Is There A Conflict Between Religion And Science?
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>May 14, 2008, 12:40:51 AM5/14/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
This came up in another thread and it's amazing how many theists stick
to the dumbassed "argument" that there's no conflict between religion
and science. It is pretty obvious to me that as long as theists
acknowledge that they rely on science, there is absolutely no
infringement on it by religion that--in their ruined little minds--
would ever constitute a "conflict" no matter how severe.
Science is a methodology, first and foremost, and the only reasonable
methodology for knowing anything about the natural world. On a method
level, religion assails this in many ways. Science is based around
some things being substantiated, and other things being falsified. It
is _not_ based are substantiating things you already know and
explaining everything else away with superstitions. Any presumptions
about the natural world that are unscientific are infringing on the
process of learning about reality, from historic battles about the
cosmos to the current ID versus evolution "debate"--especially when
they are unfalsifiable or refuse to reconcile to evidence. The idea
that there is no overlap between the domain of faith claims and
science is a blatant lie--as Sam Harris observed, even the claim of
the virgin birth is a claim about biology. Harris goes on to mention
that there's no telling which unscientific beliefs will be harmful--
noting that the idea that the soul enters the body at conception seems
harmless enough until it interferes with valuable, life-saving
research on embryonic stem cells.
A poster on the other thread mentioned "NOMA"--"non-overlapping
magisteria"--as conceived by Stephen Jay Gould. The idea is basically
that science has nothing to say about questions of God. Dawkins had
more than a little to say about this.
"This sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment's thought.
You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe
is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a
more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god
would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and
it would be a scientific difference. God could clinch the matter in
his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his
powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science. Even
the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific
hypothesis — by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote
prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients. It didn't, of
course, although a control group who knew they had been prayed for
tended to get worse (how about a class action suit against the
Templeton Foundation?) Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence
for God's existence has yet appeared.
"To see the disingenuous hypocrisy of religious people who embrace
NOMA, imagine that forensic archeologists, by some unlikely set of
circumstances, discovered DNA evidence demonstrating that Jesus was
born of a virgin mother and had no father. If NOMA enthusiasts were
sincere, they should dismiss the archeologists' DNA out of hand:
"Irrelevant. Scientific evidence has no bearing on theological
questions. Wrong magisterium." Does anyone seriously imagine that they
would say anything remotely like that? You can bet your boots that not
just the fundamentalists but every professor of theology and every
bishop in the land would trumpet the archeological evidence to the
skies." -- Richard Dawkins, "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God"
Religious people have executed scientists for centuries, and they try
to impose their superstitions in classrooms today.
Religion also interferes with the practical applications of science.
The use of contraceptives to combat AIDS is a good example. This even
extends as far as global warming and other areas of environmental
science--preserving the world for a long time isn't going to be a huge
issue for someone who thinks the world is going to end in the next
fifty years and wants it to. It has been speculated that if the right
wing in the US got its way, the only area of science that would get
funding would be weapons research.
Lastly but not least, it does go both ways. Science _is_ imposing on
areas once dominated by religion. Religious people love gaps in
knowledge because it gives them an excuse to insert dogma to fill them
in. The analogy of how they love gaps in the fossil record in the
evolution is a good example that Dawkins riffs on in _The God
Delusion_ (and he quotes a fellow scientist who observes that for
every gap in the fossil record that gets filled, it would just leave
two new gaps). 93% of The National Academy of Sciences in the US are
atheists by the definition of lacking a belief in God--not too far off
from the percentage of non-scientists that are theists in the same
country.
Sam Harris, in his debate with Rabbi David Wolpe:
“The one thing to notice is that the dialogue between science and
religion has gone this way: It has been one of relentless and one-
directional erosion of religious authority. I would challenge anyone
here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific
answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a
religious one. Now, you can think of an uncountable number of
questions that run the other way: Where we once had a religious answer
and now the authority of religion has been battered and nullified by
science and by moral progress and secular progress generally. And I
think that’s not an accident.”
Of course it isn't just science. Religious faith is at war with all
reality-based thinking and morality. There is no area that religious
faith, the magic bubble where bad ideas can't be dismissed by
criticism, doesn't leave its toxic imprint. But that's a larger issue.
Right now, I just want it to be acknowledged that religion and science
are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
question is which we would be wiser to compromise.
to the dumbassed "argument" that there's no conflict between religion
and science. It is pretty obvious to me that as long as theists
acknowledge that they rely on science, there is absolutely no
infringement on it by religion that--in their ruined little minds--
would ever constitute a "conflict" no matter how severe.
Science is a methodology, first and foremost, and the only reasonable
methodology for knowing anything about the natural world. On a method
level, religion assails this in many ways. Science is based around
some things being substantiated, and other things being falsified. It
is _not_ based are substantiating things you already know and
explaining everything else away with superstitions. Any presumptions
about the natural world that are unscientific are infringing on the
process of learning about reality, from historic battles about the
cosmos to the current ID versus evolution "debate"--especially when
they are unfalsifiable or refuse to reconcile to evidence. The idea
that there is no overlap between the domain of faith claims and
science is a blatant lie--as Sam Harris observed, even the claim of
the virgin birth is a claim about biology. Harris goes on to mention
that there's no telling which unscientific beliefs will be harmful--
noting that the idea that the soul enters the body at conception seems
harmless enough until it interferes with valuable, life-saving
research on embryonic stem cells.
A poster on the other thread mentioned "NOMA"--"non-overlapping
magisteria"--as conceived by Stephen Jay Gould. The idea is basically
that science has nothing to say about questions of God. Dawkins had
more than a little to say about this.
"This sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment's thought.
You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe
is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a
more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god
would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and
it would be a scientific difference. God could clinch the matter in
his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his
powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science. Even
the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific
hypothesis — by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote
prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients. It didn't, of
course, although a control group who knew they had been prayed for
tended to get worse (how about a class action suit against the
Templeton Foundation?) Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence
for God's existence has yet appeared.
"To see the disingenuous hypocrisy of religious people who embrace
NOMA, imagine that forensic archeologists, by some unlikely set of
circumstances, discovered DNA evidence demonstrating that Jesus was
born of a virgin mother and had no father. If NOMA enthusiasts were
sincere, they should dismiss the archeologists' DNA out of hand:
"Irrelevant. Scientific evidence has no bearing on theological
questions. Wrong magisterium." Does anyone seriously imagine that they
would say anything remotely like that? You can bet your boots that not
just the fundamentalists but every professor of theology and every
bishop in the land would trumpet the archeological evidence to the
skies." -- Richard Dawkins, "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God"
Religious people have executed scientists for centuries, and they try
to impose their superstitions in classrooms today.
Religion also interferes with the practical applications of science.
The use of contraceptives to combat AIDS is a good example. This even
extends as far as global warming and other areas of environmental
science--preserving the world for a long time isn't going to be a huge
issue for someone who thinks the world is going to end in the next
fifty years and wants it to. It has been speculated that if the right
wing in the US got its way, the only area of science that would get
funding would be weapons research.
Lastly but not least, it does go both ways. Science _is_ imposing on
areas once dominated by religion. Religious people love gaps in
knowledge because it gives them an excuse to insert dogma to fill them
in. The analogy of how they love gaps in the fossil record in the
evolution is a good example that Dawkins riffs on in _The God
Delusion_ (and he quotes a fellow scientist who observes that for
every gap in the fossil record that gets filled, it would just leave
two new gaps). 93% of The National Academy of Sciences in the US are
atheists by the definition of lacking a belief in God--not too far off
from the percentage of non-scientists that are theists in the same
country.
Sam Harris, in his debate with Rabbi David Wolpe:
“The one thing to notice is that the dialogue between science and
religion has gone this way: It has been one of relentless and one-
directional erosion of religious authority. I would challenge anyone
here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific
answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a
religious one. Now, you can think of an uncountable number of
questions that run the other way: Where we once had a religious answer
and now the authority of religion has been battered and nullified by
science and by moral progress and secular progress generally. And I
think that’s not an accident.”
Of course it isn't just science. Religious faith is at war with all
reality-based thinking and morality. There is no area that religious
faith, the magic bubble where bad ideas can't be dismissed by
criticism, doesn't leave its toxic imprint. But that's a larger issue.
Right now, I just want it to be acknowledged that religion and science
are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
question is which we would be wiser to compromise.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>May 14, 2008, 1:00:41 AM5/14/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Great post, comments inline.
Exactly right. If science has no input to religion, then they can't
have it both ways. Saying that the big bang is evidence of God is
making a scientific statement. It is saying that the probability of
the God hypothesis is enhanced by the observation (of course it isn't,
but that's the argument). Saying that complexity is evidence of God is
making a scientific statement. It is saying that the probability of
the God hypothesis is enhanced by the observation (of course it isn't,
but that's the argument).
The ironic thing is that if there were actual scientists behind this,
they would reasonably conclude that the God hypothesis is a failed
hypothesis, given the dearth of evidence in support, and plenty to the
contrary. But that is specifically when the NOMA is invoked. It's just
a cop-out. Either it is, or it isn't, scientifically falsifiable or
verifiable. They need to make up their damned minds.
As for me, I consider many notions of God to be falsifiable. The
Christian version is falsifiable. The Jewish is as well. So is the
Islamic. And the Norse. And the Greco-Roman.
What is not falsifiable is deism and pantheism. But of course, why
call them "God" to begin with? They aren't the bringers of morality or
meaning. They simply would have designed the laws of physics and been
done with it. I am agnostic with respect to such a God. But I am an
atheist with respect to the others.
> Religious people have executed scientists for centuries, and they try
> to impose their superstitions in classrooms today.
>
> Religion also interferes with the practical applications of science.
> The use of contraceptives to combat AIDS is a good example. This even
> extends as far as global warming and other areas of environmental
> science--preserving the world for a long time isn't going to be a huge
> issue for someone who thinks the world is going to end in the next
> fifty years and wants it to. It has been speculated that if the right
> wing in the US got its way, the only area of science that would get
> funding would be weapons research.
Yes. I do find that ignorance and superstition do impede scientific
progress. The US will fall behind in stem cell research. Bar none. We
will lose market share to other nations who will find cures using
them, whereas we will be behind due to lack of funding. This is a
gross disaster of epic proportions. I sincerely hope that this
nonsense ends in time for us to actually make a difference.
> Lastly but not least, it does go both ways. Science _is_ imposing on
> areas once dominated by religion. Religious people love gaps in
> knowledge because it gives them an excuse to insert dogma to fill them
> in. The analogy of how they love gaps in the fossil record in the
> evolution is a good example that Dawkins riffs on in _The God
> Delusion_ (and he quotes a fellow scientist who observes that for
> every gap in the fossil record that gets filled, it would just leave
> two new gaps). 93% of The National Academy of Sciences in the US are
> atheists by the definition of lacking a belief in God--not too far off
> from the percentage of non-scientists that are theists in the same
> country.
Yes, that's right, just look at history. As science advances, God
retreats. Theologians fall back on the NOMA when convenient, and they
cannot get out of the argument. They do fall back on the deist
interpretation of God as a "well, you can't disprove this!". But
ultimately they do the old bait-and-switch and put the falsifiable
notion of the Christian God in when they think you're not looking.
>
> Sam Harris, in his debate with Rabbi David Wolpe:
>
> “The one thing to notice is that the dialogue between science and
> religion has gone this way: It has been one of relentless and one-
> directional erosion of religious authority. I would challenge anyone
> here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific
> answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a
> religious one. Now, you can think of an uncountable number of
> questions that run the other way: Where we once had a religious answer
> and now the authority of religion has been battered and nullified by
> science and by moral progress and secular progress generally. And I
> think that’s not an accident.”
>
> Of course it isn't just science. Religious faith is at war with all
> reality-based thinking and morality. There is no area that religious
> faith, the magic bubble where bad ideas can't be dismissed by
> criticism, doesn't leave its toxic imprint. But that's a larger issue.
> Right now, I just want it to be acknowledged that religion and science
> are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> question is which we would be wiser to compromise.
Indeed, they are within each other's parks. There ARE
"religions" (probably more like philosophies, however) that do not
fall into this category (Unitarian Universalism, neo-paganism, certain
Buddhist sects, etc), and I do think that if religion looked more like
them, we wouldn't have any problems if any at all. But the destructive
influences of modern religions are seen everywhere.
have it both ways. Saying that the big bang is evidence of God is
making a scientific statement. It is saying that the probability of
the God hypothesis is enhanced by the observation (of course it isn't,
but that's the argument). Saying that complexity is evidence of God is
making a scientific statement. It is saying that the probability of
the God hypothesis is enhanced by the observation (of course it isn't,
but that's the argument).
The ironic thing is that if there were actual scientists behind this,
they would reasonably conclude that the God hypothesis is a failed
hypothesis, given the dearth of evidence in support, and plenty to the
contrary. But that is specifically when the NOMA is invoked. It's just
a cop-out. Either it is, or it isn't, scientifically falsifiable or
verifiable. They need to make up their damned minds.
As for me, I consider many notions of God to be falsifiable. The
Christian version is falsifiable. The Jewish is as well. So is the
Islamic. And the Norse. And the Greco-Roman.
What is not falsifiable is deism and pantheism. But of course, why
call them "God" to begin with? They aren't the bringers of morality or
meaning. They simply would have designed the laws of physics and been
done with it. I am agnostic with respect to such a God. But I am an
atheist with respect to the others.
> Religious people have executed scientists for centuries, and they try
> to impose their superstitions in classrooms today.
>
> Religion also interferes with the practical applications of science.
> The use of contraceptives to combat AIDS is a good example. This even
> extends as far as global warming and other areas of environmental
> science--preserving the world for a long time isn't going to be a huge
> issue for someone who thinks the world is going to end in the next
> fifty years and wants it to. It has been speculated that if the right
> wing in the US got its way, the only area of science that would get
> funding would be weapons research.
progress. The US will fall behind in stem cell research. Bar none. We
will lose market share to other nations who will find cures using
them, whereas we will be behind due to lack of funding. This is a
gross disaster of epic proportions. I sincerely hope that this
nonsense ends in time for us to actually make a difference.
> Lastly but not least, it does go both ways. Science _is_ imposing on
> areas once dominated by religion. Religious people love gaps in
> knowledge because it gives them an excuse to insert dogma to fill them
> in. The analogy of how they love gaps in the fossil record in the
> evolution is a good example that Dawkins riffs on in _The God
> Delusion_ (and he quotes a fellow scientist who observes that for
> every gap in the fossil record that gets filled, it would just leave
> two new gaps). 93% of The National Academy of Sciences in the US are
> atheists by the definition of lacking a belief in God--not too far off
> from the percentage of non-scientists that are theists in the same
> country.
retreats. Theologians fall back on the NOMA when convenient, and they
cannot get out of the argument. They do fall back on the deist
interpretation of God as a "well, you can't disprove this!". But
ultimately they do the old bait-and-switch and put the falsifiable
notion of the Christian God in when they think you're not looking.
>
> Sam Harris, in his debate with Rabbi David Wolpe:
>
> “The one thing to notice is that the dialogue between science and
> religion has gone this way: It has been one of relentless and one-
> directional erosion of religious authority. I would challenge anyone
> here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific
> answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a
> religious one. Now, you can think of an uncountable number of
> questions that run the other way: Where we once had a religious answer
> and now the authority of religion has been battered and nullified by
> science and by moral progress and secular progress generally. And I
> think that’s not an accident.”
>
> Of course it isn't just science. Religious faith is at war with all
> reality-based thinking and morality. There is no area that religious
> faith, the magic bubble where bad ideas can't be dismissed by
> criticism, doesn't leave its toxic imprint. But that's a larger issue.
> Right now, I just want it to be acknowledged that religion and science
> are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> question is which we would be wiser to compromise.
"religions" (probably more like philosophies, however) that do not
fall into this category (Unitarian Universalism, neo-paganism, certain
Buddhist sects, etc), and I do think that if religion looked more like
them, we wouldn't have any problems if any at all. But the destructive
influences of modern religions are seen everywhere.
Turner Hayes
<lordlacolith@gmail.com>May 14, 2008, 2:03:38 AM5/14/08
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
Absolutely correct. Religion and science are incompatible as whole systems of thought--in order to hold to both of them, you need to abandon one of them at some point.
Samir
<gaury@myway.com>May 14, 2008, 2:43:40 AM5/14/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
"Mere opposition to Religiosity" is no proof of scientific temper.
Psycho Dave
<Priscus.Forem@gmail.com>May 14, 2008, 9:22:41 AM5/14/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Here, Here!
I couldn't agree more. Any attempt by religious groups, to say that
their faith is compatible with science is a lie, because all religious
beliefs start from an unscientific, almost anti-scientiffic premise.
I couldn't agree more. Any attempt by religious groups, to say that
their faith is compatible with science is a lie, because all religious
beliefs start from an unscientific, almost anti-scientiffic premise.
dali_70
<w_e_coyote12@hotmail.com>May 14, 2008, 9:43:17 AM5/14/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
The Vatican doesn't think so.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm
The vatican now says aliens could exist. Free from original sin even,
LOL.
The church admits that in the past it made mistakes concerning
science. Like they only fudged some math or something... LOL
They're also planning a 200th birthday bash for Darwin.
From the article:
"Science and religion need each other, and many astronomers believe in
God, he assures readers."
Like that's gonna make all the difference.
I tend to agree that it's like oil & water.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm
The vatican now says aliens could exist. Free from original sin even,
LOL.
The church admits that in the past it made mistakes concerning
science. Like they only fudged some math or something... LOL
They're also planning a 200th birthday bash for Darwin.
From the article:
"Science and religion need each other, and many astronomers believe in
God, he assures readers."
Like that's gonna make all the difference.
I tend to agree that it's like oil & water.
random
<random.shba@gmail.com>May 14, 2008, 9:49:52 AM5/14/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 14, 4:43 pm, dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The Vatican doesn't think so.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm
>
> The vatican now says aliens could exist. Free from original sin even,
> LOL.
>
> The church admits that in the past it made mistakes concerning
> science. Like they only fudged some math or something... LOL
> They're also planning a 200th birthday bash for Darwin.
>
> From the article:
> "Science and religion need each other, and many astronomers believe in
> God, he assures readers."
>
astronomers enjoy eating pickles".
zencycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>May 14, 2008, 10:25:07 AM5/14/08
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
I think I read something recently about them claiming the reason the
persecuted Galileo wasn't because they thought he was wrong, but because
they thought he was an asshole.
persecuted Galileo wasn't because they thought he was wrong, but because
they thought he was an asshole.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "dali_70" <w_e_co...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:43 AM
To: "Atheism vs Christianity" <Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [AvC] Re: Is There A Conflict Between Religion And Science?
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>May 14, 2008, 10:49:56 AM5/14/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 14, 12:40 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Right now, I just want it to be acknowledged that religion and science
> are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> question is which we would be wiser to compromise.
> Science is a methodology
subject to the limitations of that methodology ...
> and the only reasonable methodology for knowing anything about the natural world
manner inconsistent with their specific and known limitations is not
tenable.
> Science is based around some things being substantiated, and other things being falsified.
be bound by issues of substantiation/verification and falsification,
it is not the case that the nature of reality/objective truth is
limited to what we as humans can verify. This is an important part of
the summary statement:
"Humankind is not the measure of all things"
> Any presumptions about the natural world that are unscientific are infringing on the process of learning about reality
complete knowledge of the natural world, one cannot tenably make such
a characterization.
> "You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis.
> Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science."
because of the very specific and well understood limitations of the
nature of the scientific method, with which it would be inappropriate
to apply.
> God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his
> powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science.
Regards,
Brock
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hammer "A golden hammer is
any tool, technology, paradigm, snake oil, buzzword or similar whose
proponents enthusiastically sing its praises. They predict that it
will solve multiple problems, including some for which it is obviously
not suitable. Likewise, a literal golden hammer looks highly
impressive but is no better (and quite possibly worse) for hitting
things than a hammer made of cheaper materials."
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>May 14, 2008, 11:11:22 AM5/14/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 14, 6:49 am, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 4:43 pm, dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The Vatican doesn't think so.
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm
>
> > The vatican now says aliens could exist. Free from original sin even,
> > LOL.
>
> I wonder, what are the odds of converting aliens to Christianity?
to to do things that made them fallen angels who will be burned in the
Lake of Fire along with most of us. If angels are capable of sin, can
Gabriel, Michael, Rafael, etc. commit sins? Can angels benefit from
Christianity? For example, if Satan converts to Christianity, will his
sins be forgiven? If Gabriel doesn't accept Jesus as his personal
savior, will Gabriel meet a sticky end?
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>May 14, 2008, 2:10:53 PM5/14/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Well so much for a rational argument from the opposing view.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>May 14, 2008, 2:12:03 PM5/14/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 14, 8:43 am, dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The Vatican doesn't think so.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm
>
> The vatican now says aliens could exist. Free from original sin even,
> LOL.
really is some event that happened in our past and our great-great-
great-great...-great grandparents fucked up the rest of the world for
us.
And they think thetans from outer space is crazy.
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>May 14, 2008, 5:34:03 PM5/14/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Strawman. Want to actually address my points?
> > question is which we would be wiser to compromise.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>May 14, 2008, 5:35:12 PM5/14/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
I saw this today on Slate--you beat me to it. :)
The fact that people actually listen to The Vatican on these issues
anyway is proof that there's a conflict between religion and science.
The fact that people actually listen to The Vatican on these issues
anyway is proof that there's a conflict between religion and science.
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>May 14, 2008, 5:38:04 PM5/14/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
It is not a logical fallacy to say that science is better at solving
problems than religion is. If you want to stand by that assertion, get
off your damned computer and pray your way onto this group. In any
case, good luck substantiating the practicality of unsubstantiated and
ridiculous assertions over reason and evidence--I mean that.
problems than religion is. If you want to stand by that assertion, get
off your damned computer and pray your way onto this group. In any
case, good luck substantiating the practicality of unsubstantiated and
ridiculous assertions over reason and evidence--I mean that.
Dag Yo
<sir_roko2@yahoo.com>May 14, 2008, 5:50:05 PM5/14/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Dev and Rappoccio, nice posts.
The only slight point that I would add to it is that even though non-
overlapping magisteria idea is clearly wrong, as any factual claim
made as a part of religious dogma is still a factual claim, and as
such, is subject at least to a scientific query; but idea of a
conflict doesn't necessarily need to hold true if and only if one
suffers from enough cognitive dissonance that they can believe such
clearly opposing ideas at the same time.
I would however, like those theists who claim a compatibility between
science and religion to be honest about their cognitive disonnance,
but I don't think i'll hold my breath waiting for theists to be
honest.
The only slight point that I would add to it is that even though non-
overlapping magisteria idea is clearly wrong, as any factual claim
made as a part of religious dogma is still a factual claim, and as
such, is subject at least to a scientific query; but idea of a
conflict doesn't necessarily need to hold true if and only if one
suffers from enough cognitive dissonance that they can believe such
clearly opposing ideas at the same time.
I would however, like those theists who claim a compatibility between
science and religion to be honest about their cognitive disonnance,
but I don't think i'll hold my breath waiting for theists to be
honest.
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>May 14, 2008, 5:52:59 PM5/14/08
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Dev <thede...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> It is not a logical fallacy to say that science is better at solving
> problems than religion is.
>
> It is not a logical fallacy to say that science is better at solving
> problems than religion is.
No, merely overly simplistic. :)
Regards,
Brock
--
--- brock...@gmail.com ---
"This could lead to excellence ... or serious injury" -- TMBG
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>May 14, 2008, 9:22:32 PM5/14/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Very good Dev.
Thanks for a great post.
Regards
Psychonomist
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>May 14, 2008, 9:31:59 PM5/14/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 14, 8:11 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 6:49 am, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 14, 4:43 pm, dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The Vatican doesn't think so.
>
> > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm
>
> > > The vatican now says aliens could exist. Free from original sin even,
> > > LOL.
>
> > I wonder, what are the odds of converting aliens to Christianity?
>
> As the story goes, angels were given free will and some of them used
> to to do things that made them fallen angels who will be burned in the
> Lake of Fire along with most of us. If angels are capable of sin, can
> Gabriel, Michael, Rafael, etc. commit sins? Can angels benefit from
> Christianity? For example, if Satan converts to Christianity, will his
> sins be forgiven? If Gabriel doesn't accept Jesus as his personal
> savior, will Gabriel meet a sticky end?
Observer
> On May 14, 6:49 am, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 14, 4:43 pm, dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The Vatican doesn't think so.
>
> > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm
>
> > > The vatican now says aliens could exist. Free from original sin even,
> > > LOL.
>
> > I wonder, what are the odds of converting aliens to Christianity?
>
> As the story goes, angels were given free will and some of them used
> to to do things that made them fallen angels who will be burned in the
> Lake of Fire along with most of us. If angels are capable of sin, can
> Gabriel, Michael, Rafael, etc. commit sins? Can angels benefit from
> Christianity? For example, if Satan converts to Christianity, will his
> sins be forgiven? If Gabriel doesn't accept Jesus as his personal
> savior, will Gabriel meet a sticky end?
Why all the speculation about what mythical creatures would do if they
existed.?
I have seen you post some good stuff . Why now this hyperbole?
Come on Ranbjit dig a little deeper. You are a bright fellow act like
ti.
Psychonomist
wiseclam
<wiseclam@earthlink.net>May 14, 2008, 11:23:42 PM5/14/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 13, 10:40 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
[snip]
[snip]
> Of course it isn't just science. Religious faith is at war with all
> reality-based thinking and morality. There is no area that religious
> faith, the magic bubble where bad ideas can't be dismissed by
> criticism, doesn't leave its toxic imprint. But that's a larger issue.
> Right now, I just want it to be acknowledged that religion and science
> are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> question is which we would be wiser to compromise.
I'm in complete agreement. The two are mutually incompatible.> reality-based thinking and morality. There is no area that religious
> faith, the magic bubble where bad ideas can't be dismissed by
> criticism, doesn't leave its toxic imprint. But that's a larger issue.
> Right now, I just want it to be acknowledged that religion and science
> are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> question is which we would be wiser to compromise.
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>May 14, 2008, 11:58:08 PM5/14/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 14, 4:50 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dev and Rappoccio, nice posts.
>
> The only slight point that I would add to it is that even though non-
> overlapping magisteria idea is clearly wrong, as any factual claim
> made as a part of religious dogma is still a factual claim, and as
> such, is subject at least to a scientific query; but idea of a
> conflict doesn't necessarily need to hold true if and only if one
> suffers from enough cognitive dissonance that they can believe such
> clearly opposing ideas at the same time.
>
> I would however, like those theists who claim a compatibility between
> science and religion to be honest about their cognitive disonnance,
> but I don't think i'll hold my breath waiting for theists to be
> honest.
don't care". We can try to convince them TO care, but if they don't,
then at least they are being honest about their cognitive dissonance.
Not like we have to respect that, we just can't really argue with
them ;)
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>May 15, 2008, 12:03:26 AM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 14, 8:58 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 4:50 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I would however, like those theists who claim a compatibility between
> > science and religion to be honest about their cognitive disonnance,
> > but I don't think i'll hold my breath waiting for theists to be
> > honest.
>
> I agree. You can't really argue with "I'm not being rational, but I
> don't care". We can try to convince them TO care, but if they don't,
> then at least they are being honest about their cognitive dissonance.
> Not like we have to respect that, we just can't really argue with
> them ;)
Cognitive dissonance can be pleasing. Would you date a woman as
> On May 14, 4:50 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I would however, like those theists who claim a compatibility between
> > science and religion to be honest about their cognitive disonnance,
> > but I don't think i'll hold my breath waiting for theists to be
> > honest.
>
> I agree. You can't really argue with "I'm not being rational, but I
> don't care". We can try to convince them TO care, but if they don't,
> then at least they are being honest about their cognitive dissonance.
> Not like we have to respect that, we just can't really argue with
> them ;)
logical as Mr. Spock?
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 12:10:50 AM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 14, 9:03 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
If I weren't married I certainly would . Nothing turns me on like a
bright logical woman , I would also appreciate reasonable packaging
but brains are paramount.
Psychonomist
Samir
<gaury@myway.com>May 15, 2008, 12:53:08 AM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 15, 2:34 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Strawman. Want to actually address my points?
reverse-swing is NOT as difficult as you think. Theists do NOT need
the help of pseudo-scientists. Sole aim of your article is to push
theists towards scientific-superstition (!!!???). You want theists to
accept a number of silly theories as scientific theories.
It is nice to see that you want to be scientific; but "under the veil
of a theist", you are only trying to hush up the fact that atheists
don't have as high a scientific temper as they claim.
>
> On May 14, 12:43 am, Samir <ga...@myway.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Mere opposition to Religiosity" is no proof of scientific temper.
>
> > On May 14, 9:40 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > This came up in another thread and it's amazing how many theists stick
> > > to the dumbassed "argument" that there's no conflict between religion
> > > and science. It is pretty obvious to me that as long as theists
> > > acknowledge that they rely on science, there is absolutely no
> > > infringement on it by religion that--in their ruined little minds--
> > > would ever constitute a "conflict" no matter how severe.
>
> > > Science is a methodology, first and foremost, and the only reasonable
> > > methodology for knowing anything about the natural world. On a method
> > > level, religion assails this in many ways. Science is based around
> > > some things being substantiated, and other things being falsified. It
> > > is _not_ based are substantiating things you already know and
> > > explaining everything else away with superstitions. Any presumptions
> > > about the natural world that are unscientific are infringing on the
> > > process of learning about reality, from historic battles about the
> > > cosmos to the current ID versus evolution "debate"--especially when
> > > they are unfalsifiable or refuse to reconcile to evidence. The idea
There's no debate as such regarding silly "Evolution Theory". Atheists
> On May 14, 12:43 am, Samir <ga...@myway.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Mere opposition to Religiosity" is no proof of scientific temper.
>
> > On May 14, 9:40 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > This came up in another thread and it's amazing how many theists stick
> > > to the dumbassed "argument" that there's no conflict between religion
> > > and science. It is pretty obvious to me that as long as theists
> > > acknowledge that they rely on science, there is absolutely no
> > > infringement on it by religion that--in their ruined little minds--
> > > would ever constitute a "conflict" no matter how severe.
>
> > > Science is a methodology, first and foremost, and the only reasonable
> > > methodology for knowing anything about the natural world. On a method
> > > level, religion assails this in many ways. Science is based around
> > > some things being substantiated, and other things being falsified. It
> > > is _not_ based are substantiating things you already know and
> > > explaining everything else away with superstitions. Any presumptions
> > > about the natural world that are unscientific are infringing on the
> > > process of learning about reality, from historic battles about the
> > > cosmos to the current ID versus evolution "debate"--especially when
> > > they are unfalsifiable or refuse to reconcile to evidence. The idea
do NOT have ANY valid point on that.
On one hand they deny the
existence of God on the basis that there is no scientifically
verifiable reason, but on the other hand you are blindly accepting
the
"Evolution Theory" which claims that Homo Sapien has evolved from
someone or something called Neantherthal. Do you want theists to
accept that nonsense as a great scientific theory or what ? Atheists
can
of course call it a scientific superstition !!!
Samir
<gaury@myway.com>May 15, 2008, 12:54:42 AM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 14, 11:10 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well so much for a rational argument from the opposing view.
what ?
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 1:08:10 AM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 1:09:34 AM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Did you have trouble graduating the fourth grade?
Because that's about the level of understanding you've displayed
here.
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 3:11:35 AM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 14, 9:53 pm, Samir <ga...@myway.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 2:34 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:> Strawman. Want to actually address my points?
>
> Your points ? Verbose nothingness cannot be a point. Countering
> reverse-swing is NOT as difficult as you think. Theists do NOT need
> the help of pseudo-scientists. Sole aim of your article is to push
> theists towards scientific-superstition (!!!???). You want theists to
> accept a number of silly theories as scientific theories.
> It is nice to see that you want to be scientific; but "under the veil
> of a theist", you are only trying to hush up the fact that atheists
> don't have as high a scientific temper as they claim.
Ehen it comes to the maximum stupidity of humanity you are the prime
example. Why were you never educated ? Is it because you were rejected
by schools or is your isolation from education self imposed ? You are
a true parasite upon the human condition . Frankly you are a
disgusting piece of non intellectual shit. How dare you come here or
anywhere else and post such idiotic filth ? If you weren't completely
sub human would plead that you get an education but that is
obviously an impossibility.
What a shame .
Psychonomist
Dag Yo
<sir_roko2@yahoo.com>May 15, 2008, 3:24:28 AM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
> Cognitive dissonance can be pleasing. Would you date a woman as
> logical as Mr. Spock?
I don't get what one has to do with the other (perhaps I have the
> logical as Mr. Spock?
caught the dumb right now), but I would absolutely love to date a
woman as logical as Mr. Spock. [and don't forget there is nothing
about logic that precludes emotions]
On May 14, 8:03 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
Dag Yo
<sir_roko2@yahoo.com>May 15, 2008, 3:57:10 AM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
> There's no debate as such regarding silly "Evolution Theory". Atheists
> do NOT have ANY valid point on that.
Yes, because we all (including you if you actually did some research)
> do NOT have ANY valid point on that.
have every reason to believe that Evolutionary Theory is true.
> On one hand they deny the
> existence of God on the basis that there is no scientifically
> verifiable reason, but on the other hand you are blindly accepting
> the
> "Evolution Theory"
anyone has ever found contradicts the ideas.
> ...which claims that Homo Sapien has evolved from
> someone or something called Neantherthal.
You are mistaken. Evolutionary Theory makes no such claim. Look it
up if you don't believe me. Or if you don't look it up and continue
to think that is the case then you are quite simply willfully
ignorant. And if you don't look it up and verify this one way or
another, and then repeat the claim again while claiming that you also
know this to be the case, then you are a liar.
> Do you want theists to
> accept that nonsense as a great scientific theory or what?
well have descended from Neanderthal but right now, no one is certain
about it and no one is claiming certainty about it. And thats why no
one is asking theists to accept it as true. Besides none of this has
anything to do with theists or atheists anyway.
So is this your new favorite strawman or what? Do you just intend to
go around acting like you disproved Evolutionary Theory (something you
are completely ignorant about) because some people have proposed that
we might have as ancestors a few (definitely related) hominids that
happened to be a tad more stout and bigger brained than your average
human today?
-
Alan Wostenberg
<awosty@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 4:08:35 AM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 13, 9:40 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Right now, I just want it to be acknowledged that religion and science
> are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> question is which we would be wiser to compromise.
conflict between religion and science (or faith and reason) because
there is one source of truth: God.
The Non-ovrelapping magisteria was mentioned as one of several
possible relations between faith and reason, and I agree with your
judgment it is inadequate. But this does not leave the view you
articulate -- eternal conflict -- as the last man standing. One of my
teachers(*) identified five possible relations between faith and
reason:
1) truths known by faith are a subset of truths known by reason
(rationalism)
2) reason a subset of faith (fideism)
3) truths of faith and reason identical
4) no overlap. (Gould's view; the view of certain 12th century Arabic
philosophers, too)
5) partial overlap. Some truths can be known by faith, some by reason,
and some, by either.
(*) St. Thomas Aquinas
Joshua
<threatjkl@hotmail.com>May 15, 2008, 5:15:15 AM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
How can a truth be known by faith? Honest question.
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 5:16:08 AM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 15, 1:08 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 9:40 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Right now, I just want it to be acknowledged that religion and science
> > are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> > they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> > question is which we would be wiser to compromise.
>
> Sorry, Dev, can't go there. The opposing view is there can be no true
> conflict between religion and science (or faith and reason) because
> there is one source of truth: God.
Having said that it now becomes incumbent upon you to prove the
existence of the specific god which makes your statement true .
If you can't supply such proof then we shall have to simply call you a
liar for Jesus and discount anything you say from here in as probabal
lies.
> The Non-ovrelapping magisteria was mentioned as one of several
> possible relations between faith and reason, and I agree with your
> judgment it is inadequate. But this does not leave the view you
> articulate -- eternal conflict -- as the last man standing. One of my
> teachers(*) identified five possible relations between faith and
> reason:
>
> 1) truths known by faith are a subset of truths known by reason
> (rationalism)
Truths ? You show the instability of your superstition when it is
assumed that the product of faith is synonymous with truth.
Man you are a glutton for punishment. Now I mus demand that you prove
that anything can be known by faith. If it is known they call it
knowing if you don't know it it is called faith.
Scientifically verifiable data only , if you please we hav had enough
silly superstitious crap.
2) reason a subset of faith (fideism)
Who fucking cares scientific method is the only sure way to usable
information. All else is conjecture Just like your fucking god fraud.
Scientific method
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source
Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating
phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating
previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and
measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A
scientific method consists of the collection of data through
observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of
hypotheses.
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another,
identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other
methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses
as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test
these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict
dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains
of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure.
This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of
hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the
conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased
interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to
document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is
available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing
other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to
reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows
statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be
established.
Show us any other way as sure. I maintain that if it can't be
discovered by scientific method it cant be discovered.All your
superstitious crap not withstanding.
> 3) truths of faith and reason identical
You are far to free with the word truth . What you christian morons
call truth is superstitious crap.
Again who fucking cares with out scientific method it is all blind
conjecture signifying nothing.
> 4) no overlap. (Gould's view; the view of certain 12th century Arabic
> philosophers, too)
Bullshit , The only reason that science and religion don't overlap is
that science is real and religion is superstition. A Flight if
fantasy. Imagination that is undisciplined and out of control
.
> 5) partial overlap. Some truths can be known by faith, some by reason,
> and some, by either.
Who fucking cares . With out substantiation by the application of
> and some, by either.
scientific method your truth meaningless voodoo hoodoo. No more than a
stupid opinion teaching nothing but mental masturbation.
>
> (*) St. Thomas Aquinas
Was a shit head !
Psychonomist
Lawrey
<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>May 15, 2008, 5:19:29 AM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Dev'
Once again, a terrific exposition, well produced and laudably
accomplished. May I just rip off the very last part of your
comment, for extra comment. It ends with a vital question, which
for anyone who enjoys the freedom of unfettered expression in
rational and logical thought, without reference to illogical,
superstitious manuscript, must have answered.
> " I just want it to be acknowledged that religion and science
> are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> question is which we would be wiser to compromise."
For my part and contrary to your possible implication, religion does
not stand on the turf of scientific endeavour and never will. It
stands if it stands at all in the realms of superstitious antiquity,
from
which it originates and will forever remain. There is no competition,
nor coexistence one with the other and to even think of the
possibility is tantamount to an insult to rational thought and
reality.
You say it right when you say: "there is no 'line-in-the-sand' by
which they can coexist," or otherwise.
Religion either accepts science, or rejects it. There can be no
compromise nor watering down to appease or get religion off its
constraining hook of fanatical fancy. Please excuse my blunt, but
determined response.
On May 14, 5:40 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> This came up in another thread and it's amazing how many theists stick
> to the dumbassed "argument" that there's no conflict between religion
> and science. It is pretty obvious to me that as long as theists
> acknowledge that they rely on science, there is absolutely no
> infringement on it by religion that--in their ruined little minds--
> would ever constitute a "conflict" no matter how severe.
>
> Science is a methodology, first and foremost, and the only reasonable
> methodology for knowing anything about the natural world. On a method
> level, religion assails this in many ways. Science is based around
> some things being substantiated, and other things being falsified. It
> is _not_ based are substantiating things you already know and
> explaining everything else away with superstitions. Any presumptions
> about the natural world that are unscientific are infringing on the
> process of learning about reality, from historic battles about the
> cosmos to the current ID versus evolution "debate"--especially when
> they are unfalsifiable or refuse to reconcile to evidence. The idea
Once again, a terrific exposition, well produced and laudably
accomplished. May I just rip off the very last part of your
comment, for extra comment. It ends with a vital question, which
for anyone who enjoys the freedom of unfettered expression in
rational and logical thought, without reference to illogical,
superstitious manuscript, must have answered.
> " I just want it to be acknowledged that religion and science
> are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> question is which we would be wiser to compromise."
not stand on the turf of scientific endeavour and never will. It
stands if it stands at all in the realms of superstitious antiquity,
from
which it originates and will forever remain. There is no competition,
nor coexistence one with the other and to even think of the
possibility is tantamount to an insult to rational thought and
reality.
You say it right when you say: "there is no 'line-in-the-sand' by
which they can coexist," or otherwise.
Religion either accepts science, or rejects it. There can be no
compromise nor watering down to appease or get religion off its
constraining hook of fanatical fancy. Please excuse my blunt, but
determined response.
On May 14, 5:40 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> This came up in another thread and it's amazing how many theists stick
> to the dumbassed "argument" that there's no conflict between religion
> and science. It is pretty obvious to me that as long as theists
> acknowledge that they rely on science, there is absolutely no
> infringement on it by religion that--in their ruined little minds--
> would ever constitute a "conflict" no matter how severe.
>
> Science is a methodology, first and foremost, and the only reasonable
> methodology for knowing anything about the natural world. On a method
> level, religion assails this in many ways. Science is based around
> some things being substantiated, and other things being falsified. It
> is _not_ based are substantiating things you already know and
> explaining everything else away with superstitions. Any presumptions
> about the natural world that are unscientific are infringing on the
> process of learning about reality, from historic battles about the
> cosmos to the current ID versus evolution "debate"--especially when
> they are unfalsifiable or refuse to reconcile to evidence. The idea
zencycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>May 15, 2008, 9:08:42 AM5/15/08
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Observer" <mayo...@gmail.com>
>
> On May 15, 1:08 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> (*) St. Thomas Aquinas
>
> Was a shit head !
From: "Observer" <mayo...@gmail.com>
>
> On May 15, 1:08 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> (*) St. Thomas Aquinas
>
> Was a shit head !
And he hated sex. There's something wrong with that.......
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 9:16:27 AM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
truths can be known by reason.
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>May 15, 2008, 10:56:35 AM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Right. It's really two arguments. The first is whether God exists.
They don't have anything there in terms of a rational argument, so it
would be nice if they just admitted it. The second is whether theism
does more harm than good. They also don't really have a rational
argument, so it's just a matter of whether or not their consciences
are entirely dead or not.
They don't have anything there in terms of a rational argument, so it
would be nice if they just admitted it. The second is whether theism
does more harm than good. They also don't really have a rational
argument, so it's just a matter of whether or not their consciences
are entirely dead or not.
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>May 15, 2008, 11:02:05 AM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Well, I think your perceived disagreement may be an issue of
semantics. From a _reasonable_ perspective, of course religion is not
competition for science. But in the battle for the human mind, which
is too often not reasonable, they do overlap over the same turf and
that's why there are conflicts such as ID versus evolution.
semantics. From a _reasonable_ perspective, of course religion is not
competition for science. But in the battle for the human mind, which
is too often not reasonable, they do overlap over the same turf and
that's why there are conflicts such as ID versus evolution.
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>May 15, 2008, 11:10:04 AM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 15, 2:08 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 9:40 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Right now, I just want it to be acknowledged that religion and science
> > are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> > they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> > question is which we would be wiser to compromise.
>
> Sorry, Dev, can't go there. The opposing view is there can be no true
> conflict between religion and science (or faith and reason) because
> there is one source of truth: God.
That is unsubstantiated so, in and of itself, in direct opposition to
> On May 13, 9:40 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Right now, I just want it to be acknowledged that religion and science
> > are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> > they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> > question is which we would be wiser to compromise.
>
> Sorry, Dev, can't go there. The opposing view is there can be no true
> conflict between religion and science (or faith and reason) because
> there is one source of truth: God.
science.
> The Non-ovrelapping magisteria was mentioned as one of several
> possible relations between faith and reason, and I agree with your
> judgment it is inadequate. But this does not leave the view you
> articulate -- eternal conflict -- as the last man standing. One of my
> teachers(*) identified five possible relations between faith and
> reason:
eight centuries behind.
> 1) truths known by faith are a subset of truths known by reason
> (rationalism)
> 2) reason a subset of faith (fideism)
human imagination. You cannot operate a car without giving reasonable,
empirical truths greater weight than stuff you can potentially make
up.
> 3) truths of faith and reason identical
> 4) no overlap. (Gould's view; the view of certain 12th century Arabic
> philosophers, too)
> 5) partial overlap. Some truths can be known by faith, some by reason,
> and some, by either.
Also infers that things that science has not figured out yet are fair
game for faith, which is in opposition to people trying to figure out
the answer reasonably.
> (*) St. Thomas Aquinas
was an idiot.
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>May 15, 2008, 11:27:59 AM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 14, 10:53 pm, Samir <ga...@myway.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 2:34 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:> Strawman. Want to actually address my points?
>
> Your points ? Verbose nothingness cannot be a point. Countering
> reverse-swing is NOT as difficult as you think. Theists do NOT need
> the help of pseudo-scientists. Sole aim of your article is to push
> theists towards scientific-superstition (!!!???). You want theists to
> accept a number of silly theories as scientific theories.
> It is nice to see that you want to be scientific; but "under the veil
> of a theist", you are only trying to hush up the fact that atheists
> don't have as high a scientific temper as they claim.
Most atheists aren't scientists, but most scientists are atheists. The
> On May 15, 2:34 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:> Strawman. Want to actually address my points?
>
> Your points ? Verbose nothingness cannot be a point. Countering
> reverse-swing is NOT as difficult as you think. Theists do NOT need
> the help of pseudo-scientists. Sole aim of your article is to push
> theists towards scientific-superstition (!!!???). You want theists to
> accept a number of silly theories as scientific theories.
> It is nice to see that you want to be scientific; but "under the veil
> of a theist", you are only trying to hush up the fact that atheists
> don't have as high a scientific temper as they claim.
successful ones who do believe in God leave their beliefs at the door,
otherwise they know they won't get anything done. It is pretty funny
that you think you're the judge of the scientific adequacy of
atheists, considering how ignorant you obviously are on the topic.
There are a number of professional scientists on this group, with peer-
reviewed work in their respective fields, who agree with me.
>
>
>
>
> > On May 14, 12:43 am, Samir <ga...@myway.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Mere opposition to Religiosity" is no proof of scientific temper.
>
> > > On May 14, 9:40 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > This came up in another thread and it's amazing how many theists stick
> > > > to the dumbassed "argument" that there's no conflict between religion
> > > > and science. It is pretty obvious to me that as long as theists
> > > > acknowledge that they rely on science, there is absolutely no
> > > > infringement on it by religion that--in their ruined little minds--
> > > > would ever constitute a "conflict" no matter how severe.
>
> > > > Science is a methodology, first and foremost, and the only reasonable
> > > > methodology for knowing anything about the natural world. On a method
> > > > level, religion assails this in many ways. Science is based around
> > > > some things being substantiated, and other things being falsified. It
> > > > is _not_ based are substantiating things you already know and
> > > > explaining everything else away with superstitions. Any presumptions
> > > > about the natural world that are unscientific are infringing on the
> > > > process of learning about reality, from historic battles about the
> > > > cosmos to the current ID versus evolution "debate"--especially when
> > > > they are unfalsifiable or refuse to reconcile to evidence. The idea
>
> There's no debate as such regarding silly "Evolution Theory". Atheists
> do NOT have ANY valid point on that.
there isn't well over a century of scientific substantiation for
evolution. Your ruined mind doesn't prove anything other than that
your mother did a lot of drugs when she was pregnant and probably
regrets changing her mind about the abortion 85% of the way into it.
> On one hand they deny the
> existence of God on the basis that there is no scientifically
> verifiable reason, but on the other hand you are blindly accepting
> the
> "Evolution Theory" which claims that Homo Sapien has evolved from
> someone or something called Neantherthal.
before you form your subhuman opinions.
> Do you want theists to
> accept that nonsense as a great scientific theory or what ? Atheists
> can
> of course call it a scientific superstition !!!
God-superstition
This is where _ALL_ the evidence points.
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>May 15, 2008, 11:47:36 AM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
of gold at the end of a rainbow. Which of the five relations between
faith and reason would apply to this case?
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>May 15, 2008, 12:04:51 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
*snip*
>...you are only trying to hush up the fact that atheists
what YOU mean by it.
>...you are only trying to hush up the fact that atheists
> don't have as high a scientific temper as they claim.
"Scientific temperment?" You keep using that term, I'd like to know
what YOU mean by it.
DreadGeekGrrl
<dreadgeek@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 12:29:02 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Outstanding post!
I want to echo and amplify some things. Firstly, we can see in the
responses below by Samir MANY of the points made in this post. IF
religion could keeps it nose out of scientific questions (questions
regarding the diversity of species on Earth or cosmology or organic
chemistry) then this would go a LONG, LONG way in turning down the
volume of this conflict. As a whole, one does not see scientists
butting our noses into questions of, for instance, transubstantiation
or what-have-you so I don't see any reason why religious believers
can't do us the same courtesy. When scientists DO become involved in
religious questions it is almost ENTIRELY a function of having
religious believers interfering in some scientific question. (To take
one example, evolutionary biology. If religious believers would stop
trying to make my discipline conform to their warmed-over Babylonian
beliefs then I would have far *less* (although still a non-zero
amount) interest in honing spirited defenses of teaching science in
the public schools because such a defense would not be necessary.)
In one of his replies, Samir talks about evolutionary biology, showing
that he, like most other theists, know next-to-nothing about the
subject matter OTHER than that they disagree with it. Initially I was
going to give him a long reply as to why he was wrong about
Neanderthal and homo sapiens but thought better of it, in no small
part because his post is a canonical example of the type of behavior
I'm talking about which creates problems for religion. And understand
that, overall, the problem is for *religion* because even though
public school science education in America is hobbled by the inability
to teach core, foundational materials in biology classes no such
problem exists in China, or India, or England, or Germany, or Japan,
or Sweden, or Norway, or France...and as such biology will move on and
leave the US behind, just as biology moved on and left what was the
Soviet Union behind when it fell under the way of Lysenkoism.
Although I may feel bad for my country that it is turning its back on
science just as the true Golden Age of Biology is about to begin, that
is a decision that my fellow citizens have made in a thousand big and
small ways and there is little I can do except put a finger in the
dike as best I can and hope for things to change. Research and study
in biology will and does go on, despite the denials of creationists
and ID proponents. On the other hand, this kind of thing does serious
and lasting damage to religion. I left Christianity, in no small
part, because of the *inherent* anti-intellectualism that is a near
requirement to be a good, American Christian these days. I could not
accept in my heart a set of propositions that my mind rejected and I
would not compromise my intellectual integrity because, at the time
and in the place I was, it was all I felt I had. And since the
CHURCH, not my professors, were saying I HAD to make a choice and that
the choice was clear that in any conflict between what was taught from
the pulpit and what was taught in the lab and lecture hall, what was
taught in the pulpit won by definition I made the only reasonable
choice; I followed the data where with as much courage and humility as
I could. My story is entirely not unique either.
So in one sense, since I would like others to be free from suffering
and I consider living in ignorance a profound form and source of
suffering, I am grateful for the folks like Brock and Samir and others
who continually try to make science conform to their sectarian beliefs
because I KNOW the damage it does to their religion and each person
who has the scales removed from their eyes and their curiosity
reignited is someone who has been liberated from the darkness of
superstition and ignorance.
Cheers
DGG
I want to echo and amplify some things. Firstly, we can see in the
responses below by Samir MANY of the points made in this post. IF
religion could keeps it nose out of scientific questions (questions
regarding the diversity of species on Earth or cosmology or organic
chemistry) then this would go a LONG, LONG way in turning down the
volume of this conflict. As a whole, one does not see scientists
butting our noses into questions of, for instance, transubstantiation
or what-have-you so I don't see any reason why religious believers
can't do us the same courtesy. When scientists DO become involved in
religious questions it is almost ENTIRELY a function of having
religious believers interfering in some scientific question. (To take
one example, evolutionary biology. If religious believers would stop
trying to make my discipline conform to their warmed-over Babylonian
beliefs then I would have far *less* (although still a non-zero
amount) interest in honing spirited defenses of teaching science in
the public schools because such a defense would not be necessary.)
In one of his replies, Samir talks about evolutionary biology, showing
that he, like most other theists, know next-to-nothing about the
subject matter OTHER than that they disagree with it. Initially I was
going to give him a long reply as to why he was wrong about
Neanderthal and homo sapiens but thought better of it, in no small
part because his post is a canonical example of the type of behavior
I'm talking about which creates problems for religion. And understand
that, overall, the problem is for *religion* because even though
public school science education in America is hobbled by the inability
to teach core, foundational materials in biology classes no such
problem exists in China, or India, or England, or Germany, or Japan,
or Sweden, or Norway, or France...and as such biology will move on and
leave the US behind, just as biology moved on and left what was the
Soviet Union behind when it fell under the way of Lysenkoism.
Although I may feel bad for my country that it is turning its back on
science just as the true Golden Age of Biology is about to begin, that
is a decision that my fellow citizens have made in a thousand big and
small ways and there is little I can do except put a finger in the
dike as best I can and hope for things to change. Research and study
in biology will and does go on, despite the denials of creationists
and ID proponents. On the other hand, this kind of thing does serious
and lasting damage to religion. I left Christianity, in no small
part, because of the *inherent* anti-intellectualism that is a near
requirement to be a good, American Christian these days. I could not
accept in my heart a set of propositions that my mind rejected and I
would not compromise my intellectual integrity because, at the time
and in the place I was, it was all I felt I had. And since the
CHURCH, not my professors, were saying I HAD to make a choice and that
the choice was clear that in any conflict between what was taught from
the pulpit and what was taught in the lab and lecture hall, what was
taught in the pulpit won by definition I made the only reasonable
choice; I followed the data where with as much courage and humility as
I could. My story is entirely not unique either.
So in one sense, since I would like others to be free from suffering
and I consider living in ignorance a profound form and source of
suffering, I am grateful for the folks like Brock and Samir and others
who continually try to make science conform to their sectarian beliefs
because I KNOW the damage it does to their religion and each person
who has the scales removed from their eyes and their curiosity
reignited is someone who has been liberated from the darkness of
superstition and ignorance.
Cheers
DGG
> This came up in another thread and it's amazing how many theists stick
> to the dumbassed "argument" that there's no conflict between religion
> and science. It is pretty obvious to me that as long as theists
> acknowledge that they rely on science, there is absolutely no
> infringement on it by religion that--in their ruined little minds--
> would ever constitute a "conflict" no matter how severe.
>
> Science is a methodology, first and foremost, and the only reasonable
> methodology for knowing anything about the natural world. On a method
> level, religion assails this in many ways. Science is based around
> some things being substantiated, and other things being falsified. It
> is _not_ based are substantiating things you already know and
> explaining everything else away with superstitions. Any presumptions
> about the natural world that are unscientific are infringing on the
> process of learning about reality, from historic battles about the
> cosmos to the current ID versus evolution "debate"--especially when
> they are unfalsifiable or refuse to reconcile to evidence. The idea
> to the dumbassed "argument" that there's no conflict between religion
> and science. It is pretty obvious to me that as long as theists
> acknowledge that they rely on science, there is absolutely no
> infringement on it by religion that--in their ruined little minds--
> would ever constitute a "conflict" no matter how severe.
>
> Science is a methodology, first and foremost, and the only reasonable
> methodology for knowing anything about the natural world. On a method
> level, religion assails this in many ways. Science is based around
> some things being substantiated, and other things being falsified. It
> is _not_ based are substantiating things you already know and
> explaining everything else away with superstitions. Any presumptions
> about the natural world that are unscientific are infringing on the
> process of learning about reality, from historic battles about the
> cosmos to the current ID versus evolution "debate"--especially when
> they are unfalsifiable or refuse to reconcile to evidence. The idea
Message has been deleted
Alan Wostenberg
<awosty@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 12:56:10 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 14, 2:52 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > It is not a logical fallacy to say that science is better at solving
> > problems than religion is.
>
> No, merely overly simplistic. :)
Not to mention highly unscientific.
Brock, nice touch on that original post with the cite to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hammer
> >> [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hammer"A golden hammer is
> >> any tool, technology, paradigm, snake oil, buzzword or similar whose
> >> proponents enthusiastically sing its praises. They predict that it
> >> will solve multiple problems, including some for which it is obviously
> >> not suitable. Likewise, a literal golden hammer looks highly
> >> impressive but is no better (and quite possibly worse) for hitting
> >> things than a hammer made of cheaper materials."
>
> --
> --- brockor...@gmail.com ---
> "This could lead to excellence ... or serious injury" -- TMBG
Alan Wostenberg
<awosty@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 1:04:07 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 15, 2:15 am, Joshua <threat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> How can a truth be known by faith? Honest question.
the truth is distinct from how one attains it.
Faith is warranted trust, as distinct from gullibility which us
unwarranted trust. Faith is not idiosyncratic to religion. Most of
what you and I know to be true is by faith in credible sources (the
map makers, the textbook writers, and so forth) and not because we
have worked it out from first principles.
xeno
<69blacklab@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 1:04:37 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 15, 2:16 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2) reason a subset of faith (fideism)
>
> Observer
> Who fucking cares scientific method is the only sure way to usable
> information. All else is conjecture Just like your fucking god fraud.
reason is comprehension & inference. inference is deriving
conclusions from fact or premises. your *conviction* abt the
scientific method is based on inferring that it is a sucessful way of
dealing with reality. you have *faith* in its results.
Alan Wostenberg
<awosty@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 1:05:26 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
is the empty set.
Alan Wostenberg
<awosty@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 1:17:32 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 15, 8:10 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On May 15, 2:08 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 13, 9:40 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > Right now, I just want it to be acknowledged that religion and science
> > > are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> > > they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> > > question is which we would be wiser to compromise.
>
> > Sorry, Dev, can't go there. The opposing view is there can be no true
> > conflict between religion and science (or faith and reason) because
> > there is one source of truth: God.
>
> That is unsubstantiated so, in and of itself, in direct opposition to
> science.
known by scientific method cannot be known, but is not in opposition
to science itself. Why is it you believe the universe is
scientifically intelligible only on hypothesis it is not the product
of a Mind in who's image we are made?
Bob T.
<bob@synapse-cs.com>May 15, 2008, 1:33:47 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 15, 9:56 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 2:52 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > It is not a logical fallacy to say that science is better at solving
> > > problems than religion is.
>
> > No, merely overly simplistic. :)
>
> Not to mention highly unscientific.
> Brock, nice touch on that original post with the cite tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hammer
better than the "Golden Hammer" analogy. The absurdity of Brock's
belief system is independent of his belief in it.
- Bob T.
>
>
>
> > >> [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hammer"A golden hammer is
> > >> any tool, technology, paradigm, snake oil, buzzword or similar whose
> > >> proponents enthusiastically sing its praises. They predict that it
> > >> will solve multiple problems, including some for which it is obviously
> > >> not suitable. Likewise, a literal golden hammer looks highly
> > >> impressive but is no better (and quite possibly worse) for hitting
> > >> things than a hammer made of cheaper materials."
>
> > --
> > --- brockor...@gmail.com ---
> > "This could lead to excellence ... or serious injury" -- TMBG- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> > >> [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hammer"A golden hammer is
> > >> any tool, technology, paradigm, snake oil, buzzword or similar whose
> > >> proponents enthusiastically sing its praises. They predict that it
> > >> will solve multiple problems, including some for which it is obviously
> > >> not suitable. Likewise, a literal golden hammer looks highly
> > >> impressive but is no better (and quite possibly worse) for hitting
> > >> things than a hammer made of cheaper materials."
>
> > --
> > --- brockor...@gmail.com ---
Alan Wostenberg
<awosty@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 1:47:52 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 15, 8:47 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
the physical world, so there is potential conflict with the natural
sciences. It's a case of 5. In general, I think 5 is the correct
view. Where it makes statements about the physical world (such as God
became man) there is potential conflict between faith and the natural
sciences (Dawkin's dna example in the original posters note). But
because there is unity in truth, we should seek to resolve those
conflicts.
"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises
to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a
desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by
knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of
truth about themselves" (1)
(1)Pope John Paul the great, _faith and reason_
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html
PS: I'm out for the weekend to attend a graduation, so have a good
one, Ranjit
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>May 15, 2008, 1:57:15 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 15, 10:04 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 2:15 am, Joshua <threat...@hotmail.com> wrote:> How can a truth be known by faith? Honest question.
>
> Fair question. Truth is the conformance of mind to reality. Knowing
> the truth is distinct from how one attains it.
>
> Faith is warranted trust, as distinct from gullibility which us
> unwarranted trust.
won't know if you're gullible or not until you croak. I don't have to
wait that long; you are gullible if you believe in the God of
Christianity (I'll limit it to that). I take the lack of evidence for
your God's existence to mean that he doesn't exist, whereas you ignore
that lack of evidence in favour of a neurotic hope--you call it faith--
that you will live forever. Tranparent wishful thinking which spawns
gullibility.
> Faith is not idiosyncratic to religion. Most of
> what you and I know to be true is by faith in credible sources (the
> map makers, the textbook writers, and so forth) and not because we
> have worked it out from first principles.
to distinguish between your, you're, and yore. Don't you lunatics ever
get tired of repeating the same errors in thinking ad nauseum?
> > On May 15, 6:08 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 13, 9:40 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > Right now, I just want it to be acknowledged that religion and science
> > > > are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> > > > they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> > > > question is which we would be wiser to compromise.
>
> > > Sorry, Dev, can't go there. The opposing view is there can be no true
> > > conflict between religion and science (or faith and reason) because
> > > there is one source of truth: God.
>
> > > The Non-ovrelapping magisteria was mentioned as one of several
> > > possible relations between faith and reason, and I agree with your
> > > judgment it is inadequate. But this does not leave the view you
> > > articulate -- eternal conflict -- as the last man standing. One of my
> > > teachers(*) identified five possible relations between faith and
> > > reason:
>
> > > 1) truths known by faith are a subset of truths known by reason
> > > (rationalism)
> > > 2) reason a subset of faith (fideism)
> > > 3) truths of faith and reason identical
> > > 4) no overlap. (Gould's view; the view of certain 12th century Arabic
> > > philosophers, too)
> > > 5) partial overlap. Some truths can be known by faith, some by reason,
> > > and some, by either.
>
zencycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>May 15, 2008, 2:14:05 PM5/15/08
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
From: "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com>
>
>
> Indeed. I can think of nothing that sums up Brock's belief system
> better than the "Golden Hammer" analogy. The absurdity of Brock's
> belief system is independent of his belief in it.
>
>
> Indeed. I can think of nothing that sums up Brock's belief system
> better than the "Golden Hammer" analogy. The absurdity of Brock's
> belief system is independent of his belief in it.
True. If a golden hammer is
>> > >> any tool, technology, paradigm, snake oil, buzzword or similar whose
>> > >> proponents enthusiastically sing its praises. They predict that it
>> > >> will solve multiple problems, including some for which it is
>> > >> obviously
>> > >> not suitable.
Then where does that leave god?
(as a point of reference I remember a religious poster in the boston subway
(the green line) about 13 years ago which advertised a religious
fundamentalist organization (can't recall the name). In addition to the
phone number and some scriptural garbage, the poster had the phrase 'cure
for cancer' with an arrow drawn to a christian cross. It wasn't graffiti.)
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 2:16:57 PM5/15/08
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 12:29 PM, DreadGeekGrrl <drea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am grateful for the folks like Brock and Samir and others
> I am grateful for the folks like Brock and Samir and others
I am very thankful for this forum where I can share my beliefs. :)
Regards,
Brock
Keith MacNevins
<kmacnevins@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 3:14:59 PM5/15/08
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
I count two freudian slips in the demon's post.
--
Ambassador From Hell
> > > hypothesis -- by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote
--
Ambassador From Hell
zencycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>May 15, 2008, 5:34:29 PM5/15/08
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
From: "xeno" <69bla...@gmail.com>
>
> On May 15, 2:16 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2) reason a subset of faith (fideism)
>>
>> Observer
>> Who fucking cares scientific method is the only sure way to usable
>> information. All else is conjecture Just like your fucking god fraud.
>
> but none of that demonstrates that reason is not a subset of faith.
>
> On May 15, 2:16 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2) reason a subset of faith (fideism)
>>
>> Observer
>> Who fucking cares scientific method is the only sure way to usable
>> information. All else is conjecture Just like your fucking god fraud.
>
> but none of that demonstrates that reason is not a subset of faith.
In that faith is defined as fideism in this context it certainly does. From
wikipedia:
"Fideism is the view that religious belief relies primarily on faith or
special revelation, rather than rational inference or observation."
This alone makes reason and faith mutually exclusive. Especially in that
you've (correctly) framed reason in the context of
> comprehension & inference. inference is deriving
> conclusions from fact or premises.
> your *conviction* abt the
> scientific method is based on inferring that it is a sucessful way of
> dealing with reality. you have *faith* in its results.
No, once again we run into the semantic quibble over trust and faith. An
atheist generally considers faith to be:
from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faith: Mental acceptance of and
confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim.
from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the
traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for
which there is no proof (2): complete trust
You can see here that reason does not enter into faith at any level. What
you refer to as 'faith' in the scientific method is actually trust. Faith
doesn't give the ability to reject the results. Trust does.
> >
>
wiseclam
<wiseclam@earthlink.net>May 15, 2008, 6:27:01 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 15, 10:56 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Not to mention highly unscientific.
> Brock, nice touch on that original post with the cite tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hammer
Isn't God the most extreme of example of a "Golden Hammer" possibly
>
> Not to mention highly unscientific.
> Brock, nice touch on that original post with the cite tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hammer
imagined?
Dag Yo
<sir_roko2@yahoo.com>May 15, 2008, 7:02:20 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Good read mate.
Shot In The Dark
<adgiesing@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 9:35:38 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Simply, you have arbitrarily concluded that your inclinations and
the scope of your knowledge of Christianity comprise a more real and
reliable means (and substance?) of understanding the world and your
existence here. You cannot possibly have obtained ALL pertinent
knowledge of opposing religions, the observed possibility (read:
probability=near absolute) of no correct dogma, nor have you developed
anything further than an asserted knowledge of "absolute truth".
Christianity has definite demonstrable limitations. Upon accepting
the world that is before you (sensory... empirical information from
multiple sources and viewpoints) it also becomes absurd and useless,
detrimental and abrasive; In it's most efficient dynamic it serves
only to dull the intellect and make complacent those who are
downtrodden, and to strengthen control in the reigns of tyrants
bloated with hypocritical gluttony and depravity. This serves no
communal purpose (for those who most desperately need such humanity)
and is well refuted by sound reasoning grounded in unbiased
observation. If you were honest (by any usage of the word) and you
truly wanted to contribute toward a more positive existence you would
at least remain neutral on the subject. Instead of reaching for the
keyboard or opening your mouth to let some well practiced mind mush
(developed before ghosts and ghouls were understood to be fears and
uncertainty) come spilling forth in the most reactionary of styles (I
guess some might argue that this makes you appear as something of a
hypocrit where considered accurate), why not try to restrain your
programming long enough to test the arguments presented to you. This
would probably produce a more desired effect (for everyone) than
searching for the appropriate bible passage to vaguely (and
nonsensically) apply in your blatant denial of reasonable discourse.
Regards.
On May 14, 10:49 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Science is a methodology
>
> subject to the limitations of that methodology ...
> manner inconsistent with their specific and known limitations is not
> tenable.
> be bound by issues of substantiation/verification and falsification,
> it is not the case that the nature of reality/objective truth is
> limited to what we as humans can verify. This is an important part of
> the summary statement:
>
> "Humankind is not the measure of all things"
> complete knowledge of the natural world, one cannot tenably make such
> a characterization.
> because of the very specific and well understood limitations of the
> nature of the scientific method, with which it would be inappropriate
> to apply.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
>
> [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hammer "A golden hammer is
the scope of your knowledge of Christianity comprise a more real and
reliable means (and substance?) of understanding the world and your
existence here. You cannot possibly have obtained ALL pertinent
knowledge of opposing religions, the observed possibility (read:
probability=near absolute) of no correct dogma, nor have you developed
anything further than an asserted knowledge of "absolute truth".
Christianity has definite demonstrable limitations. Upon accepting
the world that is before you (sensory... empirical information from
multiple sources and viewpoints) it also becomes absurd and useless,
detrimental and abrasive; In it's most efficient dynamic it serves
only to dull the intellect and make complacent those who are
downtrodden, and to strengthen control in the reigns of tyrants
bloated with hypocritical gluttony and depravity. This serves no
communal purpose (for those who most desperately need such humanity)
and is well refuted by sound reasoning grounded in unbiased
observation. If you were honest (by any usage of the word) and you
truly wanted to contribute toward a more positive existence you would
at least remain neutral on the subject. Instead of reaching for the
keyboard or opening your mouth to let some well practiced mind mush
(developed before ghosts and ghouls were understood to be fears and
uncertainty) come spilling forth in the most reactionary of styles (I
guess some might argue that this makes you appear as something of a
hypocrit where considered accurate), why not try to restrain your
programming long enough to test the arguments presented to you. This
would probably produce a more desired effect (for everyone) than
searching for the appropriate bible passage to vaguely (and
nonsensically) apply in your blatant denial of reasonable discourse.
Regards.
On May 14, 10:49 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 12:40 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Right now, I just want it to be acknowledged that religion and science
> > are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> > they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> > question is which we would be wiser to compromise.
>
> Or not. :)
>
> > Right now, I just want it to be acknowledged that religion and science
> > are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> > they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> > question is which we would be wiser to compromise.
>
>
> > Science is a methodology
>
> subject to the limitations of that methodology ...
>
> > and the only reasonable methodology for knowing anything about the natural world
>
> but reason, also, has limitations; to apply reason or science in a
> > and the only reasonable methodology for knowing anything about the natural world
>
> manner inconsistent with their specific and known limitations is not
> tenable.
>
> > Science is based around some things being substantiated, and other things being falsified.
>
> While it may be true that human understanding of objective truth can
> > Science is based around some things being substantiated, and other things being falsified.
>
> be bound by issues of substantiation/verification and falsification,
> it is not the case that the nature of reality/objective truth is
> limited to what we as humans can verify. This is an important part of
> the summary statement:
>
> "Humankind is not the measure of all things"
>
> > Any presumptions about the natural world that are unscientific are infringing on the process of learning about reality
>
> But this is simply a conjecture on your part, barring exhaustive and
> > Any presumptions about the natural world that are unscientific are infringing on the process of learning about reality
>
> complete knowledge of the natural world, one cannot tenably make such
> a characterization.
>
> > "You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis.
> > Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science."
>
> But Harris as quoted here is guilty of fallacy by golden hammer[1],
> > "You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis.
> > Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science."
>
> because of the very specific and well understood limitations of the
> nature of the scientific method, with which it would be inappropriate
> to apply.
>
> > God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his
> > powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science.
>
> I believe creation counts as a spectacular demonstration. :)
> > God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his
> > powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
>
> [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hammer "A golden hammer is
> any tool, technology, paradigm, snake oil, buzzword or similar whose
> proponents enthusiastically sing its praises. They predict that it
> will solve multiple problems, including some for which it is obviously
> proponents enthusiastically sing its praises. They predict that it
> will solve multiple problems, including some for which it is obviously
Shot In The Dark
<adgiesing@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 9:36:33 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Yup. Typical.
On May 15, 12:54 am, Samir <ga...@myway.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 11:10 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:> Well so much for a rational argument from the opposing view.
>
> You want verbose nothingness to be mistaken for a rational argument or
> what ?
On May 15, 12:54 am, Samir <ga...@myway.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 11:10 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:> Well so much for a rational argument from the opposing view.
>
> You want verbose nothingness to be mistaken for a rational argument or
> what ?
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 14, 1:43 am, Samir <ga...@myway.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Mere opposition to Religiosity" is no proof of scientific temper.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 14, 1:43 am, Samir <ga...@myway.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Mere opposition to Religiosity" is no proof of scientific temper.
>
> > > On May 14, 9:40 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > This came up in another thread and it's amazing how many theists stick
> > > > to the dumbassed "argument" that there's no conflict between religion
> > > > and science. It is pretty obvious to me that as long as theists
> > > > acknowledge that they rely on science, there is absolutely no
> > > > infringement on it by religion that--in their ruined little minds--
> > > > would ever constitute a "conflict" no matter how severe.
>
> > > > Science is a methodology, first and foremost, and the only reasonable
> > > > methodology for knowing anything about the natural world. On a method
> > > > level, religion assails this in many ways. Science is based around
> > > > some things being substantiated, and other things being falsified. It
> > > > is _not_ based are substantiating things you already know and
> > > > explaining everything else away with superstitions. Any presumptions
>
> > > > This came up in another thread and it's amazing how many theists stick
> > > > to the dumbassed "argument" that there's no conflict between religion
> > > > and science. It is pretty obvious to me that as long as theists
> > > > acknowledge that they rely on science, there is absolutely no
> > > > infringement on it by religion that--in their ruined little minds--
> > > > would ever constitute a "conflict" no matter how severe.
>
> > > > Science is a methodology, first and foremost, and the only reasonable
> > > > methodology for knowing anything about the natural world. On a method
> > > > level, religion assails this in many ways. Science is based around
> > > > some things being substantiated, and other things being falsified. It
> > > > is _not_ based are substantiating things you already know and
> > > > about the natural world that are unscientific are infringing on the
> > > > process of learning about reality, from historic battles about the
> > > > cosmos to the current ID versus evolution "debate"--especially when
> > > > they are unfalsifiable or refuse to reconcile to evidence. The idea
> > > > cosmos to the current ID versus evolution "debate"--especially when
> > > > they are unfalsifiable or refuse to reconcile to evidence. The idea
> > > > that there is no overlap between the domain of faith claims and
> > > > science is a blatant lie--as Sam Harris observed, even the claim of
> > > > the virgin birth is a claim about biology. Harris goes on to mention
> > > > that there's no telling which unscientific beliefs will be harmful--
> > > > noting that the idea that the soul enters the body at conception seems
> > > > harmless enough until it interferes with valuable, life-saving
> > > > research on embryonic stem cells.
>
> > > > A poster on the other thread mentioned "NOMA"--"non-overlapping
> > > > magisteria"--as conceived by Stephen Jay Gould. The idea is basically
> > > > that science has nothing to say about questions of God. Dawkins had
> > > > more than a little to say about this.
>
> > > > "This sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment's thought.
> > > > science is a blatant lie--as Sam Harris observed, even the claim of
> > > > the virgin birth is a claim about biology. Harris goes on to mention
> > > > that there's no telling which unscientific beliefs will be harmful--
> > > > noting that the idea that the soul enters the body at conception seems
> > > > harmless enough until it interferes with valuable, life-saving
> > > > research on embryonic stem cells.
>
> > > > A poster on the other thread mentioned "NOMA"--"non-overlapping
> > > > magisteria"--as conceived by Stephen Jay Gould. The idea is basically
> > > > that science has nothing to say about questions of God. Dawkins had
> > > > more than a little to say about this.
>
> > > > "This sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment's thought.
> > > > You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe
> > > > is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a
> > > > is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a
> > > > more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god
> > > > would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and
> > > > it would be a scientific difference. God could clinch the matter in
> > > > would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and
> > > > his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his
> > > > Right now, I just want it to be acknowledged that religion and science
> > > > are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> > > > they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> > > > are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> > > > they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
Shot In The Dark
<adgiesing@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 9:38:52 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
The self delusion of bobbing and weaving, stick and move. It just
ain't so.
ain't so.
Shot In The Dark
<adgiesing@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 10:03:18 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
And to elaborate and clarify, as briefly as my thought process
allows (I'm aware that some theists especially need brevity for more
thorough comprehension) this is the nature of the discourse here... :
Atheist: I bring statistics and observations.
Theist: I bring the bible
Atheist: I bring new scientific conclusions that dispel former
misconceptions including your religious "facts"
Theist: I bring the bible (and maybe a pamphlet)
Atheist: I bring knowledge of biology that is inconsistent with your
eons old religious superstition
Theist: I bring the bible (and maybe some deceptive propoganda film
with second rate celebrities (not versed in the subject matter) and a
host of fallacious rhetoric)
Atheist: I bring you history, linguistics, sociological data and many,
many examples of these fields applied to your position apparently
disproving of your dogmatic construct
Theist: I bring the bible (and without a doubt redundancy, circular
assertions, insane denial, hypocrisy, inconsistency, contradiction and
flagrant belligerent egoism)
So, you see, I really just advise looking beyond your nearly
humorous, unilaterally informed bullshit and start thinking for a
change. You see? You see what you look like? Enough said.
> > things than a hammer made of cheaper materials."- Hide quoted text -
allows (I'm aware that some theists especially need brevity for more
thorough comprehension) this is the nature of the discourse here... :
Atheist: I bring statistics and observations.
Theist: I bring the bible
Atheist: I bring new scientific conclusions that dispel former
misconceptions including your religious "facts"
Theist: I bring the bible (and maybe a pamphlet)
Atheist: I bring knowledge of biology that is inconsistent with your
eons old religious superstition
Theist: I bring the bible (and maybe some deceptive propoganda film
with second rate celebrities (not versed in the subject matter) and a
host of fallacious rhetoric)
Atheist: I bring you history, linguistics, sociological data and many,
many examples of these fields applied to your position apparently
disproving of your dogmatic construct
Theist: I bring the bible (and without a doubt redundancy, circular
assertions, insane denial, hypocrisy, inconsistency, contradiction and
flagrant belligerent egoism)
So, you see, I really just advise looking beyond your nearly
humorous, unilaterally informed bullshit and start thinking for a
change. You see? You see what you look like? Enough said.
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 10:15:37 PM5/15/08
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 2:52 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>> > It is not a logical fallacy to say that science is better at solving
>> > problems than religion is.
>>
>> No, merely overly simplistic. :)
> Not to mention highly unscientific.
> Brock, nice touch on that original post with the cite to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hammer
> On May 14, 2:52 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>> > It is not a logical fallacy to say that science is better at solving
>> > problems than religion is.
>>
>> No, merely overly simplistic. :)
> Not to mention highly unscientific.
> Brock, nice touch on that original post with the cite to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hammer
Thanks, Alan. How goes the Aquinas reading? Hope all is well with you. :)
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 10:20:03 PM5/15/08
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Shot In The Dark <adgi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And to elaborate and clarify, as briefly as my thought process
> allows (I'm aware that some theists especially need brevity for more
> thorough comprehension) this is the nature of the discourse here... :
>
> Atheist: I bring statistics and observations.
> Theist: I bring the bible
> Atheist: I bring new scientific conclusions that dispel former
> misconceptions including your religious "facts"
> Theist: I bring the bible (and maybe a pamphlet)
> Atheist: I bring knowledge of biology that is inconsistent with your
> eons old religious superstition
> Theist: I bring the bible (and maybe some deceptive propoganda film
> with second rate celebrities (not versed in the subject matter) and a
> host of fallacious rhetoric)
> Atheist: I bring you history, linguistics, sociological data and many,
> many examples of these fields applied to your position apparently
> disproving of your dogmatic construct
> Theist: I bring the bible (and without a doubt redundancy, circular
> assertions, insane denial, hypocrisy, inconsistency, contradiction and
> flagrant belligerent egoism)
>
> So, you see, I really just advise looking beyond your nearly
> humorous, unilaterally informed bullshit and start thinking for a
> change. You see? You see what you look like? Enough said.
>
> And to elaborate and clarify, as briefly as my thought process
> allows (I'm aware that some theists especially need brevity for more
> thorough comprehension) this is the nature of the discourse here... :
>
> Atheist: I bring statistics and observations.
> Theist: I bring the bible
> Atheist: I bring new scientific conclusions that dispel former
> misconceptions including your religious "facts"
> Theist: I bring the bible (and maybe a pamphlet)
> Atheist: I bring knowledge of biology that is inconsistent with your
> eons old religious superstition
> Theist: I bring the bible (and maybe some deceptive propoganda film
> with second rate celebrities (not versed in the subject matter) and a
> host of fallacious rhetoric)
> Atheist: I bring you history, linguistics, sociological data and many,
> many examples of these fields applied to your position apparently
> disproving of your dogmatic construct
> Theist: I bring the bible (and without a doubt redundancy, circular
> assertions, insane denial, hypocrisy, inconsistency, contradiction and
> flagrant belligerent egoism)
>
> So, you see, I really just advise looking beyond your nearly
> humorous, unilaterally informed bullshit and start thinking for a
> change. You see? You see what you look like? Enough said.
I see it differently, for example, I like how Jastow noted:
"In 1978 Robert Jastrow, then head of NASA's Goddard Institute for
Space Studies, spoke metaphorically about scientists who, after
climbing the arduous mountain of cosmology, came to the summit only to
find theologians there already."[1]
Regards,
Brock
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 10:21:00 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 15, 10:04 am, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 2:16 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 2) reason a subset of faith (fideism)
>
> > Observer
> > Who fucking cares scientific method is the only sure way to usable
> > information. All else is conjecture Just like your fucking god fraud.
>
> but none of that demonstrates that reason is not a subset of faith.
Reason applied to faith yields only what that faith permits. and is
not related to "truth" unless the result of that reasoning is verified
by scientific method and is falsifiable.
> reason is comprehension & inference. inference is deriving
> conclusions from fact or premises. your *conviction* abt the
> scientific method is based on inferring that it is a sucessful way of
> dealing with reality. you have *faith* in its results.
Bull shit.
Pay attention! Reality will be available only when the last word of
the final and complete scientific journal is completed, no errors
exist, and nothing is forgotten.
The time frame for which would be in the billions of years.
Reality is not the quest, as it is far too allusive. The task is the
acquisition of the most usable information at any given time.
Examine scientific method and then show that there is a better way to
extract the most useful information available.
Frankly, faith is the stupidity of blindly accepting a premise without
requiring that it is falsifiable.
If you do not understand that then I suggest that you educate your
self before you continue to be an embarrassment to Christianity in
front of people who have been educated in accessing scientific data,
through critical thought and the application scientific method.
Your Christian Voodoo Hoodoo, dependence on magic, and laughable other
worldly creatures is simply ridiculous.
There exist no scientifically verifiable substantiating data for the
existence of your god thing or any act there of.
Further science does very well at accounting for the universe(s) with
out resorting dependence on the magic of a god thing.
The coming availability of universal education including scientific
data, instruction in the art critical thought, and a deep
understanding of scientific method will expunge the filth of
Christianity form the human psyche.
In addition, I say, good riddance to bad rubbish.
You are completely and insultingly wrong about having *faith* in
scientific method. Are you so stupid that you cannot discern the
difference between faith (blind belief) and trust in the abilities of
scientific method to ferret out the most usable information available
at any given time?
Every respectable scientist submits his work to his peers for review
Tens of thousands of the most intelligent, best educated, best
equipped and most industrious people, ever to live on this planet are
successfully providing everything that humanity uses. Their industry
is constantly involved in developing the best possible medical care,
the best and most plentiful food products, improved shelter, and
health information. To say nothing of unveiling the wonders of the
universe(s)
None of this was, or could have been, or is accomplished without
diligent adherence to scientific method.
These are reasons to trust but not have blind faith in the process. To
borrow a phrase from the late president ,Ronald Reagan, Trust but
verify.
All of the theological, metaphysical , and ethereal philosophical
bull shit has produced nothing but cognitive dissonance , atrocities,
religious wars and the complete deterrence of science by
intimidation ,threats, and terrorism for over 1300 years.
Yours is a hideous superstition where in a fictive inept
sadomasochistic monster of a god thing is the object of worship. A god
thing that had it's self/It's son tortured to death in order to
protect us from its own wrath.
The new testament is easily the most completely stupid story ever
told.
And you fools believe it even though there is no proof that any of it
is true. Furthermore, to date I have seen no, independent
corroboration, there of.
To pinpoint the filth of the bible and save hours of typing I refer
you to the following web site.
http://www.evilbible.com/
I wish you well, but I detest the mind eating superstition that has
infected your psyche.
Psychonomist
Shot In The Dark
<adgiesing@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 10:30:26 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Making stuff up in no way constitutes an understanding of
cosmology and there is no way any theistic text to which I am aware of
is consistent with cosmology. Don't believe me? Ask a cosmologist.
But don't stop there. Ask many cosmologists. Ask them to analyze
your interpretation on this subject. Until then, I guess technically
the jury is out. But I am aware of at least a few instances where
cosmologists dismiss biblical accuracy (at least as applied to their
field) as farce. Also of note, I believe your reply consists entirely
of an appeal to authority fallacy in which you point to an example of
rather blatant egoism and unqualified, unsubstantiated assertion. Way
to go.
On May 15, 10:20 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [1]http://www.counterbalance.net/rjr/at-body.html- Hide quoted text -
cosmology and there is no way any theistic text to which I am aware of
is consistent with cosmology. Don't believe me? Ask a cosmologist.
But don't stop there. Ask many cosmologists. Ask them to analyze
your interpretation on this subject. Until then, I guess technically
the jury is out. But I am aware of at least a few instances where
cosmologists dismiss biblical accuracy (at least as applied to their
field) as farce. Also of note, I believe your reply consists entirely
of an appeal to authority fallacy in which you point to an example of
rather blatant egoism and unqualified, unsubstantiated assertion. Way
to go.
On May 15, 10:20 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 10:31:20 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 15, 1:33 pm, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> Indeed. I can think of nothing that sums up Brock's belief system
> better than the "Golden Hammer" analogy. The absurdity of Brock's
> belief system is independent of his belief in it.
"History shows that the natural sciences grew out of Christian
culture. As the sociologist Rodney Stark has so convincingly shown
(See especially For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to
Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery), science
was “still-born” in the great civilizations of the ancient world,
except in Christian civilization.
Why is it that empirical science and the scientific method did not
develop in China (with its sophisticated society), in India (with its
philosophical schools), in Arabia (with its advanced mathematics), in
Japan (with its dedicated craftsmen and technologies), or even in
ancient Greece or Rome?
The answer is fairly straightforward. Science flourished in societies
where a Christian mindset understood nature to be ordered, the work of
an intelligent Creator."[1]
Regards,
Brock
[1] http://ncregister.com/site/article/14856/
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 10:33:00 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 15, 12:56 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 2:52 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > It is not a logical fallacy to say that science is better at solving
> > > problems than religion is.
>
> > No, merely overly simplistic. :)
>
> Not to mention highly unscientific.
> Brock, nice touch on that original post with the cite tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hammer
"History shows that the natural sciences grew out of Christian
culture. As the sociologist Rodney Stark has so convincingly shown
(See especially For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to
Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery), science
was “still-born” in the great civilizations of the ancient world,
except in Christian civilization.
Why is it that empirical science and the scientific method did not
develop in China (with its sophisticated society), in India (with its
philosophical schools), in Arabia (with its advanced mathematics), in
Japan (with its dedicated craftsmen and technologies), or even in
ancient Greece or Rome?
The answer is fairly straightforward. Science flourished in societies
where a Christian mindset understood nature to be ordered, the work of
an intelligent Creator."[1]
zencycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>May 15, 2008, 10:40:43 PM5/15/08
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
I like it!
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Shot In The Dark" <adgi...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:03 PM
To: "Atheism vs Christianity" <Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [AvC] Re: Is There A Conflict Between Religion And Science?
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 10:51:01 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
> You cannot possibly have obtained ALL pertinent
> knowledge of opposing religions, the observed possibility (read:
> probability=near absolute) of no correct dogma, nor have you developed
> anything further than an asserted knowledge of "absolute truth".
When I am informed by God's Holy Spirit on a topic[1], I am infallibly
> knowledge of opposing religions, the observed possibility (read:
> probability=near absolute) of no correct dogma, nor have you developed
> anything further than an asserted knowledge of "absolute truth".
informed by One who does possess all pertinent knowledge.
Regards,
Brock
[1] of course, I don't claim that God's Holy Spirit exhaustively
informs me of all things on all topics; in fact, the testimony of the
Bible has a specific purpose and function focused around God's
redemptive plan through Jesus Christ.
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 10:54:37 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
> If you were honest (by any usage of the word) and you
> truly wanted to contribute toward a more positive existence you would
> at least remain neutral on the subject.
I wouldn't define "honesty" in the manner you've done here. I believe
> truly wanted to contribute toward a more positive existence you would
> at least remain neutral on the subject.
I have behaved honestly throughout my posts in this thread. :)
> apply in your blatant denial of reasonable discourse.
simply show its specific and clear limitations. :)
Regards,
Brock
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 10:55:44 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
♠
On May 15, 10:17 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 8:10 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:> On May 15, 2:08 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 13, 9:40 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > Right now, I just want it to be acknowledged that religion and science
> > > > are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> > > > they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> > > > question is which we would be wiser to compromise.
>
> > > Sorry, Dev, can't go there. The opposing view is there can be no true
> > > conflict between religion and science (or faith and reason) because
> > > there is one source of truth: God.
>
> > That is unsubstantiated so, in and of itself, in direct opposition to
> > science.
>
> It is in opposition to the unscientific dogma that what cannot be
> known by scientific method cannot be known, but is not in opposition
> to science itself.
Observer
Pleas enlighten us as to the way one separates science from scientific
method.
Which part of scientific method do you reject as dogma ?
Why is it you believe the universe is
> scientifically intelligible only on hypothesis
Observer
You might want to look at the scientific understanding of the
universe(s) as theory rather than hypothesis
See below.
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a
testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural
phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of
the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or
otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from
this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand
in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on
earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and
the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are
Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and
the theory of general relativity.
it is not the product
> of a Mind in who's image we are made?
Observer
That is an absurdity for which there is no proof.
You refer to the Christian god which is the produce if fear/hate
driven neolithic goat herders regurgitating of even more ancient
myths. The old testament is a replica of the id of these primitive
goat herders. The new testament is the most ridiculously stupid story
ever told.
A fictive god so inept and consumed by cognitive dissonance that it
has it's self/ It's son tortured to death to protect us from its own
rage.
What pure stupidity.
It is amazing that you fruit cakes wait around for your loved ones to
be tortured for eternity by your fictive sadomasochist monster of a
god thing.
Regards
Psychonomist
On May 15, 10:17 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 8:10 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:> On May 15, 2:08 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 13, 9:40 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > Right now, I just want it to be acknowledged that religion and science
> > > > are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> > > > they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> > > > question is which we would be wiser to compromise.
>
> > > Sorry, Dev, can't go there. The opposing view is there can be no true
> > > conflict between religion and science (or faith and reason) because
> > > there is one source of truth: God.
>
> > That is unsubstantiated so, in and of itself, in direct opposition to
> > science.
>
> It is in opposition to the unscientific dogma that what cannot be
> known by scientific method cannot be known, but is not in opposition
> to science itself.
Pleas enlighten us as to the way one separates science from scientific
method.
Which part of scientific method do you reject as dogma ?
Why is it you believe the universe is
> scientifically intelligible only on hypothesis
You might want to look at the scientific understanding of the
universe(s) as theory rather than hypothesis
See below.
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a
testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural
phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of
the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or
otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from
this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand
in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on
earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and
the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are
Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and
the theory of general relativity.
it is not the product
> of a Mind in who's image we are made?
That is an absurdity for which there is no proof.
You refer to the Christian god which is the produce if fear/hate
driven neolithic goat herders regurgitating of even more ancient
myths. The old testament is a replica of the id of these primitive
goat herders. The new testament is the most ridiculously stupid story
ever told.
A fictive god so inept and consumed by cognitive dissonance that it
has it's self/ It's son tortured to death to protect us from its own
rage.
What pure stupidity.
It is amazing that you fruit cakes wait around for your loved ones to
be tortured for eternity by your fictive sadomasochist monster of a
god thing.
Regards
Psychonomist
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 10:57:28 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 15, 10:30 pm, Shot In The Dark <adgies...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Making stuff up in no way constitutes an understanding of
> cosmology and there is no way any theistic text to which I am aware of
> is consistent with cosmology. Don't believe me? Ask a cosmologist.
http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0393850064/ref=sib_rdr_dp
as an example of a good read with a credible scientist that shows your
analysis to be overly simplistic. :)
Regards,
Brock
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 11:06:31 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 15, 10:55 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is amazing that you fruit cakes wait around for your loved ones to
> be tortured for eternity by your fictive sadomasochist monster of a
> god thing.
attributes are accurate. The Bible testifies that He is in fact
exquisitely moral and righteous. His good counsel and patience and
tenderness are so well documented that it is only right and just that
humankind worship Him as He requires.
God is, in a word, Holy. :)
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 11:02:09 PM5/15/08
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
2008/5/15 Observer <mayo...@gmail.com>:
> It is amazing that you fruit cakes wait around for your loved ones to
> be tortured for eternity by your fictive sadomasochist monster of a
> god thing.
> It is amazing that you fruit cakes wait around for your loved ones to
> be tortured for eternity by your fictive sadomasochist monster of a
> god thing.
I don't believe your characterization of God's nature, character and
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>May 15, 2008, 11:14:18 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 15, 11:14 am, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> (as a point of reference I remember a religious poster in the boston subway
> (the green line) about 13 years ago which advertised a religious
> fundamentalist organization (can't recall the name). In addition to the
> phone number and some scriptural garbage, the poster had the phrase 'cure
> for cancer' with an arrow drawn to a christian cross. It wasn't graffiti.)
It was a sales pitch, presumably. But was it an effective one? Did any
> (as a point of reference I remember a religious poster in the boston subway
> (the green line) about 13 years ago which advertised a religious
> fundamentalist organization (can't recall the name). In addition to the
> phone number and some scriptural garbage, the poster had the phrase 'cure
> for cancer' with an arrow drawn to a christian cross. It wasn't graffiti.)
more passengers get off at Copley square and go to Old South church or
Trinity church as a consequence of seeing it?
Shot In The Dark
<adgiesing@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 11:18:47 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Thanks :-) I suppose I'll resume my Brock-O boycott now. I just
get frustrated, and forget myself. It's apparently a lost cause, I
just felt it was pushing that limit again.
On May 15, 10:40 pm, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I like it!
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Shot In The Dark" <adgies...@gmail.com>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
get frustrated, and forget myself. It's apparently a lost cause, I
just felt it was pushing that limit again.
On May 15, 10:40 pm, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I like it!
>
> --------------------------------------------------
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 11:42:15 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Observer
Excellent !
Regards
Psychonomist
On May 15, 2:19 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Dev'
>
> Once again, a terrific exposition, well produced and laudably
> accomplished. May I just rip off the very last part of your
> comment, for extra comment. It ends with a vital question, which
> for anyone who enjoys the freedom of unfettered expression in
> rational and logical thought, without reference to illogical,
> superstitious manuscript, must have answered.
> not stand on the turf of scientific endeavour and never will. It
> stands if it stands at all in the realms of superstitious antiquity,
> from
> which it originates and will forever remain. There is no competition,
> nor coexistence one with the other and to even think of the
> possibility is tantamount to an insult to rational thought and
> reality.
> You say it right when you say: "there is no 'line-in-the-sand' by
> which they can coexist," or otherwise.
> Religion either accepts science, or rejects it. There can be no
> compromise nor watering down to appease or get religion off its
> constraining hook of fanatical fancy. Please excuse my blunt, but
> determined response.
Excellent !
Regards
Psychonomist
On May 15, 2:19 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Dev'
>
> Once again, a terrific exposition, well produced and laudably
> accomplished. May I just rip off the very last part of your
> comment, for extra comment. It ends with a vital question, which
> for anyone who enjoys the freedom of unfettered expression in
> rational and logical thought, without reference to illogical,
> superstitious manuscript, must have answered.
>
> > " I just want it to be acknowledged that religion and science
> > are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> > they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> > question is which we would be wiser to compromise."
>
> For my part and contrary to your possible implication, religion does
> > " I just want it to be acknowledged that religion and science
> > are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> > they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> > question is which we would be wiser to compromise."
>
> not stand on the turf of scientific endeavour and never will. It
> stands if it stands at all in the realms of superstitious antiquity,
> from
> which it originates and will forever remain. There is no competition,
> nor coexistence one with the other and to even think of the
> possibility is tantamount to an insult to rational thought and
> reality.
> You say it right when you say: "there is no 'line-in-the-sand' by
> which they can coexist," or otherwise.
> Religion either accepts science, or rejects it. There can be no
> compromise nor watering down to appease or get religion off its
> constraining hook of fanatical fancy. Please excuse my blunt, but
> determined response.
>
> On May 14, 5:40 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > This came up in another thread and it's amazing how many theists stick
> > to the dumbassed "argument" that there's no conflict between religion
> > and science. It is pretty obvious to me that as long as theists
> > acknowledge that they rely on science, there is absolutely no
> > infringement on it by religion that--in their ruined little minds--
> > would ever constitute a "conflict" no matter how severe.
>
> > Science is a methodology, first and foremost, and the only reasonable
> > methodology for knowing anything about the natural world. On a method
> > level, religion assails this in many ways. Science is based around
> > some things being substantiated, and other things being falsified. It
> > is _not_ based are substantiating things you already know and
> > explaining everything else away with superstitions. Any presumptions
> On May 14, 5:40 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > This came up in another thread and it's amazing how many theists stick
> > to the dumbassed "argument" that there's no conflict between religion
> > and science. It is pretty obvious to me that as long as theists
> > acknowledge that they rely on science, there is absolutely no
> > infringement on it by religion that--in their ruined little minds--
> > would ever constitute a "conflict" no matter how severe.
>
> > Science is a methodology, first and foremost, and the only reasonable
> > methodology for knowing anything about the natural world. On a method
> > level, religion assails this in many ways. Science is based around
> > some things being substantiated, and other things being falsified. It
> > is _not_ based are substantiating things you already know and
> > about the natural world that are unscientific are infringing on the
> > process of learning about reality, from historic battles about the
> > cosmos to the current ID versus evolution "debate"--especially when
> > they are unfalsifiable or refuse to reconcile to evidence. The idea
> > that there is no overlap between the domain of faith claims and
> > science is a blatant lie--as Sam Harris observed, even the claim of
> > the virgin birth is a claim about biology. Harris goes on to mention
> > that there's no telling which unscientific beliefs will be harmful--
> > noting that the idea that the soul enters the body at conception seems
> > harmless enough until it interferes with valuable, life-saving
> > research on embryonic stem cells.
>
> > A poster on the other thread mentioned "NOMA"--"non-overlapping
> > magisteria"--as conceived by Stephen Jay Gould. The idea is basically
> > that science has nothing to say about questions of God. Dawkins had
> > more than a little to say about this.
>
> > "This sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment's thought.
> > cosmos to the current ID versus evolution "debate"--especially when
> > they are unfalsifiable or refuse to reconcile to evidence. The idea
> > that there is no overlap between the domain of faith claims and
> > science is a blatant lie--as Sam Harris observed, even the claim of
> > the virgin birth is a claim about biology. Harris goes on to mention
> > that there's no telling which unscientific beliefs will be harmful--
> > noting that the idea that the soul enters the body at conception seems
> > harmless enough until it interferes with valuable, life-saving
> > research on embryonic stem cells.
>
> > A poster on the other thread mentioned "NOMA"--"non-overlapping
> > magisteria"--as conceived by Stephen Jay Gould. The idea is basically
> > that science has nothing to say about questions of God. Dawkins had
> > more than a little to say about this.
>
> > "This sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment's thought.
> > You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe
> > is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a
> > is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a
> > more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god
> > would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and
> > it would be a scientific difference. God could clinch the matter in
> > would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and
> > his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 11:57:28 PM5/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
You can show the monkey the mirror :)
> > > > question is which we would be wiser to compromise.- Hide quoted text -
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>May 16, 2008, 12:03:52 AM5/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Great post, comments inline.
On May 15, 11:29 am, DreadGeekGrrl <dreadg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Outstanding post!
>
> I want to echo and amplify some things. Firstly, we can see in the
> responses below by Samir MANY of the points made in this post. IF
> religion could keeps it nose out of scientific questions (questions
> regarding the diversity of species on Earth or cosmology or organic
> chemistry) then this would go a LONG, LONG way in turning down the
> volume of this conflict. As a whole, one does not see scientists
> butting our noses into questions of, for instance, transubstantiation
> or what-have-you so I don't see any reason why religious believers
> can't do us the same courtesy. When scientists DO become involved in
> religious questions it is almost ENTIRELY a function of having
> religious believers interfering in some scientific question. (To take
> one example, evolutionary biology. If religious believers would stop
> trying to make my discipline conform to their warmed-over Babylonian
> beliefs then I would have far *less* (although still a non-zero
> amount) interest in honing spirited defenses of teaching science in
> the public schools because such a defense would not be necessary.)
Exactly. If religion were actually harmless we would treat it more
like horoscopes or tarot card reading. A little nutty, rational people
know it's useless or demonstrably ineffective, but overall they don't
try to say that a Gemini can't marry a Taurus and expect us to take it
seriously.
>
> In one of his replies, Samir talks about evolutionary biology, showing
> that he, like most other theists, know next-to-nothing about the
> subject matter OTHER than that they disagree with it. Initially I was
> going to give him a long reply as to why he was wrong about
> Neanderthal and homo sapiens but thought better of it, in no small
> part because his post is a canonical example of the type of behavior
> I'm talking about which creates problems for religion.
Yup, at that point I put him on my mental ignore list. He's so far out
in left field I think a frontal lobotomy might actually IMPROVE his
intellectual capability.
> And understand
> that, overall, the problem is for *religion* because even though
> public school science education in America is hobbled by the inability
> to teach core, foundational materials in biology classes no such
> problem exists in China, or India, or England, or Germany, or Japan,
> or Sweden, or Norway, or France...and as such biology will move on and
> leave the US behind, just as biology moved on and left what was the
> Soviet Union behind when it fell under the way of Lysenkoism.
> Although I may feel bad for my country that it is turning its back on
> science just as the true Golden Age of Biology is about to begin, that
> is a decision that my fellow citizens have made in a thousand big and
> small ways and there is little I can do except put a finger in the
> dike as best I can and hope for things to change. Research and study
> in biology will and does go on, despite the denials of creationists
> and ID proponents.
Well, I think there is a large enough group of people in the US who
will continue to do good work because we're not all ignorant morons
(firstly), and because there is money to be had in it (secondly). So
while public education might become a farce, we'll have to fill in the
gaps other ways.
> On the other hand, this kind of thing does serious
> and lasting damage to religion. I left Christianity, in no small
> part, because of the *inherent* anti-intellectualism that is a near
> requirement to be a good, American Christian these days. I could not
> accept in my heart a set of propositions that my mind rejected and I
> would not compromise my intellectual integrity because, at the time
> and in the place I was, it was all I felt I had. And since the
> CHURCH, not my professors, were saying I HAD to make a choice and that
> the choice was clear that in any conflict between what was taught from
> the pulpit and what was taught in the lab and lecture hall, what was
> taught in the pulpit won by definition I made the only reasonable
> choice; I followed the data where with as much courage and humility as
> I could. My story is entirely not unique either.
Same with me ;)
>
> So in one sense, since I would like others to be free from suffering
> and I consider living in ignorance a profound form and source of
> suffering, I am grateful for the folks like Brock and Samir and others
> who continually try to make science conform to their sectarian beliefs
> because I KNOW the damage it does to their religion and each person
> who has the scales removed from their eyes and their curiosity
> reignited is someone who has been liberated from the darkness of
> superstition and ignorance.
>
> Cheers
> DGG
> ...
>
> read more »
On May 15, 11:29 am, DreadGeekGrrl <dreadg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Outstanding post!
>
> I want to echo and amplify some things. Firstly, we can see in the
> responses below by Samir MANY of the points made in this post. IF
> religion could keeps it nose out of scientific questions (questions
> regarding the diversity of species on Earth or cosmology or organic
> chemistry) then this would go a LONG, LONG way in turning down the
> volume of this conflict. As a whole, one does not see scientists
> butting our noses into questions of, for instance, transubstantiation
> or what-have-you so I don't see any reason why religious believers
> can't do us the same courtesy. When scientists DO become involved in
> religious questions it is almost ENTIRELY a function of having
> religious believers interfering in some scientific question. (To take
> one example, evolutionary biology. If religious believers would stop
> trying to make my discipline conform to their warmed-over Babylonian
> beliefs then I would have far *less* (although still a non-zero
> amount) interest in honing spirited defenses of teaching science in
> the public schools because such a defense would not be necessary.)
Exactly. If religion were actually harmless we would treat it more
like horoscopes or tarot card reading. A little nutty, rational people
know it's useless or demonstrably ineffective, but overall they don't
try to say that a Gemini can't marry a Taurus and expect us to take it
seriously.
>
> In one of his replies, Samir talks about evolutionary biology, showing
> that he, like most other theists, know next-to-nothing about the
> subject matter OTHER than that they disagree with it. Initially I was
> going to give him a long reply as to why he was wrong about
> Neanderthal and homo sapiens but thought better of it, in no small
> part because his post is a canonical example of the type of behavior
> I'm talking about which creates problems for religion.
Yup, at that point I put him on my mental ignore list. He's so far out
in left field I think a frontal lobotomy might actually IMPROVE his
intellectual capability.
> And understand
> that, overall, the problem is for *religion* because even though
> public school science education in America is hobbled by the inability
> to teach core, foundational materials in biology classes no such
> problem exists in China, or India, or England, or Germany, or Japan,
> or Sweden, or Norway, or France...and as such biology will move on and
> leave the US behind, just as biology moved on and left what was the
> Soviet Union behind when it fell under the way of Lysenkoism.
> Although I may feel bad for my country that it is turning its back on
> science just as the true Golden Age of Biology is about to begin, that
> is a decision that my fellow citizens have made in a thousand big and
> small ways and there is little I can do except put a finger in the
> dike as best I can and hope for things to change. Research and study
> in biology will and does go on, despite the denials of creationists
> and ID proponents.
Well, I think there is a large enough group of people in the US who
will continue to do good work because we're not all ignorant morons
(firstly), and because there is money to be had in it (secondly). So
while public education might become a farce, we'll have to fill in the
gaps other ways.
> On the other hand, this kind of thing does serious
> and lasting damage to religion. I left Christianity, in no small
> part, because of the *inherent* anti-intellectualism that is a near
> requirement to be a good, American Christian these days. I could not
> accept in my heart a set of propositions that my mind rejected and I
> would not compromise my intellectual integrity because, at the time
> and in the place I was, it was all I felt I had. And since the
> CHURCH, not my professors, were saying I HAD to make a choice and that
> the choice was clear that in any conflict between what was taught from
> the pulpit and what was taught in the lab and lecture hall, what was
> taught in the pulpit won by definition I made the only reasonable
> choice; I followed the data where with as much courage and humility as
> I could. My story is entirely not unique either.
Same with me ;)
>
> So in one sense, since I would like others to be free from suffering
> and I consider living in ignorance a profound form and source of
> suffering, I am grateful for the folks like Brock and Samir and others
> who continually try to make science conform to their sectarian beliefs
> because I KNOW the damage it does to their religion and each person
> who has the scales removed from their eyes and their curiosity
> reignited is someone who has been liberated from the darkness of
> superstition and ignorance.
>
> Cheers
> DGG
>
> read more »
rappoccio
<rappoccio@gmail.com>May 16, 2008, 12:07:35 AM5/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 15, 12:05 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 6:16 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 15, 3:08 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 13, 9:40 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > On May 15, 3:08 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 13, 9:40 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > Right now, I just want it to be acknowledged that religion and science
> > > > are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> > > > they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> > > > are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> > > > they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> > > > question is which we would be wiser to compromise.
>
> > > Sorry, Dev, can't go there. The opposing view is there can be no true
> > > conflict between religion and science (or faith and reason) because
> > > there is one source of truth: God.
>
> > > The Non-ovrelapping magisteria was mentioned as one of several
>
> > > Sorry, Dev, can't go there. The opposing view is there can be no true
> > > conflict between religion and science (or faith and reason) because
> > > there is one source of truth: God.
>
> > > possible relations between faith and reason, and I agree with your
> > > judgment it is inadequate. But this does not leave the view you
> > > articulate -- eternal conflict -- as the last man standing. One of my
> > > teachers(*) identified five possible relations between faith and
> > > reason:
>
> > > 1) truths known by faith are a subset of truths known by reason
> > > (rationalism)
> > > 2) reason a subset of faith (fideism)
> > > 3) truths of faith and reason identical
> > > 4) no overlap. (Gould's view; the view of certain 12th century Arabic
> > > philosophers, too)
> > > 5) partial overlap. Some truths can be known by faith, some by reason,
> > > and some, by either.
>
> > > (*) St. Thomas Aquinas
>
> > Or the actual truth: No truth can be known by faith, and alot of
> > truths can be known by reason.
>
> You have chosen door #1 above (rationalism) where the content of faith
> is the empty set.
Like I said: no truth can be known by faith, and a lot of truths can
be known by reason.
The rest are wrong.
Why?
Even if you "guess" at the right answer by "faith", that doesn't mean
the truth can be KNOWN by faith, it means that you guessed correctly.
If you guess that the sun will rise tomorrow because no one has killed
Apollo and hence he'll ride his chariot without hinderance, you'd
arrive at a "truth" by a totally insanely incorrect method.
Therefore since you cannot demonstrate that any truth can be known
"from faith", even if you arrive at the right conclusion for the wrong
reason, it is still not an effective way of determining truth.
Support for this claim?
Which is the "true" God and how do you know this is certainly true
using faith arguments alone?
If you cannot do this, then you have shown my point.
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>May 16, 2008, 12:24:32 AM5/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 15, 7:31 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "History shows that the natural sciences grew out of Christian
> culture.
The scientific method got its start in pre-Christian Greece. It was
> "History shows that the natural sciences grew out of Christian
> culture.
interrupted by the Dark Ages and resumed with the Enlightenment.
http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/science/logic.htm
> Why is it that empirical science and the scientific method did not
> develop in China (with its sophisticated society),
> in India (with its
> philosophical schools), in Arabia (with its advanced mathematics), in
> Japan (with its dedicated craftsmen and technologies), or even in
> ancient Greece or Rome?
and were instrumental in launching so-called Islamic science. Look for
Jundishapur in this
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/embryo.htm
... and then search for Jundishapur on Google.
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>May 15, 2008, 10:41:37 PM5/15/08
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Shot In The Dark <adgi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Making stuff up in no way constitutes an understanding of
> cosmology and there is no way any theistic text to which I am aware of
> is consistent with cosmology. Don't believe me? Ask a cosmologist.
>
> Making stuff up in no way constitutes an understanding of
> cosmology and there is no way any theistic text to which I am aware of
> is consistent with cosmology. Don't believe me? Ask a cosmologist.
I like:
Lawrey
<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>May 16, 2008, 2:41:40 AM5/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Dev'
I take your point. and my thanks for the direction to it.
On May 15, 4:02 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Well, I think your perceived disagreement may be an issue of
> semantics. From a _reasonable_ perspective, of course religion is not
> competition for science. But in the battle for the human mind, which
> is too often not reasonable, they do overlap over the same turf and
> that's why there are conflicts such as ID versus evolution.
I take your point. and my thanks for the direction to it.
On May 15, 4:02 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Well, I think your perceived disagreement may be an issue of
> semantics. From a _reasonable_ perspective, of course religion is not
> competition for science. But in the battle for the human mind, which
> is too often not reasonable, they do overlap over the same turf and
> that's why there are conflicts such as ID versus evolution.
>
> On May 15, 3:19 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dev'
>
> > Once again, a terrific exposition, well produced and laudably
> > accomplished. May I just rip off the very last part of your
> > comment, for extra comment. It ends with a vital question, which
> > for anyone who enjoys the freedom of unfettered expression in
> > rational and logical thought, without reference to illogical,
> > superstitious manuscript, must have answered.
>
> On May 15, 3:19 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dev'
>
> > Once again, a terrific exposition, well produced and laudably
> > accomplished. May I just rip off the very last part of your
> > comment, for extra comment. It ends with a vital question, which
> > for anyone who enjoys the freedom of unfettered expression in
> > rational and logical thought, without reference to illogical,
> > superstitious manuscript, must have answered.
>
> > > " I just want it to be acknowledged that religion and science
> > > are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> > > they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> > > question is which we would be wiser to compromise."
>
> > > are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> > > they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> > > question is which we would be wiser to compromise."
>
> > For my part and contrary to your possible implication, religion does
> > not stand on the turf of scientific endeavour and never will. It
> > stands if it stands at all in the realms of superstitious antiquity,
> > from
> > which it originates and will forever remain. There is no competition,
> > nor coexistence one with the other and to even think of the
> > possibility is tantamount to an insult to rational thought and
> > reality.
> > You say it right when you say: "there is no 'line-in-the-sand' by
> > which they can coexist," or otherwise.
> > Religion either accepts science, or rejects it. There can be no
> > compromise nor watering down to appease or get religion off its
> > constraining hook of fanatical fancy. Please excuse my blunt, but
> > determined response.
>
> > not stand on the turf of scientific endeavour and never will. It
> > stands if it stands at all in the realms of superstitious antiquity,
> > from
> > which it originates and will forever remain. There is no competition,
> > nor coexistence one with the other and to even think of the
> > possibility is tantamount to an insult to rational thought and
> > reality.
> > You say it right when you say: "there is no 'line-in-the-sand' by
> > which they can coexist," or otherwise.
> > Religion either accepts science, or rejects it. There can be no
> > compromise nor watering down to appease or get religion off its
> > constraining hook of fanatical fancy. Please excuse my blunt, but
> > determined response.
>
> > > criticism, doesn't leave its toxic imprint. But that's a larger issue.
> > > Right now, I just want it to be acknowledged that religion and science
> > > are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> > > they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> > > are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> > > they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> > > question is which we would be wiser to compromise.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
Samir
<gaury@myway.com>May 16, 2008, 8:08:32 AM5/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 15, 12:11 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 9:53 pm, Samir <ga...@myway.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 15, 2:34 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:> Strawman. Want to actually address my points?
>
> > Your points ? Verbose nothingness cannot be a point. Countering
> > reverse-swing is NOT as difficult as you think. Theists do NOT need
> > the help of pseudo-scientists. Sole aim of your article is to push
> > theists towards scientific-superstition (!!!???). You want theists to
> > accept a number of silly theories as scientific theories.
> > It is nice to see that you want to be scientific; but "under the veil
> > of a theist", you are only trying to hush up the fact that atheists
> > don't have as high a scientific temper as they claim.
>
> Observer
>
> Ehen it comes to the maximum stupidity of humanity you are the prime
> example. Why were you never educated ? Is it because you were rejected
> by schools or is your isolation from education self imposed ? You are
> a true parasite upon the human condition . Frankly you are a
> disgusting piece of non intellectual shit. How dare you come here or
Non-intellectual shit ? There you are... Ihad guessed I am loitering
in a group of idiots who call themselves Intellectuals. (I have
explained this point in my web-space at http://samirsp.blogspot.com )
In reality yours is a group of people with herd-mentality.
> anywhere else and post such idiotic filth ? If you weren't completely
> sub human would plead that you get an education but that is
> obviously an impossibility.
That simply means that you believe in that non-sense called "Evolution
Theory". That shows the difference between your educational level &
mine.
>
> What a shame .
>
> Psychonomist
Dear psychonomist : Would you care explaining the meaning of this
ridiculous word "PSYCHONOMIST" ? This itself means you do not know
what you are. Obviously you do not know how worthless you are. That's
why you have used low-class language.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On May 14, 12:43 am, Samir <ga...@myway.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Mere opposition to Religiosity" is no proof of scientific temper.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On May 14, 12:43 am, Samir <ga...@myway.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Mere opposition to Religiosity" is no proof of scientific temper.
>
> > > > On May 14, 9:40 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > This came up in another thread and it's amazing how many theists stick
> > > > > to the dumbassed "argument" that there's no conflict between religion
> > > > > and science. It is pretty obvious to me that as long as theists
> > > > > acknowledge that they rely on science, there is absolutely no
> > > > > infringement on it by religion that--in their ruined little minds--
> > > > > would ever constitute a "conflict" no matter how severe.
>
> > > > > Science is a methodology, first and foremost, and the only reasonable
> > > > > methodology for knowing anything about the natural world. On a method
> > > > > level, religion assails this in many ways. Science is based around
> > > > > some things being substantiated, and other things being falsified. It
> > > > > is _not_ based are substantiating things you already know and
> > > > > explaining everything else away with superstitions. Any presumptions
> > > > > about the natural world that are unscientific are infringing on the
> > > > > process of learning about reality, from historic battles about the
> > > > > cosmos to the current ID versus evolution "debate"--especially when
> > > > > they are unfalsifiable or refuse to reconcile to evidence. The idea
>
> > There's no debate as such regarding silly "Evolution Theory". Atheists
>
> > > > > This came up in another thread and it's amazing how many theists stick
> > > > > to the dumbassed "argument" that there's no conflict between religion
> > > > > and science. It is pretty obvious to me that as long as theists
> > > > > acknowledge that they rely on science, there is absolutely no
> > > > > infringement on it by religion that--in their ruined little minds--
> > > > > would ever constitute a "conflict" no matter how severe.
>
> > > > > Science is a methodology, first and foremost, and the only reasonable
> > > > > methodology for knowing anything about the natural world. On a method
> > > > > level, religion assails this in many ways. Science is based around
> > > > > some things being substantiated, and other things being falsified. It
> > > > > is _not_ based are substantiating things you already know and
> > > > > explaining everything else away with superstitions. Any presumptions
> > > > > about the natural world that are unscientific are infringing on the
> > > > > process of learning about reality, from historic battles about the
> > > > > cosmos to the current ID versus evolution "debate"--especially when
> > > > > they are unfalsifiable or refuse to reconcile to evidence. The idea
>
> > do NOT have ANY valid point on that.
> > On one hand they deny the
> > existence of God on the basis that there is no scientifically
> > verifiable reason, but on the other hand you are blindly accepting
> > the
> > "Evolution Theory" which claims that Homo Sapien has evolved from
> > someone or something called Neantherthal. Do you want theists to
> > accept that nonsense as a great scientific theory or what ? Atheists
> > can
> > of course call it a scientific superstition !!!
Samir
<gaury@myway.com>May 16, 2008, 8:16:12 AM5/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 15, 12:57 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > There's no debate as such regarding silly "Evolution Theory". Atheists
> > do NOT have ANY valid point on that.
>
> have every reason to believe that Evolutionary Theory is true.
>
> > On one hand they deny the
> > existence of God on the basis that there is no scientifically
> > verifiable reason, but on the other hand you are blindly accepting
> > the
> > "Evolution Theory"
>
> Yes, because everything we know about it says it's right and nothing
> > On one hand they deny the
> > existence of God on the basis that there is no scientifically
> > verifiable reason, but on the other hand you are blindly accepting
> > the
> > "Evolution Theory"
>
> anyone has ever found contradicts the ideas.
>
> > ...which claims that Homo Sapien has evolved from
> > someone or something called Neantherthal.
>
> You are mistaken. Evolutionary Theory makes no such claim. Look it
>
> up if you don't believe me. Or if you don't look it up and continue
> to think that is the case then you are quite simply willfully
> ignorant. And if you don't look it up and verify this one way or
> another, and then repeat the claim again while claiming that you also
> know this to be the case, then you are a liar.
>
> > Do you want theists to
> > accept that nonsense as a great scientific theory or what?
>
> It's not necessarily nonsense, and in fact modern man may have very
> > Do you want theists to
> > accept that nonsense as a great scientific theory or what?
>
> well have descended from Neanderthal but right now, no one is certain
> about it and no one is claiming certainty about it. And thats why no
> one is asking theists to accept it as true. Besides none of this has
> anything to do with theists or atheists anyway.
>
> So is this your new favorite strawman or what? Do you just intend to
Why shouldn't it be my favourite ? It's a fact that idiot atheists do
NOT have any scientifically verifiable data to justify their silly,
silly & silly theory i.e., "Evolution Theory". So many self-declared
itellectuals are blindly believing in this nonsense theory.
Intellectuals' club is full of idiot atheists who do not have common
sense, forget about having intelligence. Thank God I am NOT an
intellectual.
> go around acting like you disproved Evolutionary Theory (something you
> are completely ignorant about) because some people have proposed that
> we might have as ancestors a few (definitely related) hominids that
> happened to be a tad more stout and bigger brained than your average
> human today?
Hahhhh. Even fairy tales are somewhat more logical than this
"Evolution Theory".
>
> -
> On May 14, 8:53 pm, Samir <ga...@myway.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 2:34 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:> Strawman. Want to actually address my points?
>
> > Your points ? Verbose nothingness cannot be a point. Countering
> > reverse-swing is NOT as difficult as you think. Theists do NOT need
> > the help of pseudo-scientists. Sole aim of your article is to push
> > theists towards scientific-superstition (!!!???). You want theists to
> > accept a number of silly theories as scientific theories.
> > It is nice to see that you want to be scientific; but "under the veil
> > of a theist", you are only trying to hush up the fact that atheists
> > don't have as high a scientific temper as they claim.
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 2:34 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:> Strawman. Want to actually address my points?
>
> > Your points ? Verbose nothingness cannot be a point. Countering
> > reverse-swing is NOT as difficult as you think. Theists do NOT need
> > the help of pseudo-scientists. Sole aim of your article is to push
> > theists towards scientific-superstition (!!!???). You want theists to
> > accept a number of silly theories as scientific theories.
> > It is nice to see that you want to be scientific; but "under the veil
> > of a theist", you are only trying to hush up the fact that atheists
> > don't have as high a scientific temper as they claim.
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
zencycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>May 16, 2008, 8:16:26 AM5/16/08
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
From: <ranjit_...@yahoo.com>
>
> On May 15, 11:14 am, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> (as a point of reference I remember a religious poster in the boston
>> subway
>
>
> On May 15, 11:14 am, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> (as a point of reference I remember a religious poster in the boston
>> subway
>
> It was a sales pitch, presumably. But was it an effective one? Did any
> more passengers get off at Copley square and go to Old South church or
> Trinity church as a consequence of seeing it?
> more passengers get off at Copley square and go to Old South church or
> Trinity church as a consequence of seeing it?
How the hell would I know? I'm sure some ignorant sap though it was worth a
try. I just shook my head and ignored it.
Samir
<gaury@myway.com>May 16, 2008, 8:27:04 AM5/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 15, 8:27 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On May 14, 10:53 pm, Samir <ga...@myway.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 15, 2:34 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:> Strawman. Want to actually address my points?
>
> > Your points ? Verbose nothingness cannot be a point. Countering
> > reverse-swing is NOT as difficult as you think. Theists do NOT need
> > the help of pseudo-scientists. Sole aim of your article is to push
> > theists towards scientific-superstition (!!!???). You want theists to
> > accept a number of silly theories as scientific theories.
> > It is nice to see that you want to be scientific; but "under the veil
> > of a theist", you are only trying to hush up the fact that atheists
> > don't have as high a scientific temper as they claim.
>
> Most atheists aren't scientists, but most scientists are atheists. The
>
> > On May 15, 2:34 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:> Strawman. Want to actually address my points?
>
> > Your points ? Verbose nothingness cannot be a point. Countering
> > reverse-swing is NOT as difficult as you think. Theists do NOT need
> > the help of pseudo-scientists. Sole aim of your article is to push
> > theists towards scientific-superstition (!!!???). You want theists to
> > accept a number of silly theories as scientific theories.
> > It is nice to see that you want to be scientific; but "under the veil
> > of a theist", you are only trying to hush up the fact that atheists
> > don't have as high a scientific temper as they claim.
>
> successful ones who do believe in God leave their beliefs at the door,
> otherwise they know they won't get anything done. It is pretty funny
> that you think you're the judge of the scientific adequacy of
> atheists, considering how ignorant you obviously are on the topic.
> There are a number of professional scientists on this group, with peer-
> reviewed work in their respective fields, who agree with me.
You have to be careful when idiots agree with you. You call these
idiots as professional scientists ? Intellectuals' club has started
calling these idiots as professional scientists, eh? Instead of
beating about the bush why don't these great great professional
scientists give some evidence to justify their silly "Evolution
Theory." The fact is : these stupid atheist intellectuals have
misappropriated heavy funds through this non-scientific non-sense
called "Evolution Theory". In reality fairy tales are much more
logical than this silly "Evolution Theory". And remember, universal
laws of science are sufficient to conclude that these stupid atheist
intellectuals do NOT have sufficient scientific temper. I need not
waste my time on judging that.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On May 14, 12:43 am, Samir <ga...@myway.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Mere opposition to Religiosity" is no proof of scientific temper.
>
> > > > On May 14, 9:40 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > This came up in another thread and it's amazing how many theists stick
> > > > > to the dumbassed "argument" that there's no conflict between religion
> > > > > and science. It is pretty obvious to me that as long as theists
> > > > > acknowledge that they rely on science, there is absolutely no
> > > > > infringement on it by religion that--in their ruined little minds--
> > > > > would ever constitute a "conflict" no matter how severe.
>
> > > > > Science is a methodology, first and foremost, and the only reasonable
> > > > > methodology for knowing anything about the natural world. On a method
> > > > > level, religion assails this in many ways. Science is based around
> > > > > some things being substantiated, and other things being falsified. It
> > > > > is _not_ based are substantiating things you already know and
> > > > > explaining everything else away with superstitions. Any presumptions
> > > > > about the natural world that are unscientific are infringing on the
> > > > > process of learning about reality, from historic battles about the
> > > > > cosmos to the current ID versus evolution "debate"--especially when
> > > > > they are unfalsifiable or refuse to reconcile to evidence. The idea
>
> > There's no debate as such regarding silly "Evolution Theory". Atheists
> > do NOT have ANY valid point on that.
>
> Just because you're too stupid to know anything about it doesn't mean
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On May 14, 12:43 am, Samir <ga...@myway.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Mere opposition to Religiosity" is no proof of scientific temper.
>
> > > > On May 14, 9:40 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > This came up in another thread and it's amazing how many theists stick
> > > > > to the dumbassed "argument" that there's no conflict between religion
> > > > > and science. It is pretty obvious to me that as long as theists
> > > > > acknowledge that they rely on science, there is absolutely no
> > > > > infringement on it by religion that--in their ruined little minds--
> > > > > would ever constitute a "conflict" no matter how severe.
>
> > > > > Science is a methodology, first and foremost, and the only reasonable
> > > > > methodology for knowing anything about the natural world. On a method
> > > > > level, religion assails this in many ways. Science is based around
> > > > > some things being substantiated, and other things being falsified. It
> > > > > is _not_ based are substantiating things you already know and
> > > > > explaining everything else away with superstitions. Any presumptions
> > > > > about the natural world that are unscientific are infringing on the
> > > > > process of learning about reality, from historic battles about the
> > > > > cosmos to the current ID versus evolution "debate"--especially when
> > > > > they are unfalsifiable or refuse to reconcile to evidence. The idea
>
> > There's no debate as such regarding silly "Evolution Theory". Atheists
> > do NOT have ANY valid point on that.
>
> there isn't well over a century of scientific substantiation for
> evolution. Your ruined mind doesn't prove anything other than that
> your mother did a lot of drugs when she was pregnant and probably
> regrets changing her mind about the abortion 85% of the way into it.
>
> > On one hand they deny the
> > existence of God on the basis that there is no scientifically
> > verifiable reason, but on the other hand you are blindly accepting
> > the
> > "Evolution Theory" which claims that Homo Sapien has evolved from
> > someone or something called Neantherthal.
>
> Nope. Completely substantiated by evidence. Read a book about it
> > On one hand they deny the
> > existence of God on the basis that there is no scientifically
> > verifiable reason, but on the other hand you are blindly accepting
> > the
> > "Evolution Theory" which claims that Homo Sapien has evolved from
> > someone or something called Neantherthal.
>
> before you form your subhuman opinions.
>
> > Do you want theists to
> > accept that nonsense as a great scientific theory or what ? Atheists
> > can
> > of course call it a scientific superstition !!!
>
> Evolution-science
> > Do you want theists to
> > accept that nonsense as a great scientific theory or what ? Atheists
> > can
> > of course call it a scientific superstition !!!
>
> God-superstition
>
> This is where _ALL_ the evidence points.
> > > > > are in direct opposition and there is no "line in the sand" by which
> > > > > they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
> > > > > question is which we would be wiser to compromise.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > they can coexist peacefully. They're on each others turf, and the
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Samir
<gaury@myway.com>May 16, 2008, 8:31:31 AM5/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 15, 9:04 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> *snip*
>
> >...you are only trying to hush up the fact that atheists
> > don't have as high a scientific temper as they claim.
>
> "Scientific temperment?" You keep using that term, I'd like to know
>
> what YOU mean by it.
"Scientific temper" is something which atheists don't have. When
idiots believe in silly things like "Evolution Theory", we say that
they do not have "scientific temper". Now you must have understood
what I mean by it.
Samir
<gaury@myway.com>May 16, 2008, 8:35:11 AM5/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
You must be the member of the club of egotist stupids. Those idiots
love calling themselves "intellectuals". (I have mentioned that point
on my webspace at http://samirsp.blogspot.com)
On May 15, 10:09 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Did you have trouble graduating the fourth grade?
>
> Because that's about the level of understanding you've displayed
> here.
love calling themselves "intellectuals". (I have mentioned that point
on my webspace at http://samirsp.blogspot.com)
On May 15, 10:09 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 11:53 pm, Samir <ga...@myway.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 2:34 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:> Strawman. Want to actually address my points?
>
> > Your points ? Verbose nothingness cannot be a point. Countering
> > reverse-swing is NOT as difficult as you think. Theists do NOT need
> > the help of pseudo-scientists. Sole aim of your article is to push
> > theists towards scientific-superstition (!!!???). You want theists to
> > accept a number of silly theories as scientific theories.
> > It is nice to see that you want to be scientific; but "under the veil
> > of a theist", you are only trying to hush up the fact that atheists
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 2:34 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:> Strawman. Want to actually address my points?
>
> > Your points ? Verbose nothingness cannot be a point. Countering
> > reverse-swing is NOT as difficult as you think. Theists do NOT need
> > the help of pseudo-scientists. Sole aim of your article is to push
> > theists towards scientific-superstition (!!!???). You want theists to
> > accept a number of silly theories as scientific theories.
> > It is nice to see that you want to be scientific; but "under the veil
> > don't have as high a scientific temper as they claim.
>
>
> > > On May 14, 12:43 am, Samir <ga...@myway.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Mere opposition to Religiosity" is no proof of scientific temper.
>
> > > > On May 14, 9:40 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > This came up in another thread and it's amazing how many theists stick
> > > > > to the dumbassed "argument" that there's no conflict between religion
> > > > > and science. It is pretty obvious to me that as long as theists
> > > > > acknowledge that they rely on science, there is absolutely no
> > > > > infringement on it by religion that--in their ruined little minds--
> > > > > would ever constitute a "conflict" no matter how severe.
>
> > > > > Science is a methodology, first and foremost, and the only reasonable
> > > > > methodology for knowing anything about the natural world. On a method
> > > > > level, religion assails this in many ways. Science is based around
> > > > > some things being substantiated, and other things being falsified. It
> > > > > is _not_ based are substantiating things you already know and
> > > > > explaining everything else away with superstitions. Any presumptions
> > > > > about the natural world that are unscientific are infringing on the
> > > > > process of learning about reality, from historic battles about the
> > > > > cosmos to the current ID versus evolution "debate"--especially when
> > > > > they are unfalsifiable or refuse to reconcile to evidence. The idea
>
> > There's no debate as such regarding silly "Evolution Theory". Atheists
> > do NOT have ANY valid point on that.
>
> > > > "Mere opposition to Religiosity" is no proof of scientific temper.
>
> > > > On May 14, 9:40 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > This came up in another thread and it's amazing how many theists stick
> > > > > to the dumbassed "argument" that there's no conflict between religion
> > > > > and science. It is pretty obvious to me that as long as theists
> > > > > acknowledge that they rely on science, there is absolutely no
> > > > > infringement on it by religion that--in their ruined little minds--
> > > > > would ever constitute a "conflict" no matter how severe.
>
> > > > > Science is a methodology, first and foremost, and the only reasonable
> > > > > methodology for knowing anything about the natural world. On a method
> > > > > level, religion assails this in many ways. Science is based around
> > > > > some things being substantiated, and other things being falsified. It
> > > > > is _not_ based are substantiating things you already know and
> > > > > explaining everything else away with superstitions. Any presumptions
> > > > > about the natural world that are unscientific are infringing on the
> > > > > process of learning about reality, from historic battles about the
> > > > > cosmos to the current ID versus evolution "debate"--especially when
> > > > > they are unfalsifiable or refuse to reconcile to evidence. The idea
>
> > There's no debate as such regarding silly "Evolution Theory". Atheists
> > do NOT have ANY valid point on that.
> > On one hand they deny the
> > existence of God on the basis that there is no scientifically
> > verifiable reason, but on the other hand you are blindly accepting
> > the
> > "Evolution Theory" which claims that Homo Sapien has evolved from
> > someone or something called Neantherthal. Do you want theists to
> > existence of God on the basis that there is no scientifically
> > verifiable reason, but on the other hand you are blindly accepting
> > the
> > "Evolution Theory" which claims that Homo Sapien has evolved from
> > accept that nonsense as a great scientific theory or what ? Atheists
> > can
> > of course call it a scientific superstition !!!
>
> Wow. Just. Wow.
> > can
> > of course call it a scientific superstition !!!
>
>
> Did you have trouble graduating the fourth grade?
>
> Because that's about the level of understanding you've displayed
> here.
Drafterman
<drafterman@gmail.com>May 16, 2008, 8:51:14 AM5/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Nope. Not at all. Maybe because it's a made up word?
zencycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>May 16, 2008, 9:00:12 AM5/16/08
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
brock = tool
--------------------------------------------------
From: <ranjit_...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 12:24 AM
To: "Atheism vs Christianity" <Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [AvC] Re: Is There A Conflict Between Religion And Science?
>
Bob T.
<bob@synapse-cs.com>May 16, 2008, 9:57:54 AM5/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
the bend. Your elevator does not go all the way to the top. The
things you say - they make no sense. Typical of your kind, you are
arrogantly convinced that you are right and millions of scientists are
wrong.
I could explain how you are completely wrong about evolution, but
there is no point because you are much too arrogant to listen. Your
worldview bears no resemblance to reality, and you like it that way.
You are smugly self-satisfied with your delusions, and no amount of
rational discourse witll change that.
- Bob T.
zencycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>May 16, 2008, 10:03:22 AM5/16/08
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
From: "Samir" <ga...@myway.com>
>
> Thank God I am NOT an
> intellectual.
>
> Thank God I am NOT an
> intellectual.
We already knew that about you, no need to keep restating the obvious
Drafterman
<drafterman@gmail.com>May 16, 2008, 10:24:21 AM5/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Do you have a specific problem with the theory of evolution?
On May 16, 8:35 am, Samir <ga...@myway.com> wrote:
> You must be the member of the club of egotist stupids. Those idiots
> love calling themselves "intellectuals". (I have mentioned that point
> on my webspace athttp://samirsp.blogspot.com)
On May 16, 8:35 am, Samir <ga...@myway.com> wrote:
> You must be the member of the club of egotist stupids. Those idiots
> love calling themselves "intellectuals". (I have mentioned that point
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>May 16, 2008, 10:27:44 AM5/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
cathyb
<cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au>May 16, 2008, 12:00:26 PM5/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
My best guess, based on all the other posters who have a specific
problem with evolution here, is that his specific problem is not
understanding it and reading too many creationist websites lying about
it. I'm willing to bet that he'll bring up "fronkeys", human descent
from monkeys or micro- vs macro-evolution at some point.
problem with evolution here, is that his specific problem is not
understanding it and reading too many creationist websites lying about
it. I'm willing to bet that he'll bring up "fronkeys", human descent
from monkeys or micro- vs macro-evolution at some point.
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>May 16, 2008, 12:10:02 PM5/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 16, 5:16 am, Samir <ga...@myway.com> wrote:
> Why shouldn't it be my favourite ? It's a fact that idiot atheists do
> NOT have any scientifically verifiable data to justify their
It is not only atheists that have an evolutionary theory. It is a
> Why shouldn't it be my favourite ? It's a fact that idiot atheists do
> NOT have any scientifically verifiable data to justify their
theory of both theists and atheists.
> silly, silly & silly theory i.e., "Evolution Theory".
world's only marine iguana? Did it exist before the Galapagos islands
were formed? If not, how did it come to exist after the Galapagos
islands were formed?
Drafterman
<drafterman@gmail.com>May 16, 2008, 12:15:20 PM5/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Oh, I think you give him too much credit. I was expecting no more than
vague accusations that it doesn't merit scientific status and is a
religion unto itself.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
vague accusations that it doesn't merit scientific status and is a
religion unto itself.
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
DreadGeekGrrl
<dreadgeek@gmail.com>May 16, 2008, 12:38:36 PM5/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Samir:
I'd also like to ask what your specific problems with evolution are.
Do you dispute ANY of the following:
1. Evolution: Organisms change through time. Both the fossil
record of life's hisotry and nature today document and reveal this
change.
2. Descent with modification: Evolution proceeds through the
branching of common descent. As every parent and child knows,
offspring are similar to but not exact replicas of their parents,
producing the necessary variation that allows adaptation to the ever-
changing environment.
3. Gradualism: All this change is slow, steady and stately. Given
enough time, small changes within a species can accumulate into large
changes that create new species; that is macroevolution is the
cumulative effect of microevolution.
4. Multiplication: Evolution does not produce new species; it
produces an increasing number of new species.
5. Natural selection: Evolutionary change is not haphazard and
random; it follows a selective process. Codiscovered by Darwin and
the naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, natural selection operates under
five rules:
1. Populations tend to increase indefinately in a geometric
ration: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 512, 1024...
2. In a natural environment, however, population numbers must
stabilize at a certain level. The population cannot increase to
infinity--the earth is just not big enough.
3. Therefore, there must be a "struggle for existence". Not
all of the organisms produced can survive.
4. There is variation in every species.
5. Therefore, in the struggle for existence, those
individuals with variations that are better adapted to the environment
leave behind more offspring than individuals that are less well
adapted. This is known as differential reproductive success.
Do you dispute that genotype codes for phenotype? Do you dispute that
phenotype can have substantial impact on the reproductive success of
organisms?
It's easy to say "I don't believe we came from monkeys" the problem
comes when you are confronted with actual evolutionary theory. So,
please, using as much detail as you need, describe precisely WHY you
think that any or all of the preceding is false. Thanks in advance.
Cheers
DGG
> ...
>
> read more »
I'd also like to ask what your specific problems with evolution are.
Do you dispute ANY of the following:
1. Evolution: Organisms change through time. Both the fossil
record of life's hisotry and nature today document and reveal this
change.
2. Descent with modification: Evolution proceeds through the
branching of common descent. As every parent and child knows,
offspring are similar to but not exact replicas of their parents,
producing the necessary variation that allows adaptation to the ever-
changing environment.
3. Gradualism: All this change is slow, steady and stately. Given
enough time, small changes within a species can accumulate into large
changes that create new species; that is macroevolution is the
cumulative effect of microevolution.
4. Multiplication: Evolution does not produce new species; it
produces an increasing number of new species.
5. Natural selection: Evolutionary change is not haphazard and
random; it follows a selective process. Codiscovered by Darwin and
the naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, natural selection operates under
five rules:
1. Populations tend to increase indefinately in a geometric
ration: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 512, 1024...
2. In a natural environment, however, population numbers must
stabilize at a certain level. The population cannot increase to
infinity--the earth is just not big enough.
3. Therefore, there must be a "struggle for existence". Not
all of the organisms produced can survive.
4. There is variation in every species.
5. Therefore, in the struggle for existence, those
individuals with variations that are better adapted to the environment
leave behind more offspring than individuals that are less well
adapted. This is known as differential reproductive success.
Do you dispute that genotype codes for phenotype? Do you dispute that
phenotype can have substantial impact on the reproductive success of
organisms?
It's easy to say "I don't believe we came from monkeys" the problem
comes when you are confronted with actual evolutionary theory. So,
please, using as much detail as you need, describe precisely WHY you
think that any or all of the preceding is false. Thanks in advance.
Cheers
DGG
>
> read more »
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages