Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on February 25, 2011 at 10:26pm

I see no middle ground between Religion and Science. Religion deals with a supernatural belief only reached by a leap of blind faith because there is no Evidence. It claims to offer a Truth that negates the need to use Science as a means of inquiry into the “big questions”. The only humility it has is a fawning pretence painted over a sneer of superiority that they alone have the answer. That stupid Jesus loves me opium type smile they acquire wrecks my head.
Once I post this I will hear Theists typing their usual responses that their faith is a reasoned one and is not blind. They have started using Science to back up their beliefs while at the same time they denigrate the very scientists that they quote in the crap publications they deliver on their soul saving quests. “The bible talks about the nitrogen cycle you know.”

Science is the use by mankind of the evolutionary talents we have acquired that make us different to other species i.e. our intelligence and self awareness. It is the search for knowledge with the humility to say we do not know everything. Some of it is just plain common sense and not special knowledge.

I would give them some leeway if they did not seek to have their stupid ideas taught along side science and did not indoctrinate children and kept out of politics….you know the other reasons. Man but I am very intolerant of theists this week. I could continue but would probably derail my own post. I will away to the bookstore and mix the science section books into the religion shelves.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe K on February 25, 2011 at 11:33pm

I have to disagree with your first paragraph, because it's only the religious and athiest zealots who look at religion and science that way.  Religion doesn't "negate the need to use science"; ignorant, indoctrinated, scared people do.  The whole thought process that science and religion have nothing in common is exactly what has created this incredibly heated debate (and i think "heated" is an understatement).  The core of both science and religion is to explain how we got here.  And honestly, though it is pretty funny, how is your actions of switching science books with religion books in a bookstore any different than religious people attempting to force their opinions into the public domain?  And how is atheists belittling theists any different than theists belittling atheists?  I see atheists everywhere ranting and raving about how theists try to shove religion down their throat, and then they turn around and try and shove atheism down theists throats.  If you are completely unwilling to at least TRY and understand why people believe in God and to open your mind to the overlapping tendencies of both, than you are no different than the people who say science is the work of the devil.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe K on February 25, 2011 at 11:36pm

and also saying that "Theists don’t need Science as they have a god and that is the only answer they require," is lumping and incredibly, incredibly, incredibly huge portion of humanity into the same pot.  Nothing in life is that black and white.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on February 26, 2011 at 6:00pm

Like I said in the first reply by Theists I am referring to fundamentalists. If you have ever debated with them you will realise that they have no desire to learn Science and if they do it is “bad science”. God is their answer to everything. If I don’t know something I make an effort to learn it. The fundies just insert god into the gap because he is the answer to everything. There was recently a case taken in the States by some of them who decided they should not have to pay health taxes because the believe god will heal them and they won’t ever ask for medical treatment.

It is because modern science if removing the case for a supernatural god that they are against scientists in general. Maybe I am wrong and they do embrace Evolution and respect scientists like Feynman, Dawkins or Hawkings. So for me I think it is pretty much a black and white issue. The idea of millions of them in one pot is interesting though. Lol. I, however, disbelieve what a huge number of humanity professes to be true.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on February 26, 2011 at 6:30pm

how is your actions of switching science books with religion books in a bookstore any different than religious people attempting to force their opinions into the public domain?

I do it for fun as I know some of the shop staff. Sometimes they tell me customers come up to the till in a indignant mood because they have found a book by “that Atheist Dawkins” beside the “I see Angels” or whatever. Maybe sometime somebody will buy Dan Dennett and not a book on healing crystals. If they never do I could not care less.

I think that is quite a bit different to theists who force their religion on children by scaring them with visions of hell or marching on the main street with posters demand death to homosexuals for example. I do care about indoctrination though.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on February 26, 2011 at 5:29am

I think the main idea is that truth doesn't change.  Therefor, a God who doesn't change represents the truth.

Facts are a form of truth.  Math is a form of truth.  But what about morality?  If God's truth never changes, then shouldn't the morality he teaches also never change?

Well, if you believe the Bible, the morality God taught DID change . . . with Jesus (i.e. God incarnate).  But truth is timeless . . . so God must have taught moral lies: either in the Old Testament or the New.  Even God can't have it both ways.  If Jesus (God) gave mankind a new covenant emphasizing love instead of law, then the morality of God's truth (or is it the truth of God's morality?) made a definite change.

Truth is more elusive than we like to admit.  In a very real sense, we can't truly KNOW anything with certainty.  Our entire experience is subjective.  We interpret the world through sensory and neurological organs that limit our perception of reality to mere interpretative, abstract, constructs of it.

When it comes to morality, it's a GOOD thing that it adapts to human progress.  For instance: there's no longer any justification for child brides in modern societies.  On the other hand, a stagnant morality leads to closed minds and hostility with others who hold different notions of morality.

Christian apologetics have had 2000 years to develop.  It's normally a waste of time to try to deconvert a Christian.  But if and when you do try, I think that sticking to first principles is a good strategy.  Is God perfect or not?  Is God the truth or not?  Do you believe the Bible or not? . . . Then point out how these basic premises are just not true.  Anyway, that's my preferred tactic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on February 26, 2011 at 7:16pm

"Truth is more elusive than we like to admit.  In a very real sense, we can't truly KNOW anything with certainty.  Our entire experience is subjective.  We interpret the world through sensory and neurological organs that limit our perception of reality to mere interpretative, abstract, constructs of it."

I agree. There is a different between belief and knowledge. Belief is a subjective assent to the truth of a proposition while Knowledge is a belief that has been justified based on objective experience. I don’t wish to go of on an Ayn Rand tangent about Truth and justifiable belief but I suppose reality is the way we look at the world and that forms our own truth.

I like your line about Stagnant Morality and what can ensue. I have often deconverted doubting Christians. I am just happy to see people thinking for themselves and getting on with life. I even have a spare room listed on a site for ex members of a well known cult if they ever need it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on February 26, 2011 at 5:30am

I think the main idea is that truth doesn't change.  Therefor, a God who doesn't change represents the truth.

Facts are a form of truth.  Math is a form of truth.  But what about morality?  If God's truth never changes, then shouldn't the morality he teaches also never change?

Well, if you believe the Bible, the morality God taught DID change . . . with Jesus (i.e. God incarnate).  But truth is timeless . . . so God must have taught moral lies: either in the Old Testament or the New.  Even God can't have it both ways.  If Jesus (God) gave mankind a new covenant emphasizing love instead of law, then the morality of God's truth (or is it the truth of God's morality?) made a definite change.

Truth is more elusive than we like to admit.  In a very real sense, we can't truly KNOW anything with certainty.  Our entire experience is subjective.  We interpret the world through sensory and neurological organs that limit our perception of reality to mere interpretative, abstract, constructs of it.

When it comes to morality, it's a GOOD thing that it adapts to human progress.  For instance: there's no longer any justification for child brides in modern societies.  On the other hand, a stagnant morality leads to closed minds and hostility with others who hold different notions of morality.

Christian apologetics have had 2000 years to develop.  It's normally a waste of time to try to deconvert a Christian.  But if and when you do try, I think that sticking to first principles is a good strategy.  Is God perfect or not?  Is God the truth or not?  Do you believe the Bible or not? . . . Then point out how these basic premises are just not true.  Anyway, that's my preferred tactic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by M on February 26, 2011 at 7:19pm

This is a great reply!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by M on February 26, 2011 at 7:17pm

Isn't it funny how theists with their absolutely egocentric religious beliefs, claim to be humble when it's scientists and atheists and the like who are comfortable saying, "I don't know"?  Love it!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page