50 replies to this topic

[Ben]

In Israel religious people are against cosmetic surgeries because it is interfering with nature.
But the same people are FOR cosmetic surgeries for a female because it pleases the male and is considered.. I forgot the word, but a good thing.
I find it funny :D

Not all religious people are bad or even like that!
Some religious people are all for cosmetics and science.
The non interfering and leaving things as they are and accepting is the problem.
But then there is a problem of people want something which is harming.
So both wanting a change and not wanting to change types of thinking are problematic!

I don't want to be a psychiatrist:D

Not true.

Jewish thought is against cosmetic surgeries for men because it is believed that for most men it would be an exercise purely in aestheticism, which is frowned down upon as a gateway to materialism and loss of humility.

For women it is accepted only in certain situations because they say that for most women beauty has a deep emotional link and that that is simply part of their nature, so that to not allow a women to have... Say a nose job, would be causing her unnecessary harm.

It is with her feelings in mind that it is allowed, not for the sexual gratification of men. Besides, Judaism's focus when it comes to sex is more on the sexual gratification of women.

How do I know this? I went to one of the most religious schools in my city, and I studied the religion every day that I did.

Believe me, the deeper you look into Judaism, and the more you actually educate yourself on it (rather than simply assuming you know it), the more I believe you will like it (assuming I am correct: That you are a sensitive and intelligent person).

[imarobot]

I've debated many Christians on their beliefs. What I've found repeatedly is that the religious are amazingly ignorant about their own religion. Not many have read the Bible from cover to cover. Not many can give answers to the basic logical inconsistencies present in their beliefs. How do you argue with someone who doesn't know much about their religion, doesn't care that they don't know much, and doesn't care to question what they do know?

So if they are willfully ignorant about their religious book, are they even capable of being critical about something as meta as how they think about their beliefs?

Eventually, we'll understand genetics well enough that we can engineer smarter humans.* This is the only way I see religious thought weakening to the point that it stops insinuating itself everywhere.

* You may now start screaming about eugenics.

[mentatpsi]

In Israel religious people are against cosmetic surgeries because it is interfering with nature.
But the same people are FOR cosmetic surgeries for a female because it pleases the male and is considered.. I forgot the word, but a good thing.
I find it funny :D

Not all religious people are bad or even like that!
Some religious people are all for cosmetics and science.
The non interfering and leaving things as they are and accepting is the problem.
But then there is a problem of people want something which is harming.
So both wanting a change and not wanting to change types of thinking are problematic!

I don't want to be a psychiatrist:D

Not true.

Jewish thought is against cosmetic surgeries for men because it is believed that for most men it would be an exercise purely in aestheticism, which is frowned down upon as a gateway to materialism and loss of humility.

For women it is accepted only in certain situations because they say that for most women beauty has a deep emotional link and that that is simply part of their nature, so that to not allow a women to have... Say a nose job, would be causing her unnecessary harm.

It is with her feelings in mind that it is allowed, not for the sexual gratification of men. Besides, Judaism's focus when it comes to sex is more on the sexual gratification of women.

How do I know this? I went to one of the most religious schools in my city, and I studied the religion every day that I did.

Believe me, the deeper you look into Judaism, and the more you actually educate yourself on it (rather than simply assuming you know it), the more I believe you will like it (assuming I am correct: That you are a sensitive and intelligent person).

Ya that's the one nice thing about Judaism, out of the Abrahamic faiths it makes the most amount of sense. Not to say it is perfect, but it's more akin to logic rather than faith. Though i must say aestheticism is an important aspect of humanity; there's a reason we're able to perceive beauty, and to down play our ability to perceive and appreciate beauty due to that fear seems more to the purpose of removing attachments to the world... than truly living in it.

[Taelr]

ben,

I disagree with that definition. Faith isn't a belief. It's an orientation. It's a far more subtle, expressive concept than you give it credit for. .

Religionists would like to think so since they have little choice but to stress it as if it were somehow magical.

Objectively faith simply means a conviction that something is true without any evidence. It is no more complicated than that. Religionists wrap that in all types of linguistic trickery and proaganda but underneath faith is simply irrational thinking.

Reigious thinking is simply an attitude that there is something looking after us and that death is not to be feared. It is an acceptance that we will all be immortal in an afterlife and that we need not worry about death. This is an extremly dangerous and defeatish attitude that we must erradicate and help re-educate those who promote it. This absurd fantasy that we have immortal souls that will escape death fundamantally discourages any widespread committed endeavor to solving the very real probem of involuntary death. The USA has suposedly some 80% of the population who believe this idiocy, think of the massive intellectual talent we could bring to bear on the probem of death if we could re-educate most of that mass.

It would be ideal if there was a powerfu group who could indeed destroy the nonsense generated by religious thought and bring those folks over to help solve the real problem in this life - death. All the time the majority think there is an afterlife it means the real solutions are left to just a few and that likely means it will take much longer than it should.

[Ben Simon]

ben,

I disagree with that definition. Faith isn't a belief. It's an orientation. It's a far more subtle, expressive concept than you give it credit for. .

Religionists would like to think so since they have little choice but to stress it as if it were somehow magical.

Objectively faith simply means a conviction that something is true without any evidence.

Again I disagree. Look, it's important to acknowledge that a great many religious people believe things that they are not entitled to on the basis of evidence. But an honest, credible critique of religion also acknowledges the great multitude of religious people who don't. If there were truly no distinction between belief and faith then both religious life and the English language would be far duller, and your criticisms would be far more broadly applicable than they are. As it stands however, I find it difficult to take them seriously. Trying to lump all religious minds into one category of delusion is an ideological endeavour suggestive of ignorance and bigotry. Case in point:

Religionists wrap that in all types of linguistic trickery and proaganda but underneath faith is simply irrational thinking.

This kind of pejorative language undermines your position and reflects badly on your character. What are you really hoping to convey here other than your own intolerance and hostility?

Reigious thinking is simply an attitude that there is something looking after us and that death is not to be feared. It is an acceptance that we will all be immortal in an afterlife and that we need not worry about death.

No it isn't. The bulk of religion is not remotely concerned with the 'afterlife'. You're confusing your Dante with your St Paul. I encourage you to become informed about the diversity of religious perspectives available. Until then it's all little league.

It would be ideal if there was a powerfu group who could indeed destroy the nonsense generated by religious thought and bring those folks over to help solve the real problem in this life - death. All the time the majority think there is an afterlife it means the real solutions are left to just a few and that likely means it will take much longer than it should.

Yes... be sure to draw those battle lines wide and deep. Pro ageing attitudes are a 'religious problem'? Please. We should be mobilising religion to our cause, not turning this into what some fundamentalists will already want it to be - a secular/religious conflict. Take your petty squabbling somewhere where it won't affect me and my family's chances of survival.

[Taelr]

Ben,

Again I disagree. Look, it's important to acknowledge that a great many religious people believe things that they are not entitled to on the basis of evidence. But an honest, credible critique of religion also acknowledges the great multitude of religious people who don't.

I suspect several decades ago I might have agreed with that perspective, but the deeper I have examined religions the more I have come to realize is that they do not have anything. I have met the “faith is something else” argument far too many items and have been diverted by the tactic too often. When faced head on and the arguments faced squarely – religious faith is very simply baseless belief.

If there were truly no distinction between belief and faith then both religious life and the English language would be far duller, and your criticisms would be far more broadly applicable than they are.

And here would normally require an extensive review of how the word “faith” is used and widely misused. The review would indeed illustrate your point of how the English language can cause significant confusion, and hence often heated debate. Faith does have the meaning I have asserted unfortunately it is also used extensively in the context where inductive reasoning would be normally applied. E.g. I have faith in my Doctor, I have faith in my wife, etc. All these latter examples are based on some degree of statistical evidence that we take for granted, the case for religions does not, i.e. there is no precedent to warrant an inductive conclusion for religious claims. Many typical religious arguments surrounding the meaning of faith are based on the audience not comprehending the significant difference between the two very different paradigms. Certainly the English language and its irritating trait of having the same word with dual, and often opposing, meanings is a particular annoyance here.

As it stands however, I find it difficult to take them seriously. Trying to lump all religious minds into one category of delusion is an ideological endeavour suggestive of ignorance and bigotry.

On the other hand the alternative might well be that extensive studies show this to be the truth. With extensive debate time with religionists I have yet to find a single point made that shows that religious faith isn’t exactly what I have said.

QUOTE (Taelr @ 6-Jun 2009, 07:26 PM)

Religionists wrap that in all types of linguistic trickery and propaganda but underneath faith is simply irrational thinking.



This kind of pejorative language undermines your position and reflects badly on your character. What are you really hoping to convey here other than your own intolerance and hostility?

Yes I would agree that my approach here without a resort to my background appears unwarranted. Too heavy, too soon, I’ll ease off a bit.

No it isn't. The bulk of religion is not remotely concerned with the 'afterlife'. You're confusing your Dante with your St Paul. I encourage you to become informed about the diversity of religious perspectives available. Until then it's all little league.

Really? I urge you to think this through a little more carefully. Apart from some very obscure, minor and bizarre religions, all religions have one fundamental common element, whether they are theistic or otherwise, and that is the promise that the adherents will cheat death. Without that promise and hope that it is true, religions would not exist. What you are perceiving and regurgitating is the outward veneer of religious teachings. The promise of immortality doesn’t come free; one must earn it, and from that concept comes the multitude of various good books, ceremonies, and rules and regulations on how one must behave to be granted immortal life. The underlying basis of religious belief is obscured and hidden so carefully that the adherents are diverted into not realizing the real basis of their belief. Some 20 years ago I was leading a debate with an after-church Sunday Christian group and the issue was the scientific pursuit of anti-aging. One very devout Christian woman quite loudly pointed out that she did not want to live forever; I quoted her the bible – “believe in me and ye shall have everlasting life”. The entire point of Christianity is to achieve immortality, an afterlife. And you demonstrate the illusion so well – “The bulk of religion is not remotely concerned with the 'afterlife'.” Think again – it is the very underpinnings of religious power.

Yes... be sure to draw those battle lines wide and deep. Pro ageing attitudes are a 'religious problem'? Please. We should be mobilising religion to our cause, not turning this into what some fundamentalists will already want it to be - a secular/religious conflict. Take your petty squabbling somewhere where it won't affect me and my family's chances of survival.

You misunderstand me. Direct confrontation is not likely to work and may well only make matters worse. I stated re-education, not battle, and the need to bring them over in large numbers. You introduced the battle concept. But there will be battles. The recent nightmare of a fundamentalist Christian president limiting stem-cell research for 8 years is one example we cannot afford too often. The key to bringing the religious on-board is subtlety, knowledge, and education. Two major breakthroughs’ in the next few decades would help significantly. (1) The full understanding of the phenomena labeled consciousness and the resulting ensuing doubt concerning the need of a “soul”, and (2) the realization of a fully self-aware and emotionally capable AGI.



The “soul” issue is perhaps more subtle than at first glance. If the soul issue is fundamentally shaken then one must realize that a god would become largely pointless and powerless. Also, when we do achieve open-ended lifespans and where death eventually becomes virtually unknown, what power would religions then have with no one needing to go to an afterlife.



The conversion of the religious is likely inevitable, my frustration is that I would like it to be soon since I am 57. The more people on-board the better chance we have of both funding and breakthroughs.

[Singularity]

ben,

I disagree with that definition. Faith isn't a belief. It's an orientation. It's a far more subtle, expressive concept than you give it credit for. .

Religionists would like to think so since they have little choice but to stress it as if it were somehow magical.

Objectively faith simply means a conviction that something is true without any evidence. It is no more complicated than that. Religionists wrap that in all types of linguistic trickery and proaganda but underneath faith is simply irrational thinking.

Reigious thinking is simply an attitude that there is something looking after us and that death is not to be feared. It is an acceptance that we will all be immortal in an afterlife and that we need not worry about death. This is an extremly dangerous and defeatish attitude that we must erradicate and help re-educate those who promote it. This absurd fantasy that we have immortal souls that will escape death fundamantally discourages any widespread committed endeavor to solving the very real probem of involuntary death. The USA has suposedly some 80% of the population who believe this idiocy, think of the massive intellectual talent we could bring to bear on the probem of death if we could re-educate most of that mass.

It would be ideal if there was a powerfu group who could indeed destroy the nonsense generated by religious thought and bring those folks over to help solve the real problem in this life - death. All the time the majority think there is an afterlife it means the real solutions are left to just a few and that likely means it will take much longer than it should.

Finally, someone who makes sense. Not that there weren't others who made good points as well.

Ben, you are tying to make "faith" more than it is. You are doing this simply to try and create a mysterious aura around this thing called "faith" in order to lure others who are also captivated by the self-hypnotic lure of mystery. To some, mystery and awe are like drugs. This is why there is so much contention between science and religion. The religious fear that illumination through knowledge will destroy the sense of mystery of their religion. But, this is paranoid and small-mindedness. No one can destroy the mystery of the universe, no matter how much scientific knowledge is accumulated. The more we know, the more we realize what we don't know. If you shed your religion and learn to think outside of your little box, then you will discover much more mystery and awe without the need for faith. Religion is just a racket meant to control you.

This is just so ridiculous. There is no need for faith. What is, is. Some preacher tells you not to ask questions and to just believe. This is ludicrous, pathetic, weak, unnecessary, backwards, moronic, evil.

[mentatpsi]

Horrible marketing strategy. Making life extension seem like it requires people to change who they fundamentally are in order to be ok with it. I'm not saying religious thought is fine, i'm not saying taking something as truth simply through faith is proper, but one has to consider that it will be a deterrent for people to invest in these technologies if they believe the people who are making the progress are their enemies. Philosophical disputes aside, all can benefit from life extension technologies, yet if we label it as the agnostic/atheist gem... the materialist's heaven, then i do not know how you intend to get the support of many.

[Esoparagon]

...Blaming religion is an immature and reactionary way of looking at the problem.

Reread the post. I did not blame religion. I blamed RELIGIOUS THINKING. Religious thinking is the meme virus. Religion is how the virus organizes the infected hosts in order to support the spreading of the virus.

The human mind is vulnerable to this virus and there doesn't seem to be a cure in sight. Something must be done for the good of the whole or humanity will most likely perish.

I agree with you. If you get rid of religious thinking you get rid of the religions. But no one should be killed in the quest to rid the world of religion. It should be done through words, logic, science and other peaceful means. I think that most people on earth are actually quite stupid. We are a stupid species with a few percent of smart people who do the real thinking for us.

[bran319]

Faith is hope. Hope in things unseen, yet unproven, yet to be realized but promised in some form. What you want to do is eradicate hope from the human psyche. Instead of convincing those very people of something else, a better way, you would rather kill them. Face it, if people are so dumb as you claim then you and others like you should have no problem persuading them to your point of view. But yet, you and thousands before you have failed to do this. This is because you are the anomaly. You are the outsiders who lack this beautiful and most important of human intuitions. You are fighting the current and you're only solution is to eliminate the stream. You wish to drain it dry because you fail to understand why it moves the way it does.

Edited by bran319, 09 June 2009 - 11:38 PM.

[mentatpsi]

Faith is hope. Hope in things unseen, yet unproven, yet to be realized but promised in some form. What you want to do is eradicate hope from the human psyche. Instead of convincing those very people of something else, a better way, you would rather kill them. Face it, if people are so dumb as you claim then you and others like you should have no problem persuading them to your point of view. But yet, you and thousands before you have failed to do this. This is because you are the anomaly. You are the outsiders who lack this beautiful and most important of human intuitions. You are fighting the current and you're only solution is to eliminate the stream. You wish to drain it dry because you fail to understand why it moves the way it does.

excellent reply! just the right amount of sarcasm

[Taelr]

bran319,

Faith is hope.

Then call it hope, not faith. Hope is the desire for something and a recognition that it may not occur. Religious faith is the conviction that something incredible is true regardless.

You provide the very example of religious dishonesty that I alluded to above.

Hope in things unseen, yet unproven, yet to be realized but promised in some form.

Promised? Who by and on what basis, and by what right? Nonsense, hope is no such thing. You are just "hoping" it means that so you can avoid facing the real meaning of religious faith - irrationality.

No one here is trying to destroy hope, perhaps destroy false hopes, or irrational hopes, or hope that bears no resemblance to any form of credibility. But then that is the description of religious faith. Hope is not faith.

What you want to do is eradicate hope from the human psyche.

Another great example of the religionist linguistic trickery I referenced above. Change the topic to something else and then claim your opponent is attacking a legitimate activity.

Instead of convincing those very people of something else, a better way, you would rather kill them.

Killing people? Huh? I checked back through the topic posts, I can see no reference to violence. It is the religious meme that is the target not physical people. I hope you are not truly serious that you think anyone here is advocating violence, especially from non-believers in the face of recent years of religious inspired violence. But then isn't this more dishonesty on your part - demonize your opponent and make them look like they have proposed something they have not.

Face it, if people are so dumb as you claim then you and others like you should have no problem persuading them to your point of view. But yet, you and thousands before you have failed to do this. This is because you are the anomaly.

Riiiiight! You somehow think a few (thousands) can "easily" convince the vast majority (billions) that they might be wrong. You seem to be totally unaware of the power of such an intrusive meme that has been in existence for thousands of years. It is not that people are dumb it is that under the influence of such a powerful virus they are so very easily deluded. People are not inherrently rational, to think clearly needs practice, discipline and training. This is why most scientists tend not to be believers, they work and live that rational discipline every day. And the numbers on either side have no bearing on what is true or not. Truth is not determined by a majority vote.

You are the outsiders who lack this beautiful and most important of human intuitions. You are fighting the current and you're only solution is to eliminate the stream. You wish to drain it dry because you fail to understand why it moves the way it does.

That so many wish to believe something pleasant and inspiring provides no indication of whether the proposals are true or not. There is no rule that states that truth must be pleasant. But you manage to highlight here the very problem of this meme. The danger is its very intoxicating allure of a utopian paradise and where the ugliness of death is merely a magical gateway to that wonderful next life. The instincts you imply are no more than man's tendency to always take the easiest path. But in this case it is to his destruction.

The meme must be destroyed.

You are infected and you have my sympathies, but I wish you no physical harm whatsoever.

[moonlight]

Religious thinking? Can you define that for me? Because religious thinking seems to be innate to all of humanity.

I know "religious thinking" sounds like an oxymoron, but not all thinking is correct. Religious thinking is a form of irrational thinking. Simply put, all theists engage in religious thinking. The theists are the infected ones. Just focus on the theists, or stay away from them, whichever you prefer.

Aaaaand we're back where we started. ALL theists engage in 'a form of irrational thinking', which you are yet to define? Not especially persuasive. How do you define religious thinking?

Religious thinking is part of the current human brain, unfortunately. Only a small percentage of humans are born with the tendency to think independently. I believe this is genetic.

Are you saying religious people are incapable of independent thinking? ...I swear, my mind boggles at some of the things said on this board about religion. It's so dispiriting. That should be our real concern... why is religion so powerful that it can compel even the non religious to switch their brains off when discussing it?

why is there a perceived lack of democracy in a number of muslim states? how can the heritage of Islam in science and the arts be made meaningful in a modern world?

why Islam is viewed to promote dogmatic beliefs?

and why most people think that Islam precludes rational thinking?

[bran319]

bran319,

Faith is hope.

Then call it hope, not faith. Hope is the desire for something and a recognition that it may not occur. Religious faith is the conviction that something incredible is true regardless.

Fine, we'll call it hope then. You win the semantics award.

Hope in things unseen, yet unproven, yet to be realized but promised in some form.

Promised? Who by and on what basis, and by what right? Nonsense, hope is no such thing. You are just "hoping" it means that so you can avoid facing the real meaning of religious faith - irrationality.

Again, semantics. Because you do not recognise the authority by which a person places their faith does not preclude the basis they put their trust in. You are good at saying a lot of nothing.

No one here is trying to destroy hope, perhaps destroy false hopes, or irrational hopes, or hope that bears no resemblance to any form of credibility. But then that is the description of religious faith. Hope is not faith.

On what credible authority? On what basis? Yours? Please. You are now guilty of the very thing you accuse me.

What you want to do is eradicate hope from the human psyche.

Another great example of the religionist linguistic trickery I referenced above. Change the topic to something else and then claim your opponent is attacking a legitimate activity.

Your reading comprehension is poor. The first post in this thread recommends euthanasia as a possible means of eradicating faith. Again you type a lot but your substance is quite thin.

Instead of convincing those very people of something else, a better way, you would rather kill them.

Killing people? Huh? I checked back through the topic posts, I can see no reference to violence. It is the religious meme that is the target not physical people. I hope you are not truly serious that you think anyone here is advocating violence, especially from non-believers in the face of recent years of religious inspired violence. But then isn't this more dishonesty on your part - demonize your opponent and make them look like they have proposed something they have not.

Again, first post in this thread recommends euthanasia as a solution. Please, you are not paying attention at all.

Face it, if people are so dumb as you claim then you and others like you should have no problem persuading them to your point of view. But yet, you and thousands before you have failed to do this. This is because you are the anomaly.

Riiiiight! You somehow think a few (thousands) can "easily" convince the vast majority (billions) that they might be wrong. You seem to be totally unaware of the power of such an intrusive meme that has been in existence for thousands of years. It is not that people are dumb it is that under the influence of such a powerful virus they are so very easily deluded. People are not inherrently rational, to think clearly needs practice, discipline and training. This is why most scientists tend not to be believers, they work and live that rational discipline every day. And the numbers on either side have no bearing on what is true or not. Truth is not determined by a majority vote.

Oh, I'm quite aware of it's power actually. Which is why I am so confident that you and your ilk will never achieve what you wish.

You are the outsiders who lack this beautiful and most important of human intuitions. You are fighting the current and you're only solution is to eliminate the stream. You wish to drain it dry because you fail to understand why it moves the way it does.

That so many wish to believe something pleasant and inspiring provides no indication of whether the proposals are true or not. There is no rule that states that truth must be pleasant. But you manage to highlight here the very problem of this meme. The danger is its very intoxicating allure of a utopian paradise and where the ugliness of death is merely a magical gateway to that wonderful next life. The instincts you imply are no more than man's tendency to always take the easiest path. But in this case it is to his destruction.

The meme must be destroyed.

You are infected and you have my sympathies, but I wish you no physical harm whatsoever.

You have my sympathies as well.

Edited by bran319, 10 June 2009 - 08:24 PM.

[Taelr]

bran319,

Again, semantics. Because you do not recognise the authority by which a person places their faith does not preclude the basis they put their trust in. You are good at saying a lot of nothing.

You lost me there. I couldn't see anything.

On what credible authority? On what basis? Yours? Please. You are now guilty of the very thing you accuse me.

Nonsense, you've already told me, semantics and the meanings of words. But hope is something we generate for ourselves, and as for promises; depends on their credibility, doesn't it, to determine even if hope is justified.

Your reading comprehension is poor. The first post in this thread recommends euthanasia as a possible means of eradicating faith.

I have to admit you might have a point, although to be clear I am not entirely sure what that first post is implying. I certainly never for a moment considered violence of any form. I simply cannot imagine the scenario - the 2 billion non-beleivers rising up against the 4 billions believers - DOH!

Oh, I'm quite aware of it's power actually. Which is why I am so confident that you and your ilk will never achieve what you wish.

LOL, dream on. Science has been nibbling away at religious assertions for quite some time now - it has all been one way and I see nothing in sight that indicates anything else. We of my ilk need do nothing more than allow the enivitable decline of religious thinking to continue. It would be nice if it could be quicker, hence the topic. The meme thrives on ignorance, but science is knowledge and the antidote.

You have my sympathies as well.

Well thanks, but we both will cease to exist and lose if you get your way.

[bran319]

Taelr,

Faith and hope are mutually dependant. Arguing for one at the exlusion of another turns the dispute into one of semantics.

As far as Science nibbling away at religious assertions: Please name some. Name some universal religious themes that science has disproven. I'm not talking about what a specific denomination or subset of a broader religion makes claim to, but rather broad religious ideas. Your very statement betrays your knowledge of science in that nothing is fact only theory. You see faith and hope take place in science as well.

[Taelr]

bran319,

Faith and hope are mutually dependant. Arguing for one at the exlusion of another turns the dispute into one of semantics.

The issue is not what words are used but the intent and perspective of the proponent. The theist asserts with certainty a god exists, he would not say I hope a god exists. Alternatively an agnostic might say I hope a god exists but I am in no way certain one does. The essential comparison is one of the closed minded (there is no alternative to God) theist and the open minded agnostic. In this context the theist uses the term faith to portray his certainty, i.e. there is no doubt whereas "hope" implies doubt.

The usage of the words betrays the important difference between them and how they are not meaningfully dependent or interchangable.

Religious thinking exemplifies this certainty despite the absense of credible evidence. That is simply not a rational position. Without some evidential basis and when considering the incredible nature of the claims the theist can only offer fantasy. The only rational alternative is simply - we do not know if gods can, might, or do exist, that doesn't mean they can't but we have no way to know.

As far as Science nibbling away at religious assertions: Please name some. Name some universal religious themes that science has disproven. I'm not talking about what a specific denomination or subset of a broader religion makes claim to, but rather broad religious ideas.

That is not really appropriate material for this topic. Feel free to begin another thread and ask your question there if you wish.

Your very statement betrays your knowledge of science in that nothing is fact only theory. You see faith and hope take place in science as well.

Some scientists might display faith and hope in their work but there is no room in the scientific method for either. However, it is true that science never claims certainty, facts, or truth, these are more appropriate in philosophy or math. Whilst all the important work of science is considered theory this should not be confused with the layman colloquial perspective of theory, used to refer to any suggested explanation. A formal scientific theory is extremely exacting.

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. ~Stephen J. Gould

The other important aspect of science is that most of the established knowledge is inductive in nature, i.e. statistical, and can be classified as degrees between strong and weak. The greater the quantity and quality of evidence to support a specific position then the greater the likelyhood that many will consider the proposal as fact.

When we look at religion we see no equivalent exacting processes but merely assertions of fantasy with no quantity or quality of credible evidential support. And this has been the status quo since man first devised the superstitions of religious belief. I.e. the primary characteristics of religious thinking.

[bran319]

bran319,

Faith and hope are mutually dependant. Arguing for one at the exlusion of another turns the dispute into one of semantics.

The issue is not what words are used but the intent and perspective of the proponent. The theist asserts with certainty a god exists, he would not say I hope a god exists. Alternatively an agnostic might say I hope a god exists but I am in no way certain one does. The essential comparison is one of the closed minded (there is no alternative to God) theist and the open minded agnostic. In this context the theist uses the term faith to portray his certainty, i.e. there is no doubt whereas "hope" implies doubt.

So then it is the position from which one hopes or has faith in something that grants it legitimacy? That is a very...peculiar assertion. I suppose adding a caveat to everything would be desirable since I cannot in good faith be 100% certain that I am not having a dream right now and none of this is really happening. So now we're going to have one of those conversations?



Religious thinking exemplifies this certainty despite the absense of credible evidence. That is simply not a rational position. Without some evidential basis and when considering the incredible nature of the claims the theist can only offer fantasy. The only rational alternative is simply - we do not know if gods can, might, or do exist, that doesn't mean they can't but we have no way to know.

This is simply not true. I would refute your claims but according to you any assertion you make outside the immediate topic requires a new thread and I'm not going to start a new thread for every assertion you do not wish to defend.

As far as Science nibbling away at religious assertions: Please name some. Name some universal religious themes that science has disproven. I'm not talking about what a specific denomination or subset of a broader religion makes claim to, but rather broad religious ideas.

That is not really appropriate material for this topic. Feel free to begin another thread and ask your question there if you wish.

See above. Or, I'll just save you and I the time and let you know that there is not a single one.

Your very statement betrays your knowledge of science in that nothing is fact only theory. You see faith and hope take place in science as well.

Some scientists might display faith and hope in their work but there is no room in the scientific method for either. However, it is true that science never claims certainty, facts, or truth, these are more appropriate in philosophy or math. Whilst all the important work of science is considered theory this should not be confused with the layman colloquial perspective of theory, used to refer to any suggested explanation. A formal scientific theory is extremely exacting.

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. ~Stephen J. Gould

The other important aspect of science is that most of the established knowledge is inductive in nature, i.e. statistical, and can be classified as degrees between strong and weak. The greater the quantity and quality of evidence to support a specific position then the greater the likelyhood that many will consider the proposal as fact.

When we look at religion we see no equivalent exacting processes but merely assertions of fantasy with no quantity or quality of credible evidential support. And this has been the status quo since man first devised the superstitions of religious belief. I.e. the primary characteristics of religious thinking.
So you've witnessed the big bang? You've personally seen the transition from ape to man? You have seen scalar fields? You get the point.

Edited by bran319, 11 June 2009 - 01:05 AM.

[Taelr]

bran319,

The issue is not what words are used but the intent and perspective of the proponent. The theist asserts with certainty a god exists, he would not say I hope a god exists. Alternatively an agnostic might say I hope a god exists but I am in no way certain one does. The essential comparison is one of the closed minded (there is no alternative to God) theist and the open minded agnostic. In this context the theist uses the term faith to portray his certainty, i.e. there is no doubt whereas "hope" implies doubt.

So then it is the position from which one hopes or has faith in something that grants it legitimacy?

I do not see how you were unable to understand what I said. Your perspective determines whether you follow a rational path or not. The legitimacy of the particular hope or faith is a seperate issue.

That is a very...peculiar assertion. I suppose adding a caveat to everything would be desirable since I cannot in good faith be 100% certain that I am not having a dream right now and none of this is really happening. So now we're going to have one of those conversations?

You've become very confused. We are not discussing issues of reality perception here, but attitudes of how to approach a belief system.

Religious thinking exemplifies this certainty despite the absense of credible evidence. That is simply not a rational position. Without some evidential basis and when considering the incredible nature of the claims the theist can only offer fantasy. The only rational alternative is simply - we do not know if gods can, might, or do exist, that doesn't mean they can't but we have no way to know.

This is simply not true. I would refute your claims but according to you any assertion you make outside the immediate topic requires a new thread and I'm not going to start a new thread for every assertion you do not wish to defend.

Yes, it is wise for you to fold here since this is the end point and crux of religious thinking (a key essence of the topic) - it would require you to provide at least a single scrap of evidence that could demonstrate that what you believe is something other than fantasy. You know you cannot do that since if any religionist did have any type of evidence they could shout "we know", but you can't and instead go to great lenghths to assert that faith is somehow just as good as credible evidence. It isn't and you must know this.

So you've witnessed the big bang? You've personally seen the transition from ape to man? You have seen scalar fields? You get the point.

You really did miss my point big time here. Look up inductive reasoning and the scientific method, and re-read what I said more carefully. You might then understand why science does not need to have observed these alleged phenomena directly to construct reliable theories.

[bran319]

bran319,

The issue is not what words are used but the intent and perspective of the proponent. The theist asserts with certainty a god exists, he would not say I hope a god exists. Alternatively an agnostic might say I hope a god exists but I am in no way certain one does. The essential comparison is one of the closed minded (there is no alternative to God) theist and the open minded agnostic. In this context the theist uses the term faith to portray his certainty, i.e. there is no doubt whereas "hope" implies doubt.

So then it is the position from which one hopes or has faith in something that grants it legitimacy?

I do not see how you were unable to understand what I said. Your perspective determines whether you follow a rational path or not. The legitimacy of the particular hope or faith is a seperate issue.

Yes. You've already said that. You can state it five more times if you'd like but it will not change the fact that it is your subjective opinion. And I already gave you the semantics award you should be happy!

That is a very...peculiar assertion. I suppose adding a caveat to everything would be desirable since I cannot in good faith be 100% certain that I am not having a dream right now and none of this is really happening. So now we're going to have one of those conversations?

You've become very confused. We are not discussing issues of reality perception here, but attitudes of how to approach a belief system.

No, we are discussing perception. You brought it up! Don't tell me you already forgot!

Religious thinking exemplifies this certainty despite the absense of credible evidence. That is simply not a rational position. Without some evidential basis and when considering the incredible nature of the claims the theist can only offer fantasy. The only rational alternative is simply - we do not know if gods can, might, or do exist, that doesn't mean they can't but we have no way to know.

This is simply not true. I would refute your claims but according to you any assertion you make outside the immediate topic requires a new thread and I'm not going to start a new thread for every assertion you do not wish to defend.

Yes, it is wise for you to fold here since this is the end point and crux of religious thinking (a key essence of the topic) - it would require you to provide at least a single scrap of evidence that could demonstrate that what you believe is something other than fantasy. You know you cannot do that since if any religionist did have any type of evidence they could shout "we know", but you can't and instead go to great lenghths to assert that faith is somehow just as good as credible evidence. It isn't and you must know this.

Please point out where I asserted that faith is a substitute for credible evidence.

So you've witnessed the big bang? You've personally seen the transition from ape to man? You have seen scalar fields? You get the point.

You really did miss my point big time here. Look up inductive reasoning and the scientific method, and re-read what I said more carefully. You might then understand why science does not need to have observed these alleged phenomena directly to construct reliable theories.
And yet faith still plays a role. Thanks for proving my point

Edited by bran319, 11 June 2009 - 05:44 AM.

[Taelr]

bran319,

Please point out where I asserted that faith is a substitute for credible evidence.

A religious faith has no credible evidence, it is the default status for religious belief.

And yet faith still plays a role. Thanks for proving my point

Once again religious faith means zero evidence, logical inductive reasoning extensively used in science means vast quantities of evidence. The two paradigms are not in the least similar.

In science evidence is everything, in religions there is none.

The difference between science and religion is that science starts with problems and looks for solutions, whereas religion starts with a solution (God), and seeks to fit that solution to every aspect of the unknown.

Edited by Taelr, 11 June 2009 - 06:32 AM.