Originally posted by wilco
It's Faith, plain and simple really. You believe or you don't believe.What the hell does scientologists believe in? Actors and there money
🤣 😆
Nice post. A+. Would read again.
Originally posted by Mindship
This is why I value the works of, say, Stephen J. Gould as much as, eg, Ken Wilber. Gotta see both sides.
It's so easy to pervert though. "Seeing both sides" doesn't mean that all sides are equal. Oftentimes, they're not.
The other thing I run into is those who use "being open minded" to mean "believing something is true without evidence." It's impossible to convince those types that they're actually more close-minded in their approach. Open should be equally receptive to belief, non-belief, and being undecided. The need to believe certain things biases us so much against the latter two, and the polarization of religious issues biases us even more against the "undecided" outcome.
But in principle, I agree with you. A common response I make is "it's possible" to people who present a belief, a story, etc. But then I add a "but..." and fill in the reasons why it probably isn't probable.
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Digi, you should co-host the Atheist Experience someday.
Lol, like I need more stuff eating into my free time. I'm just now getting around to retiring from a gaming podcast I co-host.
Also, never heard of the Atheist Experience. I assume it's somewhat big? Outside a subscription to Skeptic Magazine and following Mr. Deity on Youtube, I don't actually follow any specifically atheist media.
But thanks; I'll take this as a compliment. 😊
Originally posted by DigiIndeed. Those who choose the theist side should at least acknowledge the uphill battle. From my experience on this forum, some do, most don't. For many of those, "It's possible" = "Equally viable".
It's so easy to pervert though. "Seeing both sides" doesn't mean that all sides are equal.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Digi, you should co-host deez nuts. Don't worry, they are agnostic and Skeptic-safe.
Now I feel like I'm being trolled. Whose nutz should I co-host? Link?!
Originally posted by Mindship
Indeed. Those who choose the theist side should at least acknowledge the uphill battle. From my experience on this forum, some do, most don't. For many of those, "It's possible" = "Equally viable".
👆
Lol.
I googled it. So it's basically two dudes on a couch talking about atheism. Yeah, I could do that. I'm sure I'd be pretty good at it too. But if you remove the need to maintain proper etiquette - a necessary evil in most real life social settings - it becomes a much more slanted version of most KMC debates, or dozens that I've had in my life. But I usually have to hold back, for fear of overtly insulting someone or overextending my argument. They have no such constraints.
So kudos to them for creating a brand name. Lulz that they're in Austin. Poor bastards.
I don't think being a Christian, believing in God and Jesus, taking scripture completely literally as the word of God, HAS to affect one when doing the scientific method. I don't think it has to take away from scientific literacy. They can be separated into the proper place and time. When doing science, we must assume anything can be disproved, and when a theory is disproved it must be replaced by a better one. Science is a set of theories. Science is purely academic, Christianity is spiritual, I can shut off scientific rhetoric when studying the Bible. Science and religion are incompatible, they have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and so they must be used for their respective purposes. I will put my religion BEFORE my scientific career, actually -- but I can do science, I can do math, so long as my Ministerial responsibilities are not jeopardized in the process.
Does that make since? In the scientific process I must use fossil records and measured decay of long-lived radioactive isotopes of elements, I must use the evolution of species and the astronomical time standard. If I were working in those fields of science, but that is academic. Then I can read the Bible and take it literally. It doesn't matter. It is in fact a very level-headed way to go about it. I don't misinterpret the Bible, I don't assume things that aren't in the Bible, so I don't go out and do something crazy thinking Jesus told me to do it, as it wasn't in the Bible. I don't presume to see things, I meditate, I understand lucid visions for what they are, chemical reactions that subconsciously affect the senses, but I am conscientious of that fact even while I'm in a meditative state. Not a real out of body experience but a product of chemical reactions.
Religion can also have a profoundly positive impact on one's well-being. You can do science and not have religion in mind, or study the Bible and God's word and not have science in mind. Never join the two, never assume anything.
Originally posted by Dolos
I don't think being a Christian, believing in God and Jesus, taking scripture completely literally as the word of God, HAS to affect one when doing the scientific method. I don't think it has to take away from scientific literacy. They can be separated into the proper place and time. When doing science, we must assume anything can be disproved, and when a theory is disproved it must be replaced by a better one. Science is a set of theories. Science is purely academic, Christianity is spiritual, I can shut off scientific rhetoric when studying the Bible. Science and religion are incompatible, they have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and so they must be used for their respective purposes. I will put my religion BEFORE my scientific career, actually -- but I can do science, I can do math, so long as my Ministerial responsibilities are not jeopardized in the process.Does that make since? In the scientific process I must use fossil records and measured decay of long-lived radioactive isotopes of elements, I must use the evolution of species and the astronomical time standard. If I were working in those fields of science, but that is academic. Then I can read the Bible and take it literally. It doesn't matter. It is in fact a very level-headed way to go about it. I don't misinterpret the Bible, I don't assume things that aren't in the Bible, so I don't go out and do something crazy thinking Jesus told me to do it, as it wasn't in the Bible. I don't presume to see things, I meditate, I understand lucid visions for what they are, chemical reactions that subconsciously affect the senses, but I am conscientious of that fact even while I'm in a meditative state. Not a real out of body experience but a product of chemical reactions.
Religion can also have a profoundly positive impact on one's well-being. You can do science and not have religion in mind, or study the Bible and God's word and not have science in mind. Never join the two, never assume anything.
This is a common argument for the coexistence of the two. It's partially viable as an argument, but falls apart in other places.
Technically, science can't disprove a God or the idea of spirituality. So ok, they don't overlap in those areas. But science CAN show us how humans came to be, how galaxies were formed, why stuff happens as it does. It needs no god nor spirituality, and can provide feasible - if provisional - models for the entire universe and its workings.
Now let's go back to religion. What religion do you know that has a God that created the universe and never did anything again, ever? No organized religion exists like this, because there'd be no reason to worship and no rules to follow. So, any religion worth discussing has a god that is active in some way in the world. Prayer, divine intervention, sending messages and signals, influencing evolution directly, bringing punishment and reward, etc. etc. Those things ARE testable and within the realm of science (and, entirely, disproven ad nauseum). The veracity of the Bible is subject to this scrutiny as well, as are things like the existence of the Biblical flood (also bunk).
Now, let's get away from religion and look at spirituality. Spirituality in general is unassailable by science. But what does spirituality lead to? Belief in reincarnation, karma, angels, holy relics having power, exorcism, ouija boards, stigmata, voodoo, chakras, psychic surgery, faith healing, aromatherapy, acupuncture, homeopathy, ear candles, numerology, astrology, palmistry, ghosts, spoon bending, seances, tarot cards, and hundreds more. And, you guessed it, those things are testable, and thus in the realm of science.
Tl;dr - Science and religion don't overlap only at the most fundamental levels. In any meaningful application in society, the two are wholly compatible and most often in disagreement with one another.
Originally posted by Digi
Technically, science can't disprove a God or the idea of spirituality. So ok, they don't overlap in those areas. But science CAN show us how humans came to be, how galaxies were formed, why stuff happens as it does.
Academically, on paper, conceptually, empirically. Apropos, this is all disprovable.
It needs no god nor spirituality,
Not only that, but when one doesn't separate God and spirituality from the scientific method, the process is made unworkable.
and can provide feasible - if provisional - models for the entire universe and its workings.
But it is also possible that Science has, is, and forever will be on the brink of the unknown "entire universe and its workings".
Now let's go back to religion. What religion do you know that has a God that created the universe and never did anything again, ever? No organized religion exists like this, because there'd be no reason to worship and no rules to follow. So, any religion worth discussing has a god that is active in some way in the world. Prayer, divine intervention, sending messages and signals, influencing evolution directly, bringing punishment and reward, etc...But if one does not experience the supernatural while in a conscious and awake state, given the individual isn't lacking normal cognitive functions, than it is safe to assume that these things aren't happening. In summary, if it is happening, than one isn't hallucinating.
...etc. Those things ARE testable and within the realm of science...Yes, but any tested result/outcome in the scientific method can potentially be disproved. So:
The veracity of the Bible is subject to this scrutiny as well, as are things like the existence of the Biblical flood (also bunk).
We must assume that everything that is currently debunked can be rebuked, even the Bible, if going by the scientific method.
Science and religion don't overlap only at the most fundamental levels. In any meaningful application in society, the two are wholly compatible and most often in disagreement with one another.
Not if the Bible is interpreted as the literal word of God. If one does so, than science must NECESSARILY be separated from religion.
People cannot confide in science the way they can confide in religion because Science will always be evolving and the content of the Bible is never going to change. If I wanted to maximize my altruistic reach and affect, I could technically forget science and use the Bible to help people confide in God; so they'd find comfort in certainty, whereas it would be erroneous to do so in science. Then, in the appropriate place and time, I could technically forget the Bible and focus entirely on the academia of the scientific process and -- just maybe -- I make a scientific breakthrough that improves society in a way that the Bible can't.
Originally posted by Dolos
We must assume that everything that is currently debunked can be rebuked, even the Bible, if going by the scientific method.
But it hasn't been, at all. Until that point, there's absolutely no point in believing it (or anything else lacking evidence).
It's like saying we shouldn't base our lives thinking gravity exists, because it might be proven to be something else someday.
So tell me: Are you saying we should believe religious and spiritual things because they might be proven true someday? Or because the scientific principles debunking them, that have been repeated ad nauseum, might turn out false somehow? If so, that's the height of absurdity. And it seems to be the main point of your entire post. If it wasn't, you're sh*t at making your ideas coherent.
Originally posted by Dolos
People cannot confide in science the way they can confide in religion because Science will always be evolving and the content of the Bible is never going to change.
It's changed numerous times already in history, and is always being adapted to different purposes.
But as opposed to religion, without a shred of evidence supporting it and mountains against it, we can actually know certain things using science.
Believe spiritual woo-woo if you must. Me? I'm obsessed with reality, as James Randi often puts it.