RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/7/2010 8:45:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz quote: Prayer does not show action by a supernatural entity, it is action by the person praying. Proof of god requires identifiable action by god. Just as my moving a pencil shows action by me. If proof of God requires identifiable action by God, then God exists. God created the Heavens and the Earth. The movement of a pencil may, or may not, show action by you - I still think you are allowing the question of your existence rather more latitude than you are allowing for the existence of God. Show me a single scintilla of evidence that god had anything to do with creating anything physical. If you cannot then you cannot expect that claim to be believed. OTOH I can easily demonstrate my ability to affect the physical world (these posts are a fine example) which demonstrates my existence. To deny the evidence of your senses is to venture into solipsism which is useless.

GotSteel -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/7/2010 9:08:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz PS Did I say I am an atheist? I'll just say it again - I am an atheist. Would you explain what being a "practicing occultist" means? Are you under the impression that you have some sort of magic powers?

GotSteel -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/7/2010 10:12:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz I may have expressed myself badly. The point isn't the preservation of nature. The point is science can count the Deer, dissect and name its parts, weigh it and measure it, make an account of its chemical composition, read its DNA, describe its appearance and scent and so on, and in so doing, still completely miss the point. As you yourself did, if I might venture so bold. We certainly aren't on the same page and I have a couple of questions that hopefully will help me figure out where you're coming from but I think you may have been missing something key about what I've been saying as well. I'm wondering if part of the problem stems from the way you talk about science. You've been attributing attributes to science which it doesn't actually posses, science can't count and science doesn't see and so on. I hope that's just figurative language but why are you using it? Why are you personifying science? Science isn't some sort of deity, I'm not talking about building some sort of automaton to make moral decisions for us. All I'm saying is that when you make a decision (moral or otherwise) having as accurate an understanding of reality as possible is more likely to lead to a desirable result than making a decision which involves multiple factors which you are demonstrably wrong about or willfully ignorant of.

lickenforyou -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/7/2010 12:02:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nephandi You call religious people naive, do not be naive yourself, look at the history of science, look at interviews with some of the currently most acclaimed people in the field who say that when they begun their research, no matter how much proof they showed for their theories they where ignored or buried in the back of publications, scientists are no more happy than other to lose fame and power, and few want their theories to be proven wrong, it takes allot of time for a theory to be front page news, especially if is controversial. There are however evidence that huge, complex formations have appeared in a few minutes, with the crops being folded in ways which is impossible to make it do with any known method. Supernatural is just a word, it is a word to point at something that we as of yet do not know how fit in nature. I think that scientific method as it advances will be able to fit most phenomena into the laws of nature. Only if you bury your head in the sand and do not look at the evidence that are out there. Scientific theory does take a long time to make front page news (for good reason) However, MEDICAL "discoveries" make front page news way too early. So, you are just wrong on that point. There is no credible evidence that any crop circles formed in "a few minutes" NONE!!! Supernatural is not just a word. It refers to something that doesn't adhere to natural law. I never called you naive, but you accuse me of having my "head buried in the sand". Once you run out of arguments you resort to personal attacks. I simply believe that you may not have a true grasp on the definition of EVIDENCE.

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/7/2010 2:30:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Show me a single scintilla of evidence that god had anything to do with creating anything physical. If you cannot then you cannot expect that claim to be believed. Well that's a whole other ball of wax. You're in danger of falling into the logical fallacy of believing that lack of evidence is evidence of lack. Don't fall for it! quote: I can easily demonstrate my ability to affect the physical world (these posts are a fine example) which demonstrates my existence. To deny the evidence of your senses is to venture into solipsism which is useless. Soilipsism apart, there may well be a sound scientific basis on which to question your claim. Consciousness and the will to action is problematic beyond mere philosophy.

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/7/2010 2:32:09 PM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: hertz PS Did I say I am an atheist? I'll just say it again - I am an atheist. Would you explain what being a "practicing occultist" means? Are you under the impression that you have some sort of magic powers? I think there may be a confusion here. I am 100% atheist. No occultism for me!

GotSteel -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/7/2010 2:36:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nephandi Religion says the reason is supernatural, while science have another explanation, however the fact remains that religion very often have come up with useful and true interpretations on how the world works which have later been verified. Just look at the ancient world for example, how much knowledge was discovered by Egyptians, Greeks and Romans in the form of their religion which is still considered true to this day. Well I'm not willing to state that the claims made by religions are wrong 100% of the time, I'm not familiar with 100% of the claims made by 100% of the religions so I can't say. I wouldn't even say that a monkey banging randomly on a keyboard would be wrong 100% of the time, there's a non zero probability of him accidentally banging out a true statement. My issue with theism is the lack of a reliable method for sorting between fact and fantasy. That said, when you used the words for example I was looking forward to your example and disappointed when you asked a question instead of actually citing an example. Since these examples have happened "very often" it shouldn't be hard to post a few. By all means please do so.

MercTech -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/7/2010 2:37:12 PM)
Keep that salt shaker handy... Have you ever noticed that most "medical discoveries" seem to be selling some new expensive treatment? Pain and suffering sell so such get rapid press. But the inability of most journalists to have a clue about hard science leads to slow reporting and usually incorrect reporting. Jaded, Stefan

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/7/2010 2:42:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: hertz I may have expressed myself badly. The point isn't the preservation of nature. The point is science can count the Deer, dissect and name its parts, weigh it and measure it, make an account of its chemical composition, read its DNA, describe its appearance and scent and so on, and in so doing, still completely miss the point. As you yourself did, if I might venture so bold. We certainly aren't on the same page and I have a couple of questions that hopefully will help me figure out where you're coming from but I think you may have been missing something key about what I've been saying as well. I'm wondering if part of the problem stems from the way you talk about science. You've been attributing attributes to science which it doesn't actually posses, science can't count and science doesn't see and so on. I hope that's just figurative language but why are you using it? Why are you personifying science? Science isn't some sort of deity, I'm not talking about building some sort of automaton to make moral decisions for us. What I am trying to say, clumsily, it appears, is that I am not satisfied by the description of the physical world provided by a purely scientific approach to the question. I am not necessarily invoking any supernatural agency, or a deity (I am, after all, an atheist) but I do not accept the understanding of the world that science provides as the only possible way to understand the world. Of course science doesn't count or measure, but scientists do as part of their method, and they reach conclusions based on those measurements (although they will often intuit a conclusion and work back to the proof). quote: All I'm saying is that when you make a decision (moral or otherwise) having as accurate an understanding of reality as possible is more likely to lead to a desirable result than making a decision which involves multiple factors which you are demonstrably wrong about or willfully ignorant of. I agree with this, which is in part why I hold the position I do. Science does not, in my opinion, give us 'as accurate an understanding of reality as possible'. But it does form a large part of that understanding.

GotSteel -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/7/2010 3:12:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz I think there may be a confusion here. I am 100% atheist. No occultism for me! My apologies I was away from the thread too long and got you and nephandi confused.

tweakabelle -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/8/2010 1:30:37 AM)
quote: But atheism has become a pseudo-religion for many people, tweakabelle. They have their own rituals and priesthood, their own bigoted belief that they, and they alone are the 'chosen ones' who have been given access to some sort of truth about the world. I absolutely agree with you that extremist religion-heads need to be avoided. But atheism has more than its fair share of idiocy as well. If you comments were directed were directed at Scientism, rather than atheism, i suspect we agree thoroughly. And i believe your comments accurately refer to Scientism rather than atheism. I would hope that you agree the above quote doesn't not apply to agnosticism or freethinking, which is the position i happen to espouse. My understanding is that atheism is the belief that there is no God. No more and no less. Agnosticism generally refers to the view that the case for the existence of a deity is unproven. The kind of dogmatic approach that you refer to is quite contrary to the principles of basic Science, which is a research methodology that generates verifiable working hypotheses. Dawkins is a good example of someone who takes this methodology as the one and only approach to the production of truths. Properly speaking, science has no concept of truth, or to put that slightly differently, regards any truth proposition as provisional, even arbirtrary. My understanding of the philosophy of science tells me that embellishing a methodology that has no concept of truth into a truth production ideology, as Dawkins does, is simply shoddy science. For example, Dawkins continually claims that evolution is a "fact", a position that is insupportable scientifically. Evolution is, in my view, far and away the most credible explanation we have for the world around us. But it is not and never will be a truth. Science never has and never will produce 'truth'. It is beyond the limits of science to do so. It is, in my view, inappropriate for scientists to make such claims and they forego the mantle and authority of science as soon as they do. So, my view is atheism is not the pseudo-religion you describe - Scientism is. I do hope we can agree on that. Now onto something far more important: How can i get rid of that hideous vanilla icon? Can some one please help me? Love to all

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/8/2010 6:01:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle If you comments were directed were directed at Scientism, rather than atheism, i suspect we agree thoroughly. And i believe your comments accurately refer to Scientism rather than atheism. I would hope that you agree the above quote doesn't not apply to agnosticism or freethinking, which is the position i happen to espouse. You are, of course, absolutely correct. My only excuse is that I often find myself arguing with people who describe their beliefs as atheistic, when in fact they might more accurately be described as scientistic. I tend to blur the boundaries sometimes. Mea culpa. quote: My understanding is that atheism is the belief that there is no God. No more and no less. Agnosticism generally refers to the view that the case for the existence of a deity is unproven. I agree. There is no God. I believe this leaves space for one to be an atheist whilst maintaining the viewpoint that there may be 'more' than science alone will ever reveal to us. quote: So, my view is atheism is not the pseudo-religion you describe - Scientism is. I do hope we can agree on that. Again, I am in agreement with you. Now onto something far more important: How can i get rid of that hideous vanilla icon? Can some one please help me? Post for you life. Don't worry about the quality (no-one else does) - just post!

tweakabelle -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/8/2010 6:56:33 AM)
I agree. There is no God. I believe this leaves space for one to be an atheist whilst maintaining the viewpoint that there may be 'more' than science alone will ever reveal to us. [ [/quote] Absolutely. Just because something can't be measured of quantified doesn't mean it can't exist. This kind of narrow-minded dogmatism is usually generated by second rate minds. Knowledge is power and 'scientists' can no more resist its corruption than the rest of us. Actually i would argue that Godel's Theorem confirms your point. To elevate science to be the only route to understanding, as Scientism does, is to totalise it. Following Godel's Theorem any totalising theory must be invalid. This implies Scientism is invalid according to science's own paradigms. Therefore there must non-scientific approaches to knowledge and understanding that are useful and valid. One everyday example is personal experience. QED i would have thought. All of which still leaves me with the unresolved problem of the vanilla cone!

GotSteel -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/8/2010 7:20:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle My understanding is that atheism is the belief that there is no God. No more and no less. Agnosticism generally refers to the view that the case for the existence of a deity is unproven. I consider myself an atheist based on less than that, I lack a belief in god. I'm not alone in that it's a relatively common use of the word. P.S. It's based on the number of posts. ....oh look at that I made evil and didn't even notice (where's the emoticon for evil laugh when I need one).

GotSteel -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/8/2010 7:29:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz I am not asking you to prove to me that you exist - I already know you do not. Um what?

Nslavu -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/8/2010 12:30:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: But atheism has become a pseudo-religion for many people, tweakabelle. They have their own rituals and priesthood, their own bigoted belief that they, and they alone are the 'chosen ones' who have been given access to some sort of truth about the world. I absolutely agree with you that extremist religion-heads need to be avoided. But atheism has more than its fair share of idiocy as well. If you comments were directed were directed at Scientism, rather than atheism, i suspect we agree thoroughly. And i believe your comments accurately refer to Scientism rather than atheism. I would hope that you agree the above quote doesn't not apply to agnosticism or freethinking, which is the position i happen to espouse. My understanding is that atheism is the belief that there is no God. No more and no less. Agnosticism generally refers to the view that the case for the existence of a deity is unproven. The kind of dogmatic approach that you refer to is quite contrary to the principles of basic Science, which is a research methodology that generates verifiable working hypotheses. Dawkins is a good example of someone who takes this methodology as the one and only approach to the production of truths. Properly speaking, science has no concept of truth, or to put that slightly differently, regards any truth proposition as provisional, even arbirtrary. My understanding of the philosophy of science tells me that embellishing a methodology that has no concept of truth into a truth production ideology, as Dawkins does, is simply shoddy science. For example, Dawkins continually claims that evolution is a "fact", a position that is insupportable scientifically. Evolution is, in my view, far and away the most credible explanation we have for the world around us. But it is not and never will be a truth. Science never has and never will produce 'truth'. It is beyond the limits of science to do so. It is, in my view, inappropriate for scientists to make such claims and they forego the mantle and authority of science as soon as they do. So, my view is atheism is not the pseudo-religion you describe - Scientism is. I do hope we can agree on that. Now onto something far more important: How can i get rid of that hideous vanilla icon? Can some one please help me? Love to all There is no vanilla icon. Someone just made it up, hoping you'd believe in it.

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/8/2010 1:29:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: hertz I am not asking you to prove to me that you exist - I already know you do not. Um what? I believe the universe was created .20 seconds ago and I am the only being in it. Everything I am experiencing is a false memory created at the same time as myself and the universe. Even down to this post, and you reading it.

kdsub -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/8/2010 8:34:49 PM)
Nope you are wrong... the universe was created when i was born and will end when i die... have fun while you can I don't feel so good. Butch

GotSteel -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/9/2010 5:16:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz I believe the universe was created .20 seconds ago and I am the only being in it. Everything I am experiencing is a false memory created at the same time as myself and the universe. Even down to this post, and you reading it. How pray tell did you come to that conclusion? There certainly isn't evidence to warrant it.

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/9/2010 1:24:44 PM)
There isn't much evidence to counter it, either. This is actually part of a well-known set of science thingies. Just because the universe looks as if it's origin can be traced back to a single point, doesn't mean it actually happened like that. If the universe is infinite (near as), then there is the possibility that a mind can spontaneously appear out of nothingness, apprehend all of creation, and voila - me. Boltzmann The universe has no existence outside of consciousness. Consciousness literally creates it all. I am God. Kneel before me! In all seriousness - science creates fanciful stories which may or may not be 'true'. Many of the beliefs cosmology rests upon cannot be proven in any meaningful way. All we have is a bunch of numbers which could easily be put together in the wrong order.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875