Atheism

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't understand your point...

why is that a significant distinction?

What do you mean? I said religion doesn't harm scientific growth. You said what about when it breeds hostility. I said every belief system breeds hostility in a sense. That's like claiming feminism harms scientific growth.

Originally posted by Digi
Then you're very, very sheltered. And also continuing to ignore my point about burden of proof. You're asking the wrong questions of either side.

I'm not mixing up burden of proof. I'm not challenging anything. You made the claim that we have made scientific discoveries that refute specific stories in the Bible. I'm simply asking what those scientific discoveries where. That's all.

Originally posted by cool_ghost
Something along the lines of this :http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_was_the_Earth_formed

Yes. I'm aware of how the earth and the universe came into existence. I'm asking what part of this denies that God had anything to do with it.

Originally posted by cool_ghost
You talk is if people don't change... I was complacent and never question wether or not "god" created the universe until my parents stopped taking me to church (which is removing religion from my life), and when i found out my sister was an athiest, I started to think about things more, consider other options, and change. Removing religion from my life made me think more, consider more options, it taught me not everything is certain... so if it happened to me it could happen to anyone else.

It could. Everyone is different. In the same way, there is no grantee it wouldn't work the other way. Perhaps removing religion will make someone more complacent. Maybe they were only studying the universe to find out about God and to study His work.

You are talking about personal traits. These are determined only by the individual, not the religion.

Originally posted by cool_ghost
Exactly... a child taught something that makes logical sense, but gave the proposal that it may be incorrect, would make them think. They choose wether or not they think its correct based off the evidence shown them. Thats the difference between science and religion, science does not claim anything unless its an actual fact, religion claims so many things but based off of practically nothing. A child is taught to complacently accept religion because religion claims that it is right, correct, and that god does exist. Science does not breed complacency, as there is always the chance it may be wrong, and scientists admit that. If you are 100% certain of something, thinking stops about that subject. I am certain that I am 18 years of age, so I do not need to think any further about it. Science promotes trial and error, as finding error in things is good, so you can improve.

You're missing the point. The child will either want to learn about something or it won't. That doesn't change depending on what you tell them is true.

If you tell a inquisitive child that a ball is blue. They will likely investigate the ball to find out if this is true, or why it is blue, or any other questions they might have.

The same would be true if you told them the ball was yellow.

If you tell a complacent child a ball is blue they will likely just accept that the ball is blue.

The same would be true if you told them the ball was yellow.

Their personalities do not change depending on what you tell them. They are either willing to accept what you tell them, or they will want to find out more about it. This fact is not linked to religious beliefs at all. It's completely a personal trait.

Originally posted by cool_ghost
Obviously this is something we do not agree on, I believe religion is completely pointless, and society as a whole would be better and more intelligent if it had not existed.

Of course I disagree. I think society would be much worse off without religion. Especially considering I think it's true.

Originally posted by TacDavey
What do you mean? I said religion doesn't harm scientific growth. You said what about when it breeds hostility. I said every belief system breeds hostility in a sense. That's like claiming feminism harms scientific growth.

feminism hardly plays the role in government funding, education and greater society that religion does, but yes, any ideology that holds a priori fundamental and absolute truths is going to be hostile toward science investigating those truths...

I still don't see your point... of what relevance is the fact that religion isn't the only thing that is hostile toward science? I mean, I could list ways that any institution is hostile to science, that doesn't change the fact that religion also is, and if having a scientifically literate society is important, the absoluteness of religion is problematic.

is this the blame thing again? are you upset because you think I am unfairly singling out religion? I really don't get it... like, you aren't saying religion isn't hostile to science, so it would seem that we agree?

Originally posted by inimalist
feminism hardly plays the role in government funding, education and greater society that religion does, but yes, any ideology that holds a priori fundamental and absolute truths is going to be hostile toward science investigating those truths...

I still don't see your point... of what relevance is the fact that religion isn't the only thing that is hostile toward science? I mean, I could list ways that any institution is hostile to science, that doesn't change the fact that religion also is, and if having a scientifically literate society is important, the absoluteness of religion is problematic.

is this the blame thing again? are you upset because you think I am unfairly singling out religion? I really don't get it... like, you aren't saying religion isn't hostile to science, so it would seem that we agree?

Honestly, I've forgotten what the point of this discussion was.

If religion breeds hostility in any way towards science it only does so in the same way every belief system does. So it doesn't seem worth mentioning.

Originally posted by TacDavey
What do you mean? I said religion doesn't harm scientific growth. You said what about when it breeds hostility. I said every belief system breeds hostility in a sense. That's like claiming feminism harms scientific growth.

I'm not mixing up burden of proof. I'm not challenging anything. You made the claim that we have made scientific discoveries that refute specific stories in the Bible. I'm simply asking what those scientific discoveries where. That's all.

Yes. I'm aware of how the earth and the universe came into existence. I'm asking what part of this denies that God had anything to do with it.

It could. Everyone is different. In the same way, there is no grantee it wouldn't work the other way. Perhaps removing religion will make someone more complacent. Maybe they were only studying the universe to find out about God and to study His work.

You are talking about personal traits. These are determined only by the individual, not the religion.

You're missing the point. The child will either want to learn about something or it won't. That doesn't change depending on what you tell them is true.

If you tell a inquisitive child that a ball is blue. They will likely investigate the ball to find out if this is true, or why it is blue, or any other questions they might have.

The same would be true if you told them the ball was yellow.

If you tell a complacent child a ball is blue they will likely just accept that the ball is blue.

The same would be true if you told them the ball was yellow.

Their personalities do not change depending on what you tell them. They are either willing to accept what you tell them, or they will want to find out more about it. This fact is not linked to religious beliefs at all. It's completely a personal trait.

Of course I disagree. I think society would be much worse off without religion. Especially considering I think it's true.

God "created" the earth specifically in steps day by day in 6 days, and the seventh day he rested. Science says it took a while, a lot longer than 6 days for it to have life on it. Or for it to be fully created. They go against each other. Thats how the bible said god created earth, and science says different.

.... My point is you have to be somewhat complacent to be a christian. And many other religions for that matter. It does not matter how much you think, or would like to think, if you are christian you cant deny gods existence nor the things he did, which is automatically making you complacent. If you do deny those things... then you aren't religious. Its simple, if your religious, it does not matter what your personality is, you can be the most curious, investigative, non complacent person there is, and since you want to be christian it automatically makes you somewhat complacent because of what you believe in off of blind faith.

You think personalities dont change based on what you tell people.... which is the bases of all of what your saying. I disagree, it happened to me and it could happen to anyone else. Anything anyone can hear can change someone, especially if it makes a lot of sense.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Honestly, I've forgotten what the point of this discussion was.

If religion breeds hostility in any way towards science it only does so in the same way every belief system does. So it doesn't seem worth mentioning.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Honestly, I've forgotten what the point of this discussion was.

you stated that people being religious does not hinder science, because scientists will just ignore religion anyways.

I questioned about religion being actively hostile to science, because that DOES hinder science, for instance, the number of children who don't learn biology, the lack of funding for stem cell research, home schooling, etc. The society that science has to function in plays a major role in what science can do. If people are hostile to it, it will not flourish.

the point would be, regardless of whether or not scientists are able to break out of complacency, or regardless of whether people who are or are not religious would be complacent anyways, religion as an institution does promote people being hostile to science. This hostility, in turn, reduces the funding science gets, among other issues.

Originally posted by TacDavey
If religion breeds hostility in any way towards science it only does so in the same way every belief system does. So it doesn't seem worth mentioning.

you can't be serious...

there are few, if any, types of institutions that have as many or as serious absolute truths as do religions, none are as important in the day to day lives of people, and none have the power to influence government the way religion does.

the day people go to "[feminism institution]" every Sunday, schools are forced to teach the "anarchist controversy about state power", home schooling teaching the absolute truth of liberal equality is abundant or federal science funding is based on adherence to absolutist environmentalist principles, you might have a point.

My statements about other ideologies also fostering hostility to science was, and I thought obviously, to show the point I was making, not to say they have equal impact on society.

this is becoming silly Tac, you are hand-waving to the extreme here, and frankly, even if all of these things were equal, that doesn't mean it isn't worth noting.

Like, straight up, do you agree that religion produces hostility to science? The follow up being, do you think there is anything else that produces hostility to religion that is a) equally intransigent about its truths as is religion or b) plays as significant a role in people's lives as religion does?

also, the logical fallacy you are making is known as a false equivalency.

Originally posted by inimalist
The follow up being, do you think there is anything else that produces hostility to religion that is a) equally intransigent about its truths as is religion or b) plays as significant a role in people's lives as religion does?

this should say "science"

Richard Feynmann on God:

YouTube video

Originally posted by cool_ghost
God "created" the earth specifically in steps day by day in 6 days, and the seventh day he rested. Science says it took a while, a lot longer than 6 days for it to have life on it. Or for it to be fully created. They go against each other. Thats how the bible said god created earth, and science says different.

I suppose that's true. If you believe that Genesis was a literal description of what happened.

Originally posted by cool_ghost
.... My point is you have to be somewhat complacent to be a christian. And many other religions for that matter. It does not matter how much you think, or would like to think, if you are christian you cant deny gods existence nor the things he did, which is automatically making you complacent. If you do deny those things... then you aren't religious. Its simple, if your religious, it does not matter what your personality is, you can be the most curious, investigative, non complacent person there is, and since you want to be christian it automatically makes you somewhat complacent because of what you believe in off of blind faith.

That's where you're wrong. Religion does not ask you to take anything on blind faith. In fact, it says you are suppose to do the exact opposite. As I said before, Christianity at least, dictates that you should be well versed in scientific knowledge.

Originally posted by cool_ghost
You think personalities dont change based on what you tell people.... which is the bases of all of what your saying. I disagree, it happened to me and it could happen to anyone else. Anything anyone can hear can change someone, especially if it makes a lot of sense.

That's a little vague. To say that personalities are not influenced at all by what people say would be untrue. I'm simply saying that this specific instance does not determine someone's personal traits. Like with the colored ball example. It would be one thing if religion taught people that complacency was good, and that you need to be complacent. In that example, yes, religion would likely influence someone's personality to some degree. But that isn't the case at all. In fact, as I have said, it is the opposite. Religion doesn't teach people to be complacent, so if they end up that way, it is not because of religion. It's their own fault.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That makes no sense. If your religion believes that the world is flat, that is completely anti science. If yours believes it is round, its a little less so. I don't see why it would have to be equal at all.

It doesn't have to be. I'm not talking about specific belief points. Simply the general idea. Religion doesn't breed hostility towards science because it's out to get science. It breeds it only because it is a belief system, and according to inimalist, this automatically breeds hostility towards science.

It seems silly to criticize religion simply for being a belief system.

Originally posted by inimalist
you stated that people being religious does not hinder science, because scientists will just ignore religion anyways.

I questioned about religion being actively hostile to science, because that DOES hinder science, for instance, the number of children who don't learn biology, the lack of funding for stem cell research, home schooling, etc. The society that science has to function in plays a major role in what science can do. If people are hostile to it, it will not flourish.

the point would be, regardless of whether or not scientists are able to break out of complacency, or regardless of whether people who are or are not religious would be complacent anyways, religion as an institution does promote people being hostile to science. This hostility, in turn, reduces the funding science gets, among other issues.

And my point was that religion doesn't demand that people do this. Religion doesn't instruct it's followers to ignore biology, or not to fund scientific research, or not to study cosmology. Even though people may use religion as an excuse not to do these things, that doesn't make the religion at fault.

Originally posted by inimalist
you can't be serious...

there are few, if any, types of institutions that have as many or as serious absolute truths as do religions, none are as important in the day to day lives of people, and none have the power to influence government the way religion does.

the day people go to "[feminism institution]" every Sunday, schools are forced to teach the "anarchist controversy about state power", home schooling teaching the absolute truth of liberal equality is abundant or federal science funding is based on adherence to absolutist environmentalist principles, you might have a point.

My statements about other ideologies also fostering hostility to science was, and I thought obviously, to show the point I was making, not to say they have equal impact on society.

this is becoming silly Tac, you are hand-waving to the extreme here, and frankly, even if all of these things were equal, that doesn't mean it isn't worth noting.

Like, straight up, do you agree that religion produces hostility to science? The follow up being, do you think there is anything else that produces hostility to religion that is a) equally intransigent about its truths as is religion or b) plays as significant a role in people's lives as religion does?

also, the logical fallacy you are making is known as a false equivalency.

I know that religion has an impact on people's lives. But I am saying that religion does not, to any great degree, hinder scientific research. It should be made clear that I'm talking specifically about religion. Not religious people.

There is no doubt that there exists religious people who believe the Bible teaches that science is evil and should be done away with. My point was that these people are misguided. Religion does not teach this at all. Most hostility towards science from a religious stand point is not from the religion itself, it's from individual followers.

Originally posted by TacDavey
And my point was that religion doesn't demand that people do this. Religion doesn't instruct it's followers to ignore biology, or not to fund scientific research, or not to study cosmology. Even though people may use religion as an excuse not to do these things, that doesn't make the religion at fault.

...

I know that religion has an impact on people's lives. But I am saying that religion does not, to any great degree, hinder scientific research. It should be made clear that I'm talking specifically about religion. Not religious people.

There is no doubt that there exists religious people who believe the Bible teaches that science is evil and should be done away with. My point was that these people are misguided. Religion does not teach this at all. Most hostility towards science from a religious stand point is not from the religion itself, it's from individual followers.

In what way does religion exist independently of its followers?

in theory, anything is whatever anyone wants it to be...

EDIT: also, not criticizing religion. I've said the exact same things about beliefs I hold, in fact deliberately, to try to show this isn't a critique

Nobody is criticizing Christianity simply for being a "belief", they criticize it because it is a belief that actually contradicts science. So your "general" case is just jumping at shadows.

I do a lot of driving in the Midwest as a result of both family and work. Lots of down time, and I surf a lot through radio channels.

Christian radio stations are a dime a dozen. But this one today was a bit more. They had an hour-long segment titled (I may not remember it exactly) "When Atheists Will Be Angry." So I listened to a guy bash and misrepresent atheists for a whole hour before I lost the signal.

This was on FM radio, not some dinky AM nutbag. Also, it wasn't in the south or Bible belt, it was in Ohio. During the afternoon, not obscure am hours.

Anyone who thinks that a fair level of stereotyping and hatred doesn't exist toward atheism from the religious community lives under a rock. And to quell the "it works both ways" argument, I have yet to randomly come across a non-religious radio station, and I encounter literally hundreds of Christian ones (and while this was the most pronounced atheist-bashing I've heard, it's far from the only time). A few ranting youtube videos are not the equivalent of this. The cultural bias is decidedly lopsided.

My friend went on an airplane where a nice looking old lady was sitting next to him, then launched into a rant about how she loves Glen Beck and calls the 1970s "the Devil's time". People can be ridiculous some times.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's where you're wrong. Religion does not ask you to take anything on blind faith. In fact, it says you are suppose to do the exact opposite. As I said before, Christianity at least, dictates that you should be well versed in scientific knowledge.

That's a little vague. To say that personalities are not influenced at all by what people say would be untrue. I'm simply saying that this specific instance does not determine someone's personal traits. Like with the colored ball example. It would be one thing if religion taught people that complacency was good, and that you need to be complacent. In that example, yes, religion would likely influence someone's personality to some degree. But that isn't the case at all. In fact, as I have said, it is the opposite. Religion doesn't teach people to be complacent, so if they end up that way, it is not because of religion. It's their own fault.

So your telling me God does not want me to have faith and believe in him? And to me that is blind faith, nothing Ive seen or heard gives reason to believe in god. Unless you take the bible as reason, but thats just a book.

Religion does not teach that complacency is good, but it indirectly breeds it. Its simple, there is no evidence or real reason to believe in god. We have no proof of his existence except words, and a book. Now, to believe in him you would really have to believe in him for no real reason. You would just have to do it. You have to believe that god created the earth, that he created man, the oceans, the universe, that he has always been here, off of blind faith. To believe in something for no real reason, is not good, nor is lying to yourself and telling yourself that these "reasons" are legit is even worse. To be a true christian, this is really required, because if you do not have faith god exists then you might as well not believe in him.

I believe in this instance that if religion was removed, lots of people would change, and for the better. People would be opened to the fact that nothing is certain (which many christians claim god/heaven/hell is a fact and is not disputable), that good reason is good, to think about what they are following in life, and would just make them think more in general. Its absurd to think that, even a person who is not so smart, would be the exact same if something so important they believe in would not change them if it were removed. Like i said before, the months i just stopped going to church the more my mind began to wonder, and think more. Until i ended up where I am today. If it happened to me, it could happen to anyone else.

Originally posted by Digi
I do a lot of driving in the Midwest as a result of both family and work. Lots of down time, and I surf a lot through radio channels.

Christian radio stations are a dime a dozen. But this one today was a bit more. They had an hour-long segment titled (I may not remember it exactly) "When Atheists Will Be Angry." So I listened to a guy bash and misrepresent atheists for a whole hour before I lost the signal.

This was on FM radio, not some dinky AM nutbag. Also, it wasn't in the south or Bible belt, it was in Ohio. During the afternoon, not obscure am hours.

Anyone who thinks that a fair level of stereotyping and hatred doesn't exist toward atheism from the religious community lives under a rock. And to quell the "it works both ways" argument, I have yet to randomly come across a non-religious radio station, and I encounter literally hundreds of Christian ones (and while this was the most pronounced atheist-bashing I've heard, it's far from the only time). A few ranting youtube videos are not the equivalent of this. The cultural bias is decidedly lopsided.

Originally posted by inimalist
In what way does religion exist independently of its followers?

in theory, anything is whatever anyone wants it to be...

EDIT: also, not criticizing religion. I've said the exact same things about beliefs I hold, in fact deliberately, to try to show this isn't a critique

I don't know what you mean. Religion is separate from it's followers. Take the West Borrow Baptist Church. They call themselves "Christian" but completely misrepresent what the Bible says. Just because people belong to a religion does not mean they follow it's teachings exactly.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Nobody is criticizing Christianity simply for being a "belief", they criticize it because it is a belief that actually contradicts science. So your "general" case is just jumping at shadows.

I don't think religion necessarily contradicts science at all.

Originally posted by Digi
I do a lot of driving in the Midwest as a result of both family and work. Lots of down time, and I surf a lot through radio channels.

Christian radio stations are a dime a dozen. But this one today was a bit more. They had an hour-long segment titled (I may not remember it exactly) "When Atheists Will Be Angry." So I listened to a guy bash and misrepresent atheists for a whole hour before I lost the signal.

This was on FM radio, not some dinky AM nutbag. Also, it wasn't in the south or Bible belt, it was in Ohio. During the afternoon, not obscure am hours.

Anyone who thinks that a fair level of stereotyping and hatred doesn't exist toward atheism from the religious community lives under a rock. And to quell the "it works both ways" argument, I have yet to randomly come across a non-religious radio station, and I encounter literally hundreds of Christian ones (and while this was the most pronounced atheist-bashing I've heard, it's far from the only time). A few ranting youtube videos are not the equivalent of this. The cultural bias is decidedly lopsided.

I don't know if I agree with that. While I don't know of any radio programs, as I don't listen to the radio all that much, I do know that television has a very negative portrayal of religion. I have yet to see a religious character on a TV show who wasn't presented as a complete nutcase or a gullible fool.

Originally posted by cool_ghost
So your telling me God does not want me to have faith and believe in him? And to me that is blind faith, nothing Ive seen or heard gives reason to believe in god. Unless you take the bible as reason, but thats just a book.

Then you haven't been doing research. There have been arguments presented on this very thread, I believe, concerning reasons to believe in God.

I don't know what you mean by the first part.

Originally posted by cool_ghost
Religion does not teach that complacency is good, but it indirectly breeds it. Its simple, there is no evidence or real reason to believe in god. We have no proof of his existence except words, and a book. Now, to believe in him you would really have to believe in him for no real reason. You would just have to do it. You have to believe that god created the earth, that he created man, the oceans, the universe, that he has always been here, off of blind faith. To believe in something for no real reason, is not good, nor is lying to yourself and telling yourself that these "reasons" are legit is even worse. To be a true christian, this is really required, because if you do not have faith god exists then you might as well not believe in him.

No, you don't. As I have said, there are logical arguments presented already concerning the existence of God. You don't have to believe anything off of blind faith Also, even if I grant that religion indirectly breeds complacency (and I don't) that still means that the person is at fault here, not the religion.

Originally posted by cool_ghost
I believe in this instance that if religion was removed, lots of people would change, and for the better. People would be opened to the fact that nothing is certain (which many christians claim god/heaven/hell is a fact and is not disputable), that good reason is good, to think about what they are following in life, and would just make them think more in general. Its absurd to think that, even a person who is not so smart, would be the exact same if something so important they believe in would not change them if it were removed. Like i said before, the months i just stopped going to church the more my mind began to wonder, and think more. Until i ended up where I am today. If it happened to me, it could happen to anyone else.

But your decision was a personal one. Like I said, if you want to follow that line of reasoning you could just as easily make the argument that removing religion may cause some people to become MORE complacent. It's little more than maybes and possibilities. The fact is that there is no direct link between complacency and religion. Anyone who is complacent is complacent of their own accord.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know if I agree with that. While I don't know of any radio programs, as I don't listen to the radio all that much, I do know that television has a very negative portrayal of religion. I have yet to see a religious character on a TV show who wasn't presented as a complete nutcase or a gullible fool.

Sounds like you probably just watch a lot of science fiction shows, elsewhere atheist characters are basically subhuman. House may be the protagonist of his show but they also strip him of most human characteristics.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sounds like you probably just watch a lot of science fiction shows, elsewhere atheist characters are basically subhuman. House may be the protagonist of his show but they also strip him of most human characteristics.

Actually, House was one of the one's I was talking about. I don't watch the show very much, but I've already seen at least two episodes, I believe, in which a religious patient came in, acted like a buffoon and irritated House. They were portrayed as delusional or just crazy.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know if I agree with that. While I don't know of any radio programs, as I don't listen to the radio all that much, I do know that television has a very negative portrayal of religion. I have yet to see a religious character on a TV show who wasn't presented as a complete nutcase or a gullible fool.

There's entire networks dedicated to religion. Not to mention shows that have made it mainstream like Touched by an Angel, and other programs dedicated specifically to religious purposes on major networks like The 700 Club. If you're talking about the 8-10pm primetime major networks, sure, it's mostly ignored and occasionally poked fun at. But that's about it.

You can find both sides on TV, but to pretend like it's even close to a majority being hostile is silly.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know what you mean. Religion is separate from it's followers. Take the West Borrow Baptist Church. They call themselves "Christian" but completely misrepresent what the Bible says. Just because people belong to a religion does not mean they follow it's teachings exactly.

there is no "christianity", just the interpretations people make of its texts

beliefs can't exist separate of people

there is no "anarchy" separate of anarchists. There is no "liberalism" separate from liberals...