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

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/9/2010 1:26:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub 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 Get back in that test-tube, dammit...

lickenforyou -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/9/2010 3:49:06 PM)
quote: The universe has no existence outside of consciousness. Consciousness literally creates it all. quote: ORIGINAL: hertz 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. Stating that "science creates fanciful stories" is simply not true. SOME of the calculations may be proved wrong, but the theories are not MADE UP. The problem I see with most of your arguments on this thread is that you're using philosophy to counter scientific theory.

GotSteel -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/9/2010 6:11:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz There isn't much evidence to counter it, either. There's a massive amount of evidence as in everything older than .20 seconds but since the premise of your position rejects all that evidence, yeah it's impossible to demonstrate that solipsism is false to a solipsist. It's the ultimate conspiracy theory. But that doesn't answer my question: how pray tell did you come to that conclusion? There certainly isn't evidence to warrant it. Or to phrase it another way how did you get from the position that the idea can't be shown to be false to the position that the idea is true?

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/10/2010 1:31:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Or to phrase it another way how did you get from the position that the idea can't be shown to be false to the position that the idea is true? In pretty much the same way as you got to your position from the idea that the idea can't be shown to be true, so it is probably false. Truth is, I find ideas and theories interesting. And the bigger and more settled the ideas, the more interesting it becomes to pick away at the edges of them to see how quickly they unravel. quote: ORIGINAL: lickenforyou Stating that "science creates fanciful stories" is simply not true. SOME of the calculations may be proved wrong, but the theories are not MADE UP. Well, actually, some of them, they are. Really they are. What the scientists have are some good observations and some theories which appear to make predictions. So far, so good. But the theories could be utterly, utterly wrong and still make accurate predictions right up to the point at which, suddenly, they do not. The great thing about science is that being utterly wrong is OK.

Steponme73 -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/10/2010 1:46:23 PM)
What we need to keep in mind here that both the religious right and the New Atheism have strong feelings for their position but you don't see them declaring war on each other and saying "convert or die". However, there is a religion out there that does exactly that and they are the enemy. Muslims believe that you either convert or die. I have not heard the other two say that yet. So in the big scheme of things their battles are just that battles. No one has declared war. No one is willing to kill for their position.

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/10/2010 1:51:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Steponme73 What we need to keep in mind here that both the religious right and the New Atheism have strong feelings for their position but you don't see them declaring war on each other and saying "convert or die". However, there is a religion out there that does exactly that and they are the enemy. Muslims believe that you either convert or die. I have not heard the other two say that yet. So in the big scheme of things their battles are just that battles. No one has declared war. No one is willing to kill for their position. Some Muslims might believe that the neo-con agenda is very similar. Convert, or die. By the way, I think it is a mistake to characterise the entire Muslim faith in the way you do. There are many shades of Islam.

urineme -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/10/2010 2:08:11 PM)
After all is said, and said repeatedly, noone will have changed their opinion one Iota. This topic, religion, is one where folks come to a "discussion" with their minds made-up and they are ready to try to persuade the other side that the other side is wrong, and that THEY are right. Believe, or not, as you choose to, accept that others have different beliefs, or a lack of, than yours, don't try to "convert" each other, nor prevent the other from enjoying an expression of their beliefs. FAITH is a personal thing, ORGANIZED RELIGION is something else completely. Go in peace William

Kirata -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/10/2010 3:27:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Steponme73 What we need to keep in mind here that both the religious right and the New Atheism have strong feelings for their position but you don't see them declaring war on each other and saying "convert or die". However, there is a religion out there that does exactly that and they are the enemy. Muslims believe that you either convert or die. I have not heard the other two say that yet. What we need to keep in mind here is, that in the context of this topic the Religious Right refers to a Christian movement in the United States. Islam bashing is a different thread. Okay? K.

lickenforyou -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/10/2010 4:24:51 PM)
quote: Well, actually, some of them, they are. Really they are. What the scientists have are some good observations and some theories which appear to make predictions. So far, so good. But the theories could be utterly, utterly wrong and still make accurate predictions right up to the point at which, suddenly, they do not. The great thing about science is that being utterly wrong is OK. quote: ORIGINAL: hertz quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Or to phrase it another way how did you get from the position that the idea can't be shown to be false to the position that the idea is true? In pretty much the same way as you got to your position from the idea that the idea can't be shown to be true, so it is probably false. Truth is, I find ideas and theories interesting. And the bigger and more settled the ideas, the more interesting it becomes to pick away at the edges of them to see how quickly they unravel. quote: ORIGINAL: lickenforyou Stating that "science creates fanciful stories" is simply not true. SOME of the calculations may be proved wrong, but the theories are not MADE UP. Well, actually, some of them, they are. Really they are. What the scientists have are some good observations and some theories which appear to make predictions. So far, so good. But the theories could be utterly, utterly wrong and still make accurate predictions right up to the point at which, suddenly, they do not. The great thing about science is that being utterly wrong is OK. You argue in vague generalities.

Edwynn -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/10/2010 8:13:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lickenforyou quote: Stating that "science creates fanciful stories" is simply not true. SOME of the calculations may be proved wrong, but the theories are not MADE UP. quote: Well, actually, some of them, they are. Really they are. What the scientists have are some good observations and some theories which appear to make predictions. So far, so good. But the theories could be utterly, utterly wrong and still make accurate predictions right up to the point at which, suddenly, they do not. The great thing about science is that being utterly wrong is OK. You argue in vague generalities. Shhh, don't interrupt. It's fun having it explained that something 98% right is utterly wrong and that every step in scientific understanding renders the step immediately prior as being utterly wrong. Good stuff.

GotSteel -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/11/2010 1:15:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Or to phrase it another way how did you get from the position that the idea can't be shown to be false to the position that the idea is true? In pretty much the same way as you got to your position from the idea that the idea can't be shown to be true, so it is probably false. That's not quite my position, I'm of the opinion that there's no evidence that it's true therefore it's unjustified to assert that it's true. (I'm an atheist for the same reason) But back to your method for determining whether a claim is true, it wouldn't be much the same way so much as it would be the opposite way wouldn't it? Isn't the method you're using something along the lines of: the idea can't be shown to be false, so it is probably true?

HowardYu -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/11/2010 1:34:41 PM)
There are a few religious types that have killed for their position....they might be viewed as extremists by other religious types....but there are doctors that because they performed abortions are now dead shot down by proud religious types. Many a clinic blownup that could easily have injured or killed. I am certain there are others. Religious extremists...no matter the religion...have proven time and again to be dangerous. Cannot think of any killed by atheists but there might be.

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/11/2010 1:39:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lickenforyou You argue in vague generalities. I could post a huge block of text, I guess, and put the argument in a more precise and formal way, but people have written books on the subject which come to many thousands of words. I don't want to write thousands of words. You don't want to read them. My preference would be that if you are at all interested, do a bit of poking around on your own. quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn It's fun having it explained that something 98% right is utterly wrong and that every step in scientific understanding renders the step immediately prior as being utterly wrong. I think maybe you need to take a deep breath and re-read what you have just said. Personally, I think you are saying nothing, but I could be missing something. Hey - here's an idea: You tell us what the correct 98% is, and we'll see if someone can fill in what is left.

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/11/2010 2:00:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: hertz quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Or to phrase it another way how did you get from the position that the idea can't be shown to be false to the position that the idea is true? In pretty much the same way as you got to your position from the idea that the idea can't be shown to be true, so it is probably false. Isn't the method you're using something along the lines of: the idea can't be shown to be false, so it is probably true? No. That would be bonkers. If an idea cannot be shown to be false, then it becomes one of a number of possible truths. It's actually a bit worse than that because even if it can be shown to be false, it still might be true - it could be that the method used to determine the status of an idea is flawed, or enough information is lacking to make the claim 'false', false. Certainly, if an idea cannot be shown to be false, it does not automatically become true. I have already suggested that I cannot be certain about the things that are 'true' either. Yes, there are plenty of observations, and some really sweet theories that appear to be backed by good evidence, but that isn't really the end of the story. The observations could be flawed in some subtle way, the theory reached could be horribly wrong despite its apparent veracity and son on. OK, so in normal life, I might just ignore all of that and use some basic common sense - assume that if I step into the road without looking I could get hit by a car, that if I do get hit, I will get injured, that I could die and so on. Simple example in the context of this debate. I suggested that I know DomKen doesn't exist. Within the framework of this thread, that argument can be disputed. He posts, so yes, most likely he does exist. Or, at least, someone who claims to be him exists. Or a number of people who claim to be him exist. Or someone who is already someone else exists. Or DomKen does not exist at all. It kind of depends on where one stands in relation to the thread, and what 'exists' means, and what 'DomKen' means and probably all sorts of other stuff as well. Truth is, DomKen simultaneously exists and doesn't exist. It just depends on one's perspective and what one knows about him, and what meaning is ascribed to the various elements of the belief system that creates him. I'm quite confident that he doesn't exist. I could just play the 'most likely' game - but that's not very satisfying. Not really. Beyond this thread, I could ignore the questions and just assume all is good and everything is as it seems. Nothing to see here, move on. Often, I do just that. At other times, like when I am involved in a debate like this one, or when I find myself in a church or temple, I usually take the decision to let the questions float to the surface. There are lots of questions. I find myself very short of certain answers.

lickenforyou -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/11/2010 5:06:42 PM)
quote: I could post a huge block of text, I guess, and put the argument in a more precise and formal way, but people have written books on the subject which come to many thousands of words. I don't want to write thousands of words. You don't want to read them. My preference would be that if you are at all interested, do a bit of poking around on your own. quote: ORIGINAL: hertz I could post a huge block of text, I guess, and put the argument in a more precise and formal way, but people have written books on the subject which come to many thousands of words. I don't want to write thousands of words. You don't want to read them. My preference would be that if you are at all interested, do a bit of poking around on your own. quote: It would not take thousands of words to be more precise. That would be the opposite of being precise. I've done plenty of "poking around" and your arguments remind me of Stephen C. Meyer's paper on ID. Now there's a fanciful story for you.

Edwynn -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/11/2010 5:48:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn It's fun having it explained that something 98% right is utterly wrong and that every step in scientific understanding renders the step immediately prior as being utterly wrong. quote: I think maybe you need to take a deep breath ... The melodrama is fun, innit? quote: Personally, I think you are saying nothing, ... Utterly insightful. quote: but I could be missing something. Utterly, utterly true. Just iconoclastic irreverence finding amusement in the melodrama is all, nothing to gather the animals into the barn over. Carry on.

Edwynn -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/11/2010 5:49:17 PM)
/

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/12/2010 1:44:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn / OK - Now I get you. I thought you were just having a dig. I apologise for accusing you of having nothing to say.

tazzygirl -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/12/2010 2:28:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HowardYu There are a few religious types that have killed for their position....they might be viewed as extremists by other religious types....but there are doctors that because they performed abortions are now dead shot down by proud religious types. Many a clinic blownup that could easily have injured or killed. I am certain there are others. Religious extremists...no matter the religion...have proven time and again to be dangerous. Cannot think of any killed by atheists but there might be. Columbine must not ring a bell with you.

HowardYu -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/12/2010 2:58:57 AM)
Well taz, I will admit that Columbine did not come to mind when I wrote my entry, and I guess I don't recollect the kids that killed there being athiests as an aspect of the story. Maybe I missed that too. I took Columbine more as kids that were left alone and largely unparented, with access to guns....and their act was pointless....just senseless and unfeeling killing. I did say there were probably examples and there are probably more if it were examined. Thanks!

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125