Hell and a Stairway to Heaven but when they tried to take either they were out of service, suggesting that the destinations do not exist. I fail to see how this is an unhealthy or irrational belief, since it is one I am willing to change in the face of proof.

Also Beldaran way to distill rock_nog's argument to a straw man. You should really buy his argument more because it is a very useful tool for the atheist. It's a complicated philosophical and psychological thing but it actually holds water. What he suggests is the idea that if a group of people get together and decide that some deity guides their actions, and they appoint individuals to interpret the wishes of the deity, then in the minds of the believers the deity does exist. Despite the fact the deity was completely fabricated, all it takes is the right amount of belief and people will attribute the unexplainable events in their daily lives to the actions of this deity. This concept was explained well by example in a "choose your own adventure" type of book I read once where you got time-warped back to ancient Greece. At one point, you had to leave a valuable artifact (an amulet that granted you superhuman strength) as an offering to an oracle. Later you had the choice to retrieve the amulet while still in ancient Greece and if you did so it triggered a plot line where you were killed and when people recognized you had retrieved your offering it was seen as punishment from the gods. However, if after you got back to the present you retrieved the amulet, there were no consequences because "no one really worshiped those gods anymore" therefore they had no power.

It is a powerful argument against the existence of God, because as AlexMax pointed out with references to the Nazi party and Stalin's regime people can obviously be stirred to do things they otherwise wouldn't when they believe in something. Belief in this concept does undermine my religion in that it suggests that all of the "evidence" for God's existence could simply be false attribution of cause to a deity that was created as a means to control a people. However, as I previously stated, I'm completely comfortable with continuing to believe in the teachings of Jesus if it were to come out that he was nothing more than an ascetic philosopher, so I don't really struggle with it.

Beldaran: I mis-interpreted your point. Kindly ignore said response.

Religion is a series of beliefs about the universe, how it came to be and how it works. In that respect, you could also call science a religion, albeit a very well proven one. But who's to say all our logical explanations about how the universe work aren't wrong? What have we to prove otherwise? Scientific proof could just as easily be as false as a Muslim's explanation of how the world works. We've only got a bunch of machines, programed by us, to say otherwise. In the long run, that's not hard, physical proof, and if we're taking a long, hard look at Religion, we shouldn't take it as such.

If one person believes in a God and the other doesn't, then both have their own individual beliefs, and they are both perfectly entitled to them. I started this topic because I wasn't sure what mine were anymore. I still don't. But to be honest, I don't actually care anymore. God, Heaven, Science, whatever. I don't know, and I don't want to.

I'm out.

I almost (😃) hate to disrupt this scholarly (😃) debate of religion, or the lack thereof, but I have found an excellent cookie for biggiy.

There, now eat your dang single, normal-looking cookie.

AtmaWeapon: No. Although you admit religion does not explain our world, you then say religion is a your source of ethical or moral guidance. religion is not nor will it ever be a source of ethical and moral guidance. Have you read the Bible? It punidshes people for daring to question God by saying "God is a jealous god" and then smiting people. It rewards those who give up their wives so they can be essentially abused overnight while the husband is safe. It encourages people to kill non-believers. Jesus demands all those who join him hate their mothers and fathers. It punishes people on the basis of what their distant ancestors did slightly wrong once because they were tricked. Have you read the Qur'an? It encourages people to beat their wives if they're not overtly subordinate and obedient. It encourages jihad in the name of God and to capture women for personal use in battle. It wants theives' limbs to be cut off on the first offence. It encourages slavery. Other religions all have excessive torture, cruelty, war, smiting, prejudice and other such guidance. The only religions that doesn't is one with no God, no holy book, no hiearchical structure and no strict moral code. That's not much of a religion though.

If we all used religion as an absolute guide to morality, the world would be a very cruel place indeed.

So where do we get our morality from? Science. We behave according to evolved responses i.e. being nice to people because we might get something in return, caring fr our family because they share our genes and believing in equal opportunities because we wouldn't like to be discriminated against ourselves.

Result: Science is the only consistent and reliable guide to the world around us. It is also the only consistent moral guide. If I am proved wrong by evidence then the resulting evidence is also science, not religion, and I will believe that with equal conviction and questioning as all scientists. There is almost no place for religion but we must be tolerant because people, however misguided, must be entitled to think freely.

For a guy with 4 posts, you are smart. I like you.

Beldaran wrote:For a guy with 4 posts, you are smart. I like you.

Because we all know that post count = intelligence.

😉

believing in equal opportunities because we wouldn't like to be discriminated against ourselves.

The science of Logic and Economics

Oh dear I am sorry man I feel kind of bad about this but you should really think about what you are typing when you write it. The structure of your logic is poor enough I'd almost think you're a Beldaran parachute account but I don't think he's that ridiculous.

I will also participate in slight ad-hominem by highlighting grammatical and spelling errors in your posts since the ignorance displayed by your points makes me sad.

No. Although you admit religion does not explain our world, you then say religion is a your source of ethical or moral guidance. religion is not nor will it ever be a source of ethical and moral guidance.

www.dictionary.com wrote:something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:

For the Biblical statements I see nothing more than standard verses that are cherry-picked and fired at Christians time after time even though they are easily defeated. I'm not going to bother researching the source AND the rebuttal, could you kindly give me chapters and verses for the following Biblical points:

• It rewards those who give up their wives so they can be essentially abused overnight while the husband is safe.
• It encourages people to kill non-believers.
• Jesus demands all those who join him hate their mothers and fathers.
• It punishes people on the basis of what their distant ancestors did slightly wrong once because they were tricked.

For the Qur'an I have less authority but I am familiar with the larger theological foundations of Islam. I'd also like to know the locations of the things you mention, as it would help me decide for myself whether they are being misapplied. I can however dispute some claims:

It encourages jihad in the name of God and to capture women for personal use in battle.

The real meaning of the term "jihad" is struggle in the path of God. It can mean struggle in the physical sense, which can include building mosques or leaving home to work for the spread of Islam or to avoid religious persecution, as well as armed struggle. It can also mean struggle against the human passions and instincts that can prevent people from acting in accordance with the commandments of the faith.
[...]
Muslim scholars teach that only defensive wars are truly jihad. Muslim leaders have, however, often used the concept of "holy war" to justify their actions, usually with mixed results.

Based on this evidence I would believe you are making your points either from personal ignorance, or because you heard a friend tell you they read in a book some points about religion. If one wants to discuss things in a scholarly way, one must be willing to defend statements of fact with a source. Sadly, I have only seen one source used against me while I have cited several. You'd think rational scientists would be used to defending their claims with independently researched materials.

Other religions all have excessive torture, cruelty, war, smiting, prejudice and other such guidance. The only religions that doesn't is one with no God, no holy book, no hiearchical structure and no strict moral code. That's not much of a religion though.

Also for these two:

It wants theives' limbs to be cut off on the first offence. It encourages slavery.

So where do we get our morality from? Science. We behave according to evolved responses i.e. being nice to people because we might get something in return, caring fr our family because they share our genes and believing in equal opportunities because we wouldn't like to be discriminated against ourselves.

Furthermore, some of the world's great atrocities were committed in the name of science. Unit 731 and Josef Mengele come to mind as examples where scientific research was done in a less-than-humane manner with no religious pretext.

If I am proved wrong by evidence then the resulting evidence is also science, not religion, and I will believe that with equal conviction and questioning as all scientists.

For the grammar and spelling, I was in a rush.

As for the verses:

* It rewards those who give up their wives so they can be essentially abused overnight while the husband is safe. - (Judges 19: 23-6)
And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.

"Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light." ((and all the other translations were even more graphic))

*It encourages people to kill non-believers.
"But tear down their altars, crush their sacred stones, and cut down their poles dedicated to the goddess Asherah"
"but ye shall demolish their altars, shatter their statues, and hew down their Asherahs"(Exodus 34:13-17)
"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword."
"They annihilated with the sword everything that breathed in the city,38 including men and women, young and old, as well as cattle, sheep, and donkeys. "(Joshua 6:21)
((and basically all holy wars mentioned))

* Jesus demands all those who join him hate their mothers and fathers.
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
"And turning round, he said to them, If any man comes to me, and has not hate for his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, and even for his life, he may not be my disciple."
(Luke 14:26)

* It punishes people on the basis of what their distant ancestors did slightly wrong once because they were tricked. - ((Entire Garden of Eden section of Genesis - original sin, etc.))

---------------------------------

But that's not the point. The point is that our morals cannot literally come from religion (and yes, some religions don't have this sort of moral code but they're not the popular ones are they?) so they must come from the world around us. Crimes may be commited in the name of science but what I meant by "morals coming from science" was that our behavioural code is built-in because it evolved to continue the species. Sometimes an individual is selfish and goes against that, but it tends not to pay in terms of reproductive success later on. When numerous cultures are faced with dilemmas like "Should you kill one person deliberately to save five?", the answer is almost universally no across religious and non-religious people. - M. Hauser and P. Singer "Morality without religion" Free Inquiry 26: 1, 2006, 18-19

You know what I've never really understood... Why does it matter what other people believe? Do those beliefs somehow invalidate your own? I mean, it seems like everyone with a set of beliefs is always trying to convert everyone else to those beliefs, whether they be religious or atheist. I tend to lean toward agnostic, because frankly, I don't know and I don't really care. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what's out there, because there's no way of knowing, and so it can't possibly affect my life (if it did, that would be proof).

rock_nog wrote: Why does it matter what other people believe?

Because they fly planes into buildings. They try to make teaching evolution illegal. They burn people at the stake for making telescopes. They encourage a society of backwardness and non-thought. They make life miserable for smart people who realize that the universe, real or not, is real enough that it must be understood and lived in if we are to avoid pain and nothingness in our lives.

People who believe in magic are mentally incompetent and are a danger to a rational society that desires progress and growth.

Oh, right, good call! I dunno... I know a few people who are religious but are tolerant of others' beliefs. Of course, can you really say they're beliefs if you acknowledge the beliefs of others?

Beldaran wrote:People who believe in magic are mentally incompetent and are a danger to a rational society that desires progress and growth.

You see, it's statements like these that exploded this entire thread into what it is.

Transitive Property wrote:If a=b and b=c, then a=c.

Now, substituting what you have been saying during this entire thread...

"If you believe in a god, you believe in magic. If you believe in magic, then you are mentally incompetent. Therefore, if you believe in a god, you are mentally incompetent."

Albert Einstein wrote:I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.

Albert Einstein definitively believed in a god. But you cannot say that he was mentally incompetent, can you?

Yeah way to blow that einstein quote out of context. I have actually discussed this in person with a nobel prize winning chemist (Harold Kroto, discoverer of carbon-60 molecule, pioneer of nano-tech) and he explained that basically Einstein believed in physics, math, logic, order, and thought and he called the collection of those things "god". He did not believe in magic like most people.