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 (10/28/2010 1:32:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wilbeurdaddy ...science is the only way to ascertain truth IF it exists, which is absolutely correct. No. It isn't. Nothing else you have said is at all relevant.

PatrickG38 -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/28/2010 2:07:31 PM)
Stop capitalizing truth. Its too Platonic.

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/28/2010 2:20:40 PM)
Fair enough. The fact remains though that Scientism sets science up as the only way we can say anything of any value about the world, anything that might be considered 'true'. And its wrong. All science can do is tell us about science. Personally, I like a bit more than that.

PatrickG38 -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/28/2010 2:21:58 PM)
Science does not tell us about science; it tells us about the natural world.

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/28/2010 2:33:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PatrickG38 Science does not tell us about science; it tells us about the natural world. It tells us what science sees of the natural world - that's not the same thing as telling us about the world. I don't have a problem with science - it tells us all sorts of useful science stuff about all manner of things. I'm only objecting to the claim that science is everything there is.

GotSteel -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/31/2010 8:12:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz Hopefully those same sane people might agree that religious texts have much more to say to us about morality than a bunch of carefully measured facts and figures. Personally when trying to determine what's best for the individual, for society and how to balance the two I'd prefer a decision be based on carefully measured facts and figures instead of fairy tales out of religious texts. Wouldn't you?

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/1/2010 7:55:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: hertz Hopefully those same sane people might agree that religious texts have much more to say to us about morality than a bunch of carefully measured facts and figures. Personally when trying to determine what's best for the individual, for society and how to balance the two I'd prefer a decision be based on carefully measured facts and figures instead of fairy tales out of religious texts. Wouldn't you? Not necessarily. Facts and figures in the context of society and the individual tend to be about economics and efficiency. The numbers might easily suggest that the rainforests might be better converted into tables and chairs, that lions and tigers are unnecessary, that birdsong means nothing, and so on. Personally, I am suspicious that 'careful measured facts and figures' almost always concern stuff I am not that interested in. When your carefully measured facts and figures can incorporate the rare early morning encounter with a wild deer, and the warmth of a smile from a stranger, or a random act of kindness, then I might be more interested.

luckydawg -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/1/2010 7:09:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: hertz Hopefully those same sane people might agree that religious texts have much more to say to us about morality than a bunch of carefully measured facts and figures. Personally when trying to determine what's best for the individual, for society and how to balance the two I'd prefer a decision be based on carefully measured facts and figures instead of fairy tales out of religious texts. Wouldn't you? What is the sceintific formula for determining the optimum balance between what is best of an individual and what is best for a society? Or for determing what is "best" for either of them?

nephandi -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/2/2010 7:29:28 PM)
Greetings quote: Care to cite examples of a few atheists who've retreated that far into cloud cuckoo land? Not even Dawkins has taken it as far as you're implying, and most atheists find him overly condescending and combative anyway. I can do better, do you want to experience it. Go to a Atheist website, or any website where you are likely to find allot of born again atheists and say. I believe in God, or some other such religions statement and watch the ridicule begin. Try it. I wish you well

nephandi -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/2/2010 7:40:27 PM)
Greetings I always find it rather silly when someone is so sure they have the one and only truth that is is okey to ridicule everyone who believes otherwise. I am against religions people trying to force their view on others, or when some religions lobby for completely ignoring things like evolution as it do not fit with their religions views, but I am also tired of Athists calling me insane and delusional because I belove there is more to this world than science can prove, or when they claim every ill comes from religion. The fact is that religion is an important part of a wast majority of the world's population's lives and to call every religions person insane, stupid and delusional is beyond arrogant. But it is just as arrogant to think that your own religion, your chosen faith have the one and only truth, I once watched three Muslims argue about what method of prayer was the right on tm, as each came from Muslim groups with slightly different teachings. I was thinking what the hell, do you really think God cars if you pray this or that way. I think pepole are to concerned with being right, with having the one true way. People should just practice what they believe themselves and let others be in peace with what they believe or don't believe. It is not about being right, it is about finding a path that works for and have meaning for you personally. At least that is what I think about it. I wish you all well.

lickenforyou -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/2/2010 8:56:34 PM)
Of course anything can be taken too far. Science is merely our best way of explaining our world. The major difference is that a new scientific theory can come along and change existing thought. Religion doesn't allow for new information. There may be rule changes, but the fundamental dogma remains the same. I am an atheist, but I believe that religion has played an incredibly important role in the evolution of mankind. To denigrate it would be to call it useless. And, if one believes in evolution how could one believe that something that has lasted so long be useless. I think that it will eventually go the way of the tail. But, I'm not going to step on it. I'll just watch it get smaller till it eventually disappears.

nephandi -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/3/2010 1:58:38 AM)
Greetings quote: Of course anything can be taken too far. Science is merely our best way of explaining our world. The major difference is that a new scientific theory can come along and change existing thought. Religion doesn't allow for new information. There may be rule changes, but the fundamental dogma remains the same. The problem here is that you see all religion under one. Most Pagan religions for example constantly change and evolve. As for me I think a combination of religion and science is the best way of explaining our world. quote: I am an atheist, but I believe that religion has played an incredibly important role in the evolution of mankind. To denigrate it would be to call it useless. And, if one believes in evolution how could one believe that something that has lasted so long be useless. I think that it will eventually go the way of the tail. But, I'm not going to step on it. I'll just watch it get smaller till it eventually disappears. Well since science have found that quite a percentage of the population have a gene that actually drive them to desire religion or to find some Spiritual meaning I seriously doubt religion will disappear. There have been religion since the earliest human's walked the earth, excavation of ancient settlements usually uncover that the settlement had some Spiritual practice, religion will never disappear, though I think more and more will mix it with scientific ideas, as there is really no reason why the two should be separate. I wish you well

lickenforyou -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/3/2010 10:36:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nephandi Greetings quote: Of course anything can be taken too far. Science is merely our best way of explaining our world. The major difference is that a new scientific theory can come along and change existing thought. Religion doesn't allow for new information. There may be rule changes, but the fundamental dogma remains the same. The problem here is that you see all religion under one. Most Pagan religions for example constantly change and evolve. As for me I think a combination of religion and science is the best way of explaining our world. quote: I am an atheist, but I believe that religion has played an incredibly important role in the evolution of mankind. To denigrate it would be to call it useless. And, if one believes in evolution how could one believe that something that has lasted so long be useless. I think that it will eventually go the way of the tail. But, I'm not going to step on it. I'll just watch it get smaller till it eventually disappears. Well since science have found that quite a percentage of the population have a gene that actually drive them to desire religion or to find some Spiritual meaning I seriously doubt religion will disappear. There have been religion since the earliest human's walked the earth, excavation of ancient settlements usually uncover that the settlement had some Spiritual practice, religion will never disappear, though I think more and more will mix it with scientific ideas, as there is really no reason why the two should be separate. I wish you well Please give some examples of pagan religions evolving. The "god gene" will become less useful as time goes on and will, probably, eventually be turned off. The brain takes in information and then categorizes it. Not all data collected is known. Religion exists to answer questions that are unknown. As science finds the answer to these questions religion becomes less necessary.

nephandi -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/3/2010 4:30:18 PM)
Greetings Wicca have changed allot the sixty or so years it have been in existence, Åsatru constantly changes, many shamanic paths while it have traditional roots changes with the experiences of each practitioner and the list go on an on. As for the so called God gene, well I do not see that it will become less useful as I am religions so we will just have to agree to disagree on that. What I think will happen is that science will eventually be practiced side by side with religion, there is no reason why the two need to be enemies. I also think that there are questions that science just can not answer, mysteries which can not be measured, weighted and categorized. I wish you well.

GotSteel -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/3/2010 5:54:37 PM)
When your carefully measured facts and figures can incorporate the rare early morning encounter with a wild deer, and the warmth of a smile from a stranger, or a random act of kindness, then I might be more interested. We've discussed the issues with being purposely ignorant of reality before. Facts are well facts, I like deer as well but that's not a good reason to make decisions based on religious texts instead of facts and figures. For example before the invention of reliable contraceptives perhaps some of the morays about sexuality portrayed by the bible made some sense but with the advent of reliable contraceptives and a whole lot of other factors the situation has changed and the bible hasn't. Going with the bible and ignoring facts when it comes to human sexuality leads to things like the continued promotion of abstinence only education even though it demonstrably reliably doesn't work. The examples in your post seem largely about advocating for the preservation of nature. If you were to check the facts and figures you might notice that the groups at least in my country advocating that decisions be made according to religious texts aren't the ones looking to preserve nature. How is it in your country? quote: ORIGINAL: hertz Personally, I am suspicious that 'careful measured facts and figures' almost always concern stuff I am not that interested in. What is this even supposed to mean? It almost sounds like your talking about a conspiracy theory.

lickenforyou -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/3/2010 7:19:50 PM)
quote: Åsatru constantly changes quote: ORIGINAL: nephandi Greetings Wicca have changed allot the sixty or so years it have been in existence, Åsatru constantly changes, many shamanic paths while it have traditional roots changes with the experiences of each practitioner and the list go on an on. As for the so called God gene, well I do not see that it will become less useful as I am religions so we will just have to agree to disagree on that. What I think will happen is that science will eventually be practiced side by side with religion, there is no reason why the two need to be enemies. I also think that there are questions that science just can not answer, mysteries which can not be measured, weighted and categorized. I wish you well. Just saying Wicca has changed a lot, is not giving an example. I would need to know what changes in shamanic paths there have been to intelligently argue that point.. And, there are questions that science just can not answer - yet. Why would religion and be science be practiced side by side. What question can be answered by religion that can't be answered by science?

Kirata -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/3/2010 9:07:19 PM)
The reason our scientific understanding of the world has changed so much is because it has been wrong so often. It seems rather obvious from this that at any given point in the history of science, including now, a smart bookie would stand to make a fortune by fading bets that it's right "this time". K.

nephandi -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/4/2010 12:58:00 AM)
Greetings What sort of changes are you looking for? Are you looking for tales of how the religion suddenly found out that na there is nothing supernatural, then no you will not find that, but how things are practiced, many religions ideas and such are changed allot, especially since in such religions the individual practitioner chooses their own path, it is not a overhanging dogma which dictates practice, there are traditions which one can change, ignore or adjust into what fit the individual. There is not so easy to speak of general changes as many Pagan religions is so much based on individuality and the changes in the individual. But if you tell me what changes you are looking for I can try. As for what religion could answer that science can not, Oh I do not know, questions like, are there a meaning with life? Are there a soul, and if so what is it? Are there an afterlife? Now off course science can become a lot more Spiritual and perhaps find an answer to such questions, but then that would be the same joining of science and Spirituality as I where talking about now would it not? Other than that I have to say that there is allot in what Kirata is saying, science changes allot because it is constantly proven wrong. Now most religions have not been proven wrong. I agree that some religions hold onto dogma which do no longer work in the modern world, but even for the big monotheistic religions there are many groups who change with the times, and if you go to a Church to day Christianity for example will not be practiced the same way as it was 500 years ago, with some very few exceptions. Change just for the case of change is not what is important, it is not being stuck in assumptions and instead welcoming new information when it comes which is important. I wish you well

lickenforyou -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/4/2010 12:07:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nephandi Greetings What sort of changes are you looking for? Are you looking for tales of how the religion suddenly found out that na there is nothing supernatural, then no you will not find that, but how things are practiced, many religions ideas and such are changed allot, especially since in such religions the individual practitioner chooses their own path, it is not a overhanging dogma which dictates practice, there are traditions which one can change, ignore or adjust into what fit the individual. There is not so easy to speak of general changes as many Pagan religions is so much based on individuality and the changes in the individual. But if you tell me what changes you are looking for I can try. As for what religion could answer that science can not, Oh I do not know, questions like, are there a meaning with life? Are there a soul, and if so what is it? Are there an afterlife? Now off course science can become a lot more Spiritual and perhaps find an answer to such questions, but then that would be the same joining of science and Spirituality as I where talking about now would it not? Other than that I have to say that there is allot in what Kirata is saying, science changes allot because it is constantly proven wrong. Now most religions have not been proven wrong. I agree that some religions hold onto dogma which do no longer work in the modern world, but even for the big monotheistic religions there are many groups who change with the times, and if you go to a Church to day Christianity for example will not be practiced the same way as it was 500 years ago, with some very few exceptions. Change just for the case of change is not what is important, it is not being stuck in assumptions and instead welcoming new information when it comes which is important. I wish you well Religion does not answer the questions of "is there a soul" or "is there an after life" with any proof what so ever. And, of course science changes when it is PROVED wrong. It seems to me that most religions are basically self help groups. And, I stated that they were/are necessary. Studies have shown that religous people, in general, are more content than non religous people. Youe see, that's science PROVING that religion is useful. What it doesn't prove, however, is that religion is right about the supernatural. If you are happy in your life with answers based on belief that is fine, and I wish you well. But, religions have not been proven wrong because they make claims that cannot be tested.

GotSteel -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/4/2010 1:46:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lickenforyou But, religions have not been proven wrong because they make claims that cannot be tested. I have to disagree with this, religions have made testable claims and have been shown to be terribly wrong. This generally just leads to attacks on science and progressively convoluted reinterpretations of the claims to make them less testable. [image]local://upfiles/566126/0C42079621A64358BFBE50F4DF540329.jpg[/image]

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875