The God Delusion

[piratemonkey]

Some here have accused me of being anti-Christian.Â*Â*That is untrue.

I am anti-faith-based thought.

That applies to theology, but it also applies in other scenarios.Â*Â*Some conservatives, having been indoctrinated into religion at an age where they had no choice, transfer dogmatic, faith-based thinking to the political arena.

Proof of this?Â*Â*The fact that rarely do these particular conservatives use facts to back up their argument.Â*Â*They assert.Â*They ridicule as evil those that disagree with them. Â*They repeat.Â*Â*And repeat.Â*Â*And repeat the same points... still providing no evidence.Â*Â*This is the same way religious institutions indoctrinate children.

Richard Dawkins, one of the most preeminent scientists of our generation, recently wrote a book called "The God Delusion."Â*Â*In it, he argues both that not only is it highly unlikely there is a god, but that unchecked faith-based belief in a god is incredibly damaging to the world and many people's lives.

Here are the questions:Â*Â*
When is faith-based thinking a good thing?

Why do many force children to believe in religions before they have the intellectual capacity to make a life-altering decision like this on their own?

Since the religion your parents believe in is 99% correllated to the religion you believe in, how is your religious belief not just an accident of where you happened to be born?

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I see your in error.
2. Tough for you.
3. I only hope your are not a lost cause.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[piratemonkey]

What is in error?

[cs0564]

I would be intrigued to find out what beliefs of faith Piratemonkey has? Either Piratemonkey is an agnostic or an atheist. Nothing wrong in my view with a persons personal belief in a higher being or not, but I do have an issue with someone who seems to constantly defend the fact that they are not Anti-Christian or Anti-Faith. Many people recite quotes that seem to make sense. I like to quote my dad who will tell you that "Someone who has to tell you what they are, usually are not".

God Bless America and her religious freedoms and tolerance!

[piratemonkey]

My personal beliefs or lack there of are irrelevant to this conversation. Having said that, I don't care who knows that I don't believe in anything that's not real.

Reality is provable. (also - see my sig)

Faith, by definition, is belief in an idea without basis in rational thought or reality.
If there was basis in reality, we could prove it and no faith would be necessary.

Religion, by definition, is belief in the supernatural.
Natural phenomena don't require faith, because I can prove them to you.

Now these are unarguable definitions. What weird to me, a rational non-believer, is that most people know this, yet still believe.

[BoogyMan]

You ARE anti-Christian and you berate people of faith in debate every time the discussion turns to faith.

If it walks like a duck.....

[AlonzoMourning23]

Here are the questions:
When is faith-based thinking a good thing?

Well, people donate large sums of money and time to helping the poor, and many do it for religious regions. Christians and Muslims donated huge sums of money, and Sikh Gurudwara's usually run what amounts to a community kitchen, and it is designed so that anyone (hindu, muslim, christian etc.) may come in and eat.

Also, if you ever go to a hospital or attend college, both came from particular religious beliefs and traditions. At least the form that they take today did anyway.

Why do many force children to believe in religions before they have the intellectual capacity to make a life-altering decision like this on their own?

Do you teach kids to respect others only when they hit a certain age where they can decide whether they agree with it? Do you teach kids not to steal only when they are old enough to make a real decision on whether they agree?

It's simple really. You teach your children what is best for them in your mind. If you believe that religion will provide great benefit for them, both here and after death, then of course you will want to do what you can to give them that advantage. It's concerned parenting.


Since the religion your parents believe in is 99% correllated to the religion you believe in, how is your religious belief not just an accident of where you happened to be born?

Maybe there are simply multiple ways of worshiping the same god. They all work towards the same end result, simply in many different ways.

[piratemonkey]

You ARE anti-Christian and you berate people of faith in debate every time the discussion turns to faith.

If it walks like a duck.....


Typical.

You've made a very simple logical error.

If I say I hate humans, does that mean I'm racist against Hispanics? That's the logic you just used.

[BoogyMan]

You ARE anti-Christian and you berate people of faith in debate every time the discussion turns to faith.

If it walks like a duck.....


Typical.

You've made a very simple logical error.

If I say I hate humans, does that mean I'm racist against Hispanics? That's the logic you just used.


No, I simply am pointing out your previous anti-faith tirades on this board.

Like I said, if it walks like a duck.....

[piratemonkey]

Also, if you ever go to a hospital or attend college, both came from particular religious beliefs and traditions. At least the form that they take today did anyway.

The benefit you cite assumes that the same people wouldn't do the same good things while not being religious.

That's not a supportable claim, imo.


Do you teach kids to respect others only when they hit a certain age where they can decide whether they agree with it?
Respect for others is necessary to function in society and is a moral position.

Religion is neither, so the analogy isn't a good one.

In fact, one could make very good, rational arguments regarding the harm factionalized religions do to the world.


Do you teach kids not to steal only when they are old enough to make a real decision on whether they agree?
Same.


It's simple really. You teach your children what is best for them in your mind. If you believe that religion will provide great benefit for them, both here and after death, then of course you will want to do what you can to give them that advantage. It's concerned parenting.

In the above, you don't seem to distinguish between rational fact and belief.

It's rational to teach a child the Golden Rule.Â*Â*There are verifiable benefits to such learning and subsequent behavior.

That's not true, again, for religion.Â*Â*The "benefits" you claim for children can't be seen, measured or verified.Â*Â*They aren't real, they are mythological.Â*Â*If you teach in that context, I have no problem with it.

Essentially, you are not giving your child a choice, when you have not a single thing to support your metaphysical claims.Â*Â*By the time they are old enough to make a reasoned assessment of the claims, they are already "believers" and no longer use rational thought to evaluate their belief systems.

It's really a sad thing.


Maybe there are simply multiple ways of worshiping the same god. They all work towards the same end result, simply in many different ways.


That analysis completely ignores the fact that some religions worship many gods, no gods, or physical things.

[piratemonkey]

You ARE anti-Christian and you berate people of faith in debate every time the discussion turns to faith.

If it walks like a duck.....


Typical.

You've made a very simple logical error.

If I say I hate humans, does that mean I'm racist against Hispanics?Â*Â*That's the logic you just used.


No, I simply am pointing out your previous anti-faith tirades on this board.

Like I said, if it walks like a duck.....


Um... no, you claimed I was anti-Christian. That's not true and I just showed you why.

What do you do in response? Admit error? Of course not. You change your claim.

[askates]

Who cares if he is anti-christian, or should i say anti-hate, (i thought we lived in america) its hilarious how defensive christians get when you are anti-them, when they are anti-eveything but themselves, I'm anti-christian, i'm also a devil worshiper, and a homosexual, and a vampire, a muslim,witchdoctor, sorceror, baby born out of wedlock,a werewolf, a evil dragon,rock n roll music, a morlock, sex education in high school,a gargoyle, Freddy from nightmare on elm street. What else is scary? oh the girl from 'the Ring', raped women getting abortions

[sbannon]

Since I've had this discussion with a few friends (3 atheists who work in scientific fields) before let me see if I can add anything of value to the thread.
When is faith-based thinking a good thing?Any time it helps the individual mentally cope with what otherwise would be too difficult for them.

It's ignorant to believe that everyone has an equal emotional and intellectual capacity to rely on, or that everyone's reality is the same and someone with a higher level of intellect is somehow superior in anything other than a silly IQ rating. For many people, certain aspects of life (and death) are harder to accept or move through than for others. If faith in something greater assists them then it's not only a good thing for the individual, but in those moments it's as real as the ground we walk on or the air we breath.

Why do many force children to believe in religions before they have the intellectual capacity to make a life-altering decision like this on their own?I can't answer this one. My parents allowed me and my 2 brothers to decide for ourselves. I come from an Irish Catholic family, my brothers and I were all baptized Catholic, but that was the real extent of our religious experience imposed by our parents.

We were invited but never forced to attend Holiday and occasional Sunday services with our parents, and more often than not we said "heck no".

We are all 3 grown men now. Each has some college background, and each holding some levels of Christian faith.

For myself, I have a close relationship with God and we speak almost daily. God's a good listener. What I don't have faith in is organized religion. There's a difference between faith and religion. Faith serves to elevate the individual beyond his or her own personal feelings of limitation. Religion too often serves to divide people and elevate a few in the hierarchy to a higher tax bracket.

Since the religion your parents believe in is 99% correllated to the religion you believe in, how is your religious belief not just an accident of where you happened to be born?As I've described above, my parents were both Catholic and I was baptized as such, but I must be in that 1% because I don't subscribe to the Catholic brand.

I'm certainly a follower of the Christian realm, but it's far removed from what my parents believe in. I'm also smart and secure enough to acknowledge I'm no more likely to be right than the next guy about what does or doesn't exist in the faith sphere, so I don't view my beliefs as superior to anyone else's. They're mine and that's all.

[BoogyMan]

You ARE anti-Christian and you berate people of faith in debate every time the discussion turns to faith.

If it walks like a duck.....


Typical.

You've made a very simple logical error.

If I say I hate humans, does that mean I'm racist against Hispanics? That's the logic you just used.


No, I simply am pointing out your previous anti-faith tirades on this board.

Like I said, if it walks like a duck.....


Um... no, you claimed I was anti-Christian. That's not true and I just showed you why.

What do you do in response? Admit error? Of course not. You change your claim.



There has been no change of claim. You however simply don't like the harsh light of truth shined upon your disdain for those of faith. Those of faith INCLUDES Christendom.

Semantics may work with others Pirate, not me.

[Elrathin]

There has been no change of claim. You however simply don't like the harsh light of truth shined upon your disdain for those of faith. Those of faith INCLUDES Christendom.

Semantics may work with others Pirate, not me.


Sorry, but the only thing you have PROVEN is that you THINK PM is anti-Christian. His words and the way he has talked about Christianity has only shown that he is against morality police making laws based on a religion that has no more basis in truth than Santa Claus.

[piratemonkey]

There has been no change of claim.Â*Â*You however simply don't like the harsh light of truth shined upon your disdain for those of faith.Â*Â*Those of faith INCLUDES Christendom.

Only as much as someone who hates humans is a racist against Hispanics.Â*Â*Or as much as someone who dislikes tv is against Bill O'Reilly.

If you can't see that, you're missing the bus.Â*Â*

Everyone else reading this does.

Semantics may work with others Pirate, not me.

lol... you said it, not me!

Proper semantics are necessary for communication.Â*Â*You obviously don't agree with that idea, since you seem to use different semantic rules than most English speakers.Â*Â*That's ok, but don't criticize the norm for being the norm.

Would you please post something on-topic?

[BoogyMan]

Everyone else reading this does.

Everyone else with a predilection for tainting the discussion with liberal ideology maybe. :)


lol... you said it, not me!

Proper semantics are necessary for communication.Â*Â*You obviously don't agree with that idea, since you seem to use different semantic rules than most English speakers.Â*Â*That's ok, but don't criticize the norm for being the norm.

Would you please post something on-topic?


I am spot-on with this topic.Â*Â*The taint of your anti-faith, anti-christian rhetoric seems to be more than you can bear.Â*Â*Thats not my problem, its yours.

[piratemonkey]

I am sopt-on with this topic.Â*Â*The taint of your anti-faith, anti-christian rhetoric seems to be more than you can bear.Â*Â*Thats not my problem, its yours.


Start a thread.Â*Â*I'll talk about this topic all day long, if you'd like.Â*Â*You think I fear your argument, semantics and all?Â*Â*Heh.

But please start a new thread, as you've seriously side-tracked mine.

[AlonzoMourning23]

The benefit you cite assumes that the same people wouldn't do the same good things while not being religious.

That's not a supportable claim, imo.

Well, hospitals had, for most of their history, laregely been places for the poor and hungry. They were even often attached to religious buildings. While priests sometimes care for them, they were also often turned way. But Islam changed that, their concern for the sick and poor, which came from religious teachings, resulted in the widespread establishment of hospitals, as we currently understand them, beginning in the 9th century A.D. Their hospitals contained medical records, pharmacies etc. and actually treated illnesses, not just cared for the sick.:

Medical Sciences
The hadiths of the Prophet contain many instructions concerning health including dietary habits; these sayings became the foundation of what came to be known later as "Prophetic medicine" (al-tibb al-nabawi). Because of the great attention paid in Islam to the need to take care of the body and to hygiene, early in Islamic history Muslims began to cultivate the field of medicine turning once again to all the knowledge that was available to them from Greek, Persian and Indian sources. At first the great physicians among Muslims were mostly Christian but by the 9th century Islamic medicine, properly speaking, was born with the appearance of the major compendium, @Rhazes Anatomy Smallpox Antiseptic Psychosomatic Medicine The Paradise of Wisdom (Firdaws al-hikmah ) by 'Ali ibn Rabban al-Tabari, who synthesized the Hippocratic and Galenic traditions of medicine with those of India and Persia. His student, Muhammad ibn Zakariyya' al-Razi (the Latin Rhazes), was one of the greatest of physicians who emphasized clinical medicine and observation. He was a master of prognosis and psychosomatic medicine and also of anatomy. He was the first to identify and treat smallpox, to use alcohol as an antiseptic and make medical use of mercury as a purgative. His Kitab al-hawi (Continens) is the longest work ever written in Islamic medicine and he was recognized as a medical authority in the West up to the 18th century.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/introduction/woi_knowledge.html

As well as assimilating and disseminating the knowledge of other cultures, Arab scholars made numerous important scientific and technological advances in mathematics, astronomy, chemistry, metallurgy, architecture, textiles, and agriculture. Techniques they developed—such as distillation, crystallisation, and the use of alcohol as an antiseptic—are still used. Arab physicians and scholars also laid the basis for medical practice in Europe. Before the Islamic era, medical care was largely provided by priests in sanatoriums and annexes to temples. The main Arabian hospitals were centres of medical education and introduced many of the concepts and structures that we see in modern hospitals, such as separate wards for men and women, personal and institutional hygiene, medical records, and pharmacies.

Ibn Al-Nafis, a 13th century Arab physician, described the pulmonary circulation more than 300 years before William Harvey.w3 Surgeon Abu Al-Qasim Al-Zahrawi wrote the Tasrif which, translated into Latin, became the leading medical text in European universities during the later Middle Ages. Al-Zahrawi was also a noted pathologist, describing hydrocephalus and other congenital diseases as well as developing new surgical technologies such as catgut sutures.w4 w5 Some describe Al-Razi (Rhazes), born in 865, as the greatest physician of the Islamic world.



http://www.studentbmj.com/issues/06/03/editorials/91.php

You seem to want to play a game of "what ifs". Anything is possible, but we know religion has led to great advances, while, up until modern times (where the societies, both religious and secular, are radically different due to their openness), it is purely speculation as to whether the same achievements would have come about if religion was absent.


Do you teach kids to respect others only when they hit a certain age where they can decide whether they agree with it?

Respect for others is necessary to function in society and is a moral position.

Religion is neither, so the analogy isn't a good one.

Belief in a certain religion is not a moral position?

But, if you believe that religion is essential to spiritual health, that it is essential to avoid eternal damnation and suffering, or that it provides the best way to achieve a healthy life, why would a good parent not teach their kids religion?

For many religious belief and spiritual health is as important as any other aspect of life, if not moreso. Nothing else determines your fate for eternity.

In fact, one could make very good, rational arguments regarding the harm factionalized religions do to the world.

Societies have always warred with each other. Very religious and more secular cultures, historically, have all found reason to wage war. Religious wars have rarely been religious at their core.

It's rational to teach a child the Golden Rule.Â*Â*There are verifiable benefits to such learning and subsequent behavior.

That's not true, again, for religion.Â*Â*The "benefits" you claim for children can't be seen, measured or verified.Â*Â*They aren't real, they are mythological.Â*Â*If you teach in that context, I have no problem with it.

Essentially, you are not giving your child a choice, when you have not a single thing to support your metaphysical claims.Â*Â*By the time they are old enough to make a reasoned assessment of the claims, they are already "believers" and no longer use rational thought to evaluate their belief systems.

It's really a sad thing.

Actually, studies have shown religious people are happier as a whole. That part is verifiable.

But, for example, you have a child and you will likely teach them to accept other people, races etc., correct? While another parent may teach their child that they should stay with their own kind.

It's a moral opinion. Neither belief can be proven correct one way or the other. Society as a whole has a viewpoint, but that's all it is. It's not a fact, it's an opinion. One that most believe will enable that child to better survive in the world, better cope with society, and live better overal. Relious views are the same.


Maybe there are simply multiple ways of worshiping the same god. They all work towards the same end result, simply in many different ways.


That analysis completely ignores the fact that some religions worship many gods, no gods, or physical things.
[/quote]

No religion worships physical things as such. They don't worship a statue as a statue, but as representative of, or the embodiment of, something else.

And yes, there are religions that worship no god (though there is usually a power to replace it) and many gods, but the point is they can all be paths to the same goal in the end. Frame that as god, gods, goddess, brahma whatever.

[piratemonkey]

Well, hospitals had, for most of their history, laregely been places for the poor and hungry. They were even often attached to religious buildings.

Very interesting reading.Â*Â*Thanks.

But it's irrelevant to this conversation.

Why?
1) Many, many societal institutions started as religious ones.Â*Â*Because religous institutions started colleges, doesn't mean religion is necessary for college or that, in the absence of religion, they wouldn't have been started by other organizations.
2) When these institutions were started, there was no viable atheistic alternative.Â*Â*Atheism wasn't a possible choice if you wanted a job, or in many cases, to stay out of jail or stay alive.





You seem to want to play a game of "what ifs". Anything is possible, but we know religion has led to great advances, while, up until modern times (where the societies, both religious and secular, are radically different due to their openness), it is purely speculation as to whether the same achievements would have come about if religion was absent.
Again, only because major religions had a monopoly on societal institutions for the majority of human history.


Belief in a certain religion is not a moral position?
Not in any way/shape/form is belief in a religion a moral position.

Here, lets test the idea:
If your child was lost and raised by a Hindu family, would that child be any less moral when she grew up?


But, if you believe that religion is essential to spiritual health, that it is essential to avoid eternal damnation and suffering, or that it provides the best way to achieve a healthy life, why would a good parent not teach their kids religion?
Again, you are conflating beliefs with knowledge.

What you need to understand is that your beliefs are just that: beliefs.
They are not facts and not reality.Â*Â*You have not one single piece of factual evidence to support your beliefs.Â*Â*If you did, they wouldn't be beliefs, they'd be knowledge.



For many religious belief and spiritual health is as important as any other aspect of life, if not moreso. Nothing else determines your fate for eternity.

And that's a sad thing.

When the mythological takes priority over reality, very bad things can happen.Â*Â*Look at Iraq.



Societies have always warred with each other. Very religious and more secular cultures, historically, have all found reason to wage war. Religious wars have rarely been religious at their core.

I don't completely disagree with that.Â*Â*Religion is just another irrational reason for people to hate each other.


Actually, studies have shown religious people are happier as a whole. That part is verifiable.

False.

I've read the research you are referring to.Â*Â*Those studies were not controlled.Â*Â*They didn't show that religion makes people happier.Â*Â*They showed that participation in a religious organization is good for people.Â*Â*So is participating in a non-religious organization that promotes well being.

Gotta run... more response later.
Cheers!

[Technocrat]

Dawkins book was excellent. It was well-researched, well argued, and well-thought.

I recomend anyone buying it. Dawkins has done outdone himself again, as usual, in pounding those moronic fundamentalists.

[Anti-Racism]

I am anti-faith-based thought.


Not all religions, and not all interpretations of Christianity, are "faith-based." It might be that you're doing us all a good service here by pointing out the difference between religions based on reality and those based on promises from another world never seen by a living person.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Well, hospitals had, for most of their history, laregely been places for the poor and hungry. They were even often attached to religious buildings.

Very interesting reading.Â*Â*Thanks.

But it's irrelevant to this conversation.

Why?
1) Many, many societal institutions started as religious ones.Â*Â*Because religous institutions started colleges, doesn't mean religion is necessary for college or that, in the absence of religion, they wouldn't have been started by other organizations.
2) When these institutions were started, there was no viable atheistic alternative.Â*Â*Atheism wasn't a possible choice if you wanted a job, or in many cases, to stay out of jail or stay alive.


So your claim is that atheism is better than faith, but yet dismiss any benefits of faith since atheism wasn't a choice and the same benefits might have occured otherwise, but we have no way of knowing.


Belief in a certain religion is not a moral position?
Not in any way/shape/form is belief in a religion a moral position.[/quote]

Actually, since religion sets down rules and principles, it is a statement of belief in a certain+ general moral position.

Here, lets test the idea:
If your child was lost and raised by a Hindu family, would that child be any less moral when she grew up?

Depends on what you define as morals. But, mostly, they would have some different morals.


Again, you are conflating beliefs with knowledge.

What you need to understand is that your beliefs are just that: beliefs.
They are not facts and not reality.Â*Â*You have not one single piece of factual evidence to support your beliefs.Â*Â*If you did, they wouldn't be beliefs, they'd be knowledge.

Culture incorporates beliefs, traditions, facts etc. all forms of knowledge. Religion is part of passing on of culture. Just as we pass on the behavioral expectations, general moral principles, we pass on religion.

Religion is not some destructive element in a persons life, it provides fulfillment and, in many cases, a sense of community. It also provides purpose, answers etc. You can let the kids make up their mind, that's fine, but you're denying them an aspect of their culture and family by not exposing them to those beliefs.

And, again, you teach children to be open to different races and ethnicities, others teach to keep with your own kind. Neither is factually right or factually wrong, and yet most are more than willing to teach them those moral beliefs.



For many religious belief and spiritual health is as important as any other aspect of life, if not moreso. Nothing else determines your fate for eternity.

And that's a sad thing.

When the mythological takes priority over reality, very bad things can happen.Â*Â*Look at Iraq.[/quote]

Reality is based on perception. Various religious and cultural beliefs are reality to many, myths to others. Being mythical in nature does not mean they are false or lacking in reality, it simply means that they lack hard evidence.


Actually, studies have shown religious people are happier as a whole. That part is verifiable.

False.

I've read the research you are referring to.Â*Â*Those studies were not controlled.Â*Â*They didn't show that religion makes people happier.Â*Â*They showed that participation in a religious organization is good for people.Â*Â*So is participating in a non-religious organization that promotes well being.
[/quote]

That is unlikely to explain the entire effect. The sense of purpose and meaning that religion brings cannot be substituted, at least for most people, by atheism. Those same studies indicated the effects weren't just due to attendance, as purpose and meaning were also significant in those results. Atheism itself begins with a disadvantage. It does not provide community or meaning. It must be created.

[Technocrat]

Atheism is better than faith, since it's rational. Faith isn't. Faith is mindlessness. Mindlessness is inferior to informed, rational behaviour.

Can religion be moral? Yea. Not all moral systems are equal in success or usefulness, and if you really looked at the Bible's ideas of morality, you would want to gouge your eyes out. It's sick. Christianity is a sick religion.

Often, as I have already proven, religion does not magically fixed the woes of society, and ironically, Atheism doesn't lead to some miserable, sad society sans the religion. Those nations without religion are often just as happy, if not happier. They are also healthier, safer, and generally a better place in which to live.

Religion not only doesn't fix the problems, it often exacerbates them. There's no credible evidence that Religion does any objective good.



Reality is based on perception. Various religious and cultural beliefs are reality to many, myths to others. Being mythical in nature does not mean they are false or lacking in reality, it simply means that they lack hard evidence

Nonsense. This is sophistry. There's no "alternative reality" depending on the person, and reality is not based on perception. Reality objectively exists independtly of how we perceive it. There is ONE reality. Perceptions of reality are just that; peceptions. Mythical shit is indeed false. They are by definition false, legends, fake shit people made up because they didn't understand reality. Reality was never their perception of it. It was always there.

Parents shouldn't force their religious bullshit on their kids. It's little more than brainwashing and child abuse. THey are feeding them false ideas and completely bogus nonsense.

Myths do not reflect reality.

[Elrathin]

That is unlikely to explain the entire effect. The sense of purpose and meaning that religion brings cannot be substituted, at least for most people, by atheism. Those same studies indicated the effects weren't just due to attendance, as purpose and meaning were also significant in those results. Atheism itself begins with a disadvantage. It does not provide community or meaning. It must be created.


Sorry, but I think the study is limiting itself to the factor of religion, when it should be looking into belief. People I have seen are more happier if they believe in something regardless if it is self, family, someone else, or religion.

It is that belief IMO which makes a person happy, not just religion.

[piratemonkey]

So your claim is that atheism is better than faith, but yet dismiss any benefits of faith since atheism wasn't a choice and the same benefits might have occured otherwise, but we have no way of knowing.

This is where we disagree:
The "benefits of faith" you claim aren't real.Â*Â*It's like saying that all the schools built during the Soviet era are because of Socialism.


Depends on what you define as morals. But, mostly, they would have some different morals.

Would the child be immoral?Â*Â*No.

So what you are teaching your child isn't morals, it's mythology.Â*Â*The morals just go along for the ride and can be taught in many other ways, without religion.


Culture incorporates beliefs, traditions, facts etc. all forms of knowledge. Religion is part of passing on of culture. Just as we pass on the behavioral expectations, general moral principles, we pass on religion.

Again, only because there hasn't been a viable alternative.

This is like saying we should continue racism because it's been part of human culture for all of history. Racism involves morality (racists actually think being racist is moral), tradition, behavioral expectations.... all of the things you list.

So, by the same argument, we should be teaching our children racism.


Religion is not some destructive element in a persons life,
Not in all cases, but anything that places the mythological over reality is potentially damaging in unforseen ways.


it provides fulfillment
A make-believe sense of fulfilment.Â*Â*Fulfillment at the expense of reality and other's beliefs.Â*Â*To feel "fulfilled" from religion, you have to think your beliefs are correct and others are not.

What you are essentially saying is that I, as an atheist, can't feel as fulfilled as a religous person.

That's not true.


and, in many cases, a sense of community.
Which can be attained in numerous other ways.


It also provides purpose, answers etc.
Answers?

What answers?

Faith doesn't provide any answers to any reality-based questions.


You can let the kids make up their mind, that's fine, but you're denying them an aspect of their culture and family by not exposing them to those beliefs.

My point is kids CAN'T make up their minds about these topics because by the time they have the ability to, they are already indoctrinated and can't make objective choices about the subject.

Telling a kid for the first 16 years of her life that she's going to hell if she doesn't believe a certain thing is something that can't have a trivial effect on their decision-making.

It's a terrible thing to do to a child.


And, again, you teach children to be open to different races and ethnicities, others teach to keep with your own kind. Neither is factually right or factually wrong, and yet most are more than willing to teach them those moral beliefs.

Actually, they are factually "right."

I can make rational argument and even provide factual evidence to you that a society based upon those principals functions better and leads to more happy people than one that doesn't.

You can't show me that a society full of Christians (or whatever) is any better off than one without those beliefs.


Reality is based on perception. Various religious and cultural beliefs are reality to many, myths to others.Â*Â*

This statement is exactly what's lead to most of the problems in America today.

Reality is NOT based upon perception at all.

If it were, science would not exist.Â*Â*Science is based upon the concept that there is an objective reality that can be proven to an objective observer.Â*Â*Without that concept, we are all living in caves and chewing on raw meat.

Though I would put it a bit more diplomatically than Technocrat, he's entirely correct.


Being mythical in nature does not mean they are false or lacking in reality, it simply means that they lack hard evidence.

They lack ANY evidence.Â*Â*Otherwise faith wouldn't be required... you could prove them to be true.

Without ANY evidence, the myths one person makes up in their head are no more or less valid than any other myths.Â*Â*I could start a religion that promotes prostitution and that's just as valid, from a factual standpoint, as Christianity or Wicca.

[Waffletush]

The "benefits of faith" you claim aren't real.Â*Â*It's like saying that all the schools built during the Soviet era are because of Socialism.

Not in all cases, but anything that places the mythological over reality is potentially damaging in unforseen ways.

Reality is NOT based upon perception at all.

If it were, science would not exist.Â*Â*Science is based upon the concept that there is an objective reality that can be proven to an objective observer.

Aren't you contradicting yourself with those statements? You say faith is bull becasue it is not quantifiable, yet in the very next statement, you are saying faith is bad due to UNFORSEEN 'circumstances'.Â*Â*Seems like for your second sentence to be true, you have to have FAITH there are damaging, unforseen, circumstances. Which can't be the case, becasue you stated faith in the unforseen is not scientific.

[piratemonkey]

Aren't you contradicting yourself with those statements?Â*Â*You say faith is bull becasue it is not quantifiable, yet in the very next statement, you are saying faith is bad due to UNFORSEEN 'circumstances'.Â*Â*Seems like for your second sentence to be true, you have to have FAITH there are damaging, unforseen, circumstances.Â*Â*Which can't be the case, becasue you stated faith in the unforseen is not scientific.


No, I'm not.Â*Â*I'm talking about predictability.

Rational thought is predicable.Â*Â*It's based upon real concepts, facts and empirical rules.Â*Â*I can show any objective observer evidence that proves my points and that person will agree, if rational.

Faith-based thought isn't predicable.Â*Â*It's not based upon real concepts, facts or emperical rules.Â*Â*Faith can lead in ANY direction because it's not grouded in reality in any way/shape/form.Â*Â*It can lead to good things or bad things... either is justified and possible under faith-based thinking.

Not knowing the future doesn't mean you need faith.Â*Â*Making predictions about the future doesn't require faith.Â*Â*You use the factual evidence you have to predict.Â*Â*That's how science works.

[Waffletush]

No, I'm not.Â*Â*I'm talking about predictability.

Rational thought is predicable.Â*Â*It's based upon real concepts, facts and empirical rules.Â*Â*I can show any objective observer evidence that proves my points and that person will agree, if rational.

Faith-based thought isn't predicable.Â*Â*It's not based upon real concepts, facts or emperical rules.Â*Â*Faith can lead in ANY direction because it's not grouded in reality in any way/shape/form.Â*Â*It can lead to good things or bad things... either is justified and possible under faith-based thinking.

Nor knowing the future doesn't mean you need faith.Â*Â*Making predictions about the future doesn't require faith.Â*Â*You use the factual evidence you have to predict.Â*Â*That's how science works.

Ok.

If faith-based thought is not predictable, how can you say it is potentially damaging in unforseen ways?

[piratemonkey]

Ok.

If faith-based thought is not predictable, how can you say it is potentially damaging in unforseen ways?


The answer to your question is in the wording of the question.

It's not predictable, so there's no telling what direction faith-based thought will go. That's why I said "potentially" damaging.

The results of faith-based thinking could be good, they could be bad. With no grounding in reality, there's no checks or balances on this kind of thought. Whatever you can imagine, you could have faith in.

Reality has checks and balance. You can have faith that your rooster lays eggs, but reality will get in the way of that faith-based idea.

[sbannon]

The thing about these sort of discussions is that there's no way for either side to argue them without appearing arrogant and ignorant to the other. That's not pointing to anyone or any specific comments in this thread, it's simply an observation I made years ago that's never been proven wrong since--through many similar discussions.

Those who oppose faith-based thinking believe that their opponents are stubborn and ignorant to hold their positions in the face of certain evidence--and those who have spiritual faith believe that their opponents are equally stubborn and ignorant to hold their positions given the lack of evidence to disprove whatever spiritual beliefs your faith is in. So each side just appears arrogant and ignorant to the other.

Maybe I'm just silly, but I've accepted that neither side can actually prove the other side wrong so I don't see the point in trying. Nobody can prove if a higher spiritual power does or doesn't exist with absolute certainty, yet both sides always draw lines of death in the sand over it.

Perhaps instead of trying to... whatever it is, win the argument or convert the other side over; we should put a little more energy into accepting that people who aren't like us really aren't like us and nobody is superior or inferior to anyone else for holding beliefs that are as unproven as our own?

[Waffletush]

Reality has checks and balance.

Faith is the balance to reality.Â*Â*Case in question:Â*Â*Jimmy Hoffa.Â*Â*Can you prove he existed?Â*Â*There is no body.Â*Â*All you have to rely on is what is written down and the word of people who claim to have actually saw him.Â*Â*That goes for anybody in time who has gone missing.Â*Â*You have no proof if they did or did not exist, you have to belive - have faith - that what people are telling you is true.

[Elrathin]

[There is no body.


There are photos of him.

[Waffletush]

How do you know it is really Hoffa? Did you take the photo yourself, or did someone 'tell' you (either directly or in the caption of the photo)?

[piratemonkey]

[There is no body.Â*Â*

There are photos of him.


This is true, but I would have worded it differently.

There is evidence that he existed. The evidence proves his existence, unless you have evidence that contradicts this rational theory.

Plus, anybody who's taken a Basic Logic class knows that you can't prove a negative.
e.g.
Prove to me that there aren't aliens on the Earth right now.

[piratemonkey]

The thing about these sort of discussions is that there's no way for either side to argue them without appearing arrogant and ignorant to the other.

I couldn't care less if I "appear arrogant."Â*Â*That makes absolutely no difference in evaluation the logic of an argument.Â*Â*Basing your ideas on reality doesn't make one arrogant.Â*Â*It makes your position provable.

In addition, I have no intention of proving that someone's mythological, invisible god-thing is true or not.Â*Â*Believe whatever you want to. That's not my point.

If you think it is, you are missing the point.


Perhaps instead of trying to... whatever it is, win the argument or convert the other side over; we should put a little more energy into accepting that people who aren't like us really aren't like us and nobody is superior or inferior to anyone else for holding beliefs that are as unproven as our own?

This speaks to my point.

MY world-view is provable.Â*Â*It is based upon reality and facts.

A religious person's world-view is not provable.Â*Â*It is based upon mythologies and faith.

So my job isn't to shoot down the hundred million different faiths people have individually.Â*Â*It's to show that faith-based thinking can, and certainly has, lead to very bad consequences because it isn't grounded in reality.Â*Â*There's a huge difference between the two.

[Waffletush]

I am not asking to prove a negative per se. I am asking what proof there is that Hoffa exists. In the end, it all comes back to having to believe what other people claim to have seen, or read about, as true.

So what is it called when you have no evidence of your own, and all you have to go on is the word of another person?

Faith.

[Waffletush]

It's to show that faith-based thinking can, and certainly has, lead to very bad consequences because it isn't grounded in reality.

I find this highly interesting in that faith is used every day in our criminal justice system when someone gives their eye-witness testimony.

[piratemonkey]

I am not asking to prove a negative per se.Â*Â*I am asking what proof there is that Hoffa exists.Â*Â*In the end, it all comes back to having to believe what other people claim to have seen, or read about, as true.

So what is it called when you have no evidence of your own, and all you have to go on is the word of another person?

Faith.


You are completely wrong.

There is incontrovertable evidence.

I can show you a picture.
We could look at his birth certificate.
We can find his fingerprints in his old house and compare them to fingerprints from letters he wrote.
We can see the letters he wrote.
Talk to people that met him.
We can look at movies of him.
We can find evidence of his existance in official records.
Better yet, we can test his son's DNA, dig up his father's DNA and compare that to samples found in his old home or on a comb.

What proof do you have God exists?
(see the difference yet?)

[piratemonkey]

It's to show that faith-based thinking can, and certainly has, lead to very bad consequences because it isn't grounded in reality.

I find this highly interesting in that faith is used every day in our criminal justice system when someone gives their eye-witness testimony.


Again, not true.

We aren't using faith. We use objective, rational criteria to evaluate the veracity of the witness.

We ask questions like:
Is it possible that this person wasn't where he says he was?
Does this person have a reason to lie about what he saw?
Do other people, who don't know the witness, describe the event in the same way?
Is there physical evidence to back up the story?

That's not faith. That's rationally evaluating evidence.

[AlonzoMourning23]

That is unlikely to explain the entire effect. The sense of purpose and meaning that religion brings cannot be substituted, at least for most people, by atheism. Those same studies indicated the effects weren't just due to attendance, as purpose and meaning were also significant in those results. Atheism itself begins with a disadvantage. It does not provide community or meaning. It must be created.


Sorry, but I think the study is limiting itself to the factor of religion, when it should be looking into belief.Â*Â*People I have seen are more happier if they believe in something regardless if it is self, family, someone else, or religion.

It is that belief IMO which makes a person happy, not just religion.


That is true, but achieving that is more difficult outside of religion.

This is where we disagree:
The "benefits of faith" you claim aren't real. It's like saying that all the schools built during the Soviet era are because of Socialism.


I don't know enough about the education system in the soviet union, but if we look towards cuba then yes, many hospitals and schools were built due to communism. They may have come about eventually, but it's unknown. Yet they are the direct result of the ideology of cuba's communist party.

Same here, advances came about due to the direct result of religious ideology. May they have arisen without it? Perhaps. But the entire history of humanity would be different without religion, and it's pure speculation as to how it would differ.

Yes, atheist societies may have came up with the same results. I find it unlikely only due to that fact that while yes, religion can create problems, it also unifies groups well beyond tribal or feudal loyalties. Atheism does not. So I seriously question that, if humans were atheistic by nature, that groups would have ever unified to the point that they did, which was essential to spawning advances. You look at the islamic world or Christendom (being reformation) during the middle ages. Yes there were conflicts, yes there was fighting, but in the end the regions were relatively unified under the banner of faith. This led to a reduction in conflict between neighboring groups since religion had unified them. Without such unity the advancement of those societies is not possible at such technical levels.

Rome is another example of religion allowing unity. Romans incorporated new gods into their religion, and allowed freedom of worship, on the basis that they did not threaten the current order and made a yearly sacrifice to the emperor. Rome was a society of vastly different religious beliefs, and of many different racial and ethnic groups. There was even an emperor who was from Libya and likely black (emperor septimius). The religion, with it's flexible and open nature, set the tone for the rest of society. Religions were only persecuted when they were believed to be a threat to rome, not for contradicting the state religion.

You can't dismiss the advances religion led to on the basis that atheism was not given the chance. Real advances came out of religion, the performance of atheism in the same periods of history is entirely speculation.

Mythical sh1t is indeed false. They are by definition false, legends, fake sh1t people made up because they didn't understand reality. Reality was never their perception of it. It was always there.


Prove all religions are false. I don't care about your opinion, it's not evidence. What I care about is can you prove it. You claim they are false and fake, back it up.

Would the child be immoral? No.

So what you are teaching your child isn't morals, it's mythology. The morals just go along for the ride and can be taught in many other ways, without religion.


Maybe the way you were taught. But, in my upbringing, both in religious schools and at home, the morals of religious teachings were placed above adherence to the actual religious beliefs.

I remember one poster that was up for about 6 or 7 years. It said something along the lines of "if you were accused of being a christian, would they be able to convict you?" And below that was shown images of various forms of charity work. Viewing religion as merely a collection of stories is a very shallow understanding of it. And that's not the understanding that I grew up with. The central aspect of religion is what it does for people and the community.

Again, only because there hasn't been a viable alternative.

This is like saying we should continue racism because it's been part of human culture for all of history. Racism involves morality (racists actually think being racist is moral), tradition, behavioral expectations.... all of the things you list.

So, by the same argument, we should be teaching our children racism.


That's my point. They're both opinions on what is and isn't moral. Neither can be proven right or wrong. You can detest or uphold one or the other, but in the end they aren't facts.

A make-believe sense of fulfilment. Fulfillment at the expense of reality and other's beliefs. To feel "fulfilled" from religion, you have to think your beliefs are correct and others are not.

What you are essentially saying is that I, as an atheist, can't feel as fulfilled as a religous person.

That's not true.


No, what I am saying is that if you randomly pick out an atheist and then randomly pick out a religious individual, it is more likely that the religious individual is fulfilled. Even when you control for some of the reasons for being an atheist (ie. I'm mad at god, why would god make me suffer etc.) that indicate problems to begin with.

Finding your own path and your own fulfillment, one that is based on the present, will always be more difficult for the majority of people.

My point is kids CAN'T make up their minds about these topics because by the time they have the ability to, they are already indoctrinated and can't make objective choices about the subject.

Telling a kid for the first 16 years of her life that she's going to hell if she doesn't believe a certain thing is something that can't have a trivial effect on their decision-making.

It's a terrible thing to do to a child.


What you tell someone and what you believe can't always be the same.

Telling the child that is wrong. You can't always say what you believe in all circumstances. But, teaching the child a certain religion in a way that utilizes the benefits of that religion is perfectly fine.

Actually, they are factually "right."

I can make rational argument and even provide factual evidence to you that a society based upon those principals functions better and leads to more happy people than one that doesn't.

You can't show me that a society full of Christians (or whatever) is any better off than one without those beliefs.


Yes and no. I can take a very shallow approach to this and point to the poor history of atheistic nations in the 20th century. But there are many other factors going on. But, what you cannot do, is show that lack of religion produced a better society. Lack of a certain kind or degree of religion yes, but not simply lack of religion.

They lack ANY evidence. Otherwise faith wouldn't be required... you could prove them to be true.

Without ANY evidence, the myths one person makes up in their head are no more or less valid than any other myths. I could start a religion that promotes prostitution and that's just as valid, from a factual standpoint, as Christianity or Wicca.

Faith is faith. It's evidence is unverified.

But creating a religion out of scrap is almost demonstrably false, unlike most established belief systems.

[sbannon]

The thing about these sort of discussions is that there's no way for either side to argue them without appearing arrogant and ignorant to the other.

I couldn't care less if I "appear arrogant." That makes absolutely no difference in evaluation the logic of an argument. Basing your ideas on reality doesn't make one arrogant. It makes your position provable.

In addition, I have no intention of proving that someone's mythological, invisible god-thing is true or not. Believe whatever you want to. That's not my point.

If you think it is, you are missing the point.


Perhaps instead of trying to... whatever it is, win the argument or convert the other side over; we should put a little more energy into accepting that people who aren't like us really aren't like us and nobody is superior or inferior to anyone else for holding beliefs that are as unproven as our own?

This speaks to my point.

MY world-view is provable. It is based upon reality and facts.

A religious person's world-view is not provable. It is based upon mythologies and faith.

So my job isn't to shoot down the hundred million different faiths people have individually. It's to show that faith-based thinking can, and certainly has, lead to very bad consequences because it isn't grounded in reality. There's a huge difference between the two.


PM, you're so busy making your point that I think you failed to grasp mine. Your world view which you say is based on reality and provable makes the assumption that every person of faith is wrong, yet you can not prove that, therefor you can not prove that your world view is correct.

Your reality is only correct with the assumption that spiritual beliefs are all false. But if you can't prove they are all false, which you can't, then you also can't prove your beliefs are correct.

If you just want to show that faith-based thinking can lead to bad consequences, then be fair about it and also add that non-faith based thinking also can--and has--lead to bad consequences for people as well. There's simply no position of superiority on either side here.

[Elrathin]

That is true, but achieving that is more difficult outside of religion.


Why is it more difficult?

[Technocrat]

Prove all religions are false. I don't care about your opinion, it's not evidence. What I care about is can you prove it. You claim they are false and fake, back it up.

You are committing the Burden of Proof fallacy by shifting the burden of proof. You should know this. No one need prove something does not exist or is false. You need to prove it's true to be taken seriously. The burden of proof is always on the person who makes a claim fo existence or truth, not the skeptic. I don't have to disprove or prove false the notion that faeries live in teapots orbiting Europa.

Again, you are claiming they are true; you are claiming reality is merely your perception of it, not it itself. That's your job to prove, not mine zippy.

However, to humor you, I have proven Christianity false via logical contradiction and contradictory empirical evidence. It's quite litterally so implausible it's as good as impossible.

[sbannon]

Prove all religions are false. I don't care about your opinion, it's not evidence. What I care about is can you prove it. You claim they are false and fake, back it up.

You are committing the Burden of Proof fallacy by shifting the burden of proof. You should know this. No one need prove something does not exist or is false. You need to prove it's true to be taken seriously. The burden of proof is always on the person who makes a claim fo existence or truth, not the skeptic. I don't have to disprove or prove false the notion that faeries live in teapots orbiting Europa.

Again, you are claiming they are true; you are claiming reality is merely your perception of it, not it itself. That's your job to prove, not mine zippy.

However, to humor you, I have proven Christianity false via logical contradiction and contradictory empirical evidence. It's quite litterally so implausible it's as good as impossible.

First, your final paragraph means this: you proved nothing. Just by saying "it's as good as impossible" you're also saying it's not impossible and certainly hasn't been proven to be impossible.

As for the burden of proof, when one (piratemonkey in this case) makes a claim such as all religions are false--they assume the burden of proof to support their claim. If you can't back it up you shouldn't put it out there.

Otherwise, I could say that Pluto has Pink Ants running around on it and then place the burden at your feet to show I'm wrong. But that's ridiculous, I made the claim so I have to back it up, and if I can't it's just a theory of opinion, much like the notion that all religions or faiths are false.

alonzomourning23 wasn't shifting the burden, he was rightfully demanding support for a claim made.

[piratemonkey]

PM, you're so busy making your point that I think you failed to grasp mine. Your world view which you say is based on reality and provable makes the assumption that every person of faith is wrong,

This is completely wrong.

Saying my world view is provable in no way makes any claim that faith-based world views are "wrong."Â*Â*They are not provable.Â*Â*

I, like almost all scientists, subscribe to Occam's Razor.Â*Â*If something isn't provable, the default assumption is that it doesn't exist.Â*Â*That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that we should assume it doesn't until there's the slightest bit of evidence to suggest otherwise.

So I live my life assuming there is no God... but I also live my life assuming there's no invisible, giant hamster in my closet.Â*Â*Could either exist?Â*Â*Sure they could.Â*Â*It's just very, very unlikely, absent any evidence.



Your reality is only correct with the assumption that spiritual beliefs are all false. But if you can't prove they are all false, which you can't, then you also can't prove your beliefs are correct.

You can't prove a negative.Â*Â*And it's not my job to disprove the 100,000,000 individual faiths out there.

Prove to me that aliens aren't living somewhere on earth.


If you just want to show that faith-based thinking can lead to bad consequences, then be fair about it and also add that non-faith based thinking also can--and has--lead to bad consequences for people as well. There's simply no position of superiority on either side here.


Non faith-based thinking has checks and balances.Â*Â*They call those facts and evidence.Â*Â*Can rationists do bad things?Â*Â*Of course.Â*Â*But most of the time when they do, they aren't being rational.

[Waffletush]

I, like almost all scientists, subscribe to Occam's Razor.

Since you keep throwing this out there, I gotta ask.Â*Â*What type of sceintist are you?Â*Â*Do you have any dissertations we can read?Â*Â*For all we know, you could be a 'scientist' because you have a Bachelor of Science in General Studies.Â*Â*If you are going to use yourself as a source, you need to be able to back it up in the same way people need to provide links to prove their claims.

Back on topic, I do find your posts enlightening in that you claim people who have faith are irrational because YOU cannot prove otherwise.Â*Â*Which is more irrational?Â*Â*Telling people they are irrational becasue they have faith, or saying you are rational because you cannot prove otherwise?

In the end, if you could PROVE your stance, and people continued to believe otherwise, they would be acting irrational.Â*Â*But since you CANNOT prove your stance, how can you make any claim about someone's rationality?

[Waffletush]

You are completely wrong.

There is incontrovertable evidence.

I can show you a picture.Â*Â*
We could look at his birth certificate.Â*Â*
We can find his fingerprints in his old house and compare them to fingerprints from letters he wrote.Â*Â*
We can see the letters he wrote.Â*Â*
Talk to people that met him.
We can look at movies of him.
We can find evidence of his existance in official records.
Better yet, we can test his son's DNA, dig up his father's DNA and compare that to samples found in his old home or on a comb.

What proof do you have God exists?
(see the difference yet?)


Move someone into the witness protection program, and all you claim above is gone. And as I said, in the end, you have to take someone's word that all you claim above is true.

(I do like how you put 'dig up'. You do realize his body has not been found right?)

[piratemonkey]

It is that belief IMO which makes a person happy, not just religion.


That is true, but achieving that is more difficult outside of religion.

Do you have any evidence for this theory?Â*Â*I completely disagree.


Yes, atheist societies may have came up with the same results. I find it unlikely only due to that fact that while yes, religion can create problems, it also unifies groups well beyond tribal or feudal loyalties.

Are you serious?

Religions are the primary cause of tribal and feudal strife.Â*Â*They may unite groups, but, at the same time, they isolate those groups from other groups with different religions.


Atheism does not. So I seriously question that, if humans were atheistic by nature, that groups would have ever unified to the point that they did, which was essential to spawning advances. You look at the islamic world or Christendom (being reformation) during the middle ages.

Bullcrap.Â*Â*Where do you get the idea that non faith-based societies don't unite?Â*Â*That's absurd and not supportable by any real-world evidence.

Proof:Â*Â*Is Western Europe devolving into tribalism because the majority of people don't believe in the same religion now?
The only places where there's significant societal strife in Western Europe are places were religion is separating groups.

Your argument is exactly backwards.


Yes there were conflicts, yes there was fighting, but in the end the regions were relatively unified under the banner of faith.
As long as you are the same faith.

Otherwise you're dead and it doesn't matter if you are "united" or not.


This led to a reduction in conflict between neighboring groups since religion had unified them.
Unless neighboring groups are different religions.Â*Â*The exactly the opposite happened.



Rome is another example of religion allowing unity. Romans incorporated new gods into their religion, and allowed freedom of worship, on the basis that they did not threaten the current order and made a yearly sacrifice to the emperor. Rome was a society of vastly different religious beliefs, and of many different racial and ethnic groups. There was even an emperor who was from Libya and likely black (emperor septimius). The religion, with it's flexible and open nature, set the tone for the rest of society. Religions were only persecuted when they were believed to be a threat to rome, not for contradicting the state religion.

Again your example argues exactly against your point.

Rome wasn't unified by religion.Â*Â*It was unified by a rational set of laws and systems that took into account differing belief systems. There was no "Roman" religion or faith.


You can't dismiss the advances religion led to on the basis that atheism was not given the chance.
Yes, I can.


Real advances came out of religion, the performance of atheism in the same periods of history is entirely speculation.
Necessary speculation because we have no examples.

Men in power used fear and religion to maintain their power for the vast majority of human history.Â*Â*To say that this is what caused society to develop is specious.Â*Â*See my Soviet school example above.

Correllation does not imply causation.


Prove all religions are false. I don't care about your opinion, it's not evidence. What I care about is can you prove it. You claim they are false and fake, back it up.

This paragraph shows you aren't using basic logic and you are now putting up Strawmen.Â*Â*Not good for your position, either one.

Two problems with this paragraph.
1) I never said all religions are false.Â*Â*That's a Strawman.
2) You can't prove a negative.Â*Â*Just by asking me to, you show that your position likely isn't logical.


That's my point. They're both opinions on what is and isn't moral. Neither can be proven right or wrong. You can detest or uphold one or the other, but in the end they aren't facts.

Again, you ignore the fact that I can show you that societies with the morals you listed function better than societies without them.

That's provable.Â*Â*So you are wrong on this point.


What you are essentially saying is that I, as an atheist, can't feel as fulfilled as a religous person.

That's not true.


No, what I am saying is that if you randomly pick out an atheist and then randomly pick out a religious individual, it is more likely that the religious individual is fulfilled.[/quote]

Again, bullcrap.Â*Â*Why would you even think this is true?Â*Â*It's astounding you could type the above words.

You are saying religious life is better than athiestic life just because you think so.


Even when you control for some of the reasons for being an atheist (ie. I'm mad at god, why would god make me suffer etc.)

Wow... now we are really seeing you have a very distorted concept of what an atheist is.

Those reasons for "being and atheist" listed are not how atheists think.Â*Â*They assume the default of believing in a god and then deciding not to.Â*Â*The default isn't belief in a particular mythology.Â*Â*It's the opposite.


It's a terrible thing to do to a child.

But, teaching the child a certain religion in a way that utilizes the benefits of that religion is perfectly fine.

You are saying the ends justifies the means.

I disagree.

Faith is faith. It's evidence is unverified.

There is NO evidence to verify.


But creating a religion out of scrap is almost demonstrably false, unlike most established belief systems.


Again, you have used a logical error: argumentum ad antiquitatem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

To say that a brand new belief system is any more or less valid than an old one isn't rational.

[Waffletush]

Again, not true.

We aren't using faith.Â*Â*We use objective, rational criteria to evaluate the veracity of the witness.

We ask questions like:
Is it possible that this person wasn't where he says he was?
Does this person have a reason to lie about what he saw?
Do other people, who don't know the witness, describe the event in the same way?
Is there physical evidence to back up the story?

That's not faith.Â*Â*That's rationally evaluating evidence.


You keep ignoring the point that the jury has to BELIEVE what the person is saying is true.

[piratemonkey]

I, like almost all scientists, subscribe to Occam's Razor.

Since you keep throwing this out there, I gotta ask.Â*Â*What type of sceintist are you?Â*Â*Do you have any dissertations we can read?Â*Â*For all we know, you could be a 'scientist' because you have a Bachelor of Science in General Studies.Â*Â*If you are going to use yourself as a source, you need to be able to back it up in the same way people need to provide links to prove their claims.

My background doesn't matter when we are having a rational debate.Â*Â*On the other hand, I don't mind telling people what I do.Â*Â*I am an Asst. Professor of Diagnostic Sciences and teach at the graduate school level.Â*Â*I teach several classes, mostly involving diagnosis and physiology.


Back on topic, I do find your posts enlightening in that you claim people who have faith are irrational because YOU cannot prove otherwise.Â*Â*Which is more irrational?Â*Â*Telling people they are irrational becasue they have faith, or saying you are rational because you cannot prove otherwise?

The above argument doesn't make sense with respect to Basic Logic.

You can't prove a negative, nor would I try.Â*Â*It's impossible.

Do you know what Occam's Razor is?Â*Â*This paragraphs indicates that you don't.Â*Â*Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor


In the end, if you could PROVE your stance, and people continued to believe otherwise, they would be acting irrational.Â*Â*But since you CANNOT prove your stance, how can you make any claim about someone's rationality?

Here's what you are obviously not getting:
It's not my job to disprove all 100,000,000 faiths out there.Â*Â*My way of thinking about the world is provable.

Yours is not.

That doesn't mean I have to disprove yours for mine to be correct.Â*Â*Since I have evidence for my system and you do not, the burden is on you to either disprove my evidence, or prove yours correct.

Prove to me there are no aliens living on earth.
(It's not your burden to do this...Â*Â*the person making the claim that there ARE aliens has to show some evidence of this.)

[AlonzoMourning23]

Prove all religions are false. I don't care about your opinion, it's not evidence. What I care about is can you prove it. You claim they are false and fake, back it up.

You are committing the Burden of Proof fallacy by shifting the burden of proof. You should know this. No one need prove something does not exist or is false. You need to prove it's true to be taken seriously. The burden of proof is always on the person who makes a claim fo existence or truth, not the skeptic. I don't have to disprove or prove false the notion that faeries live in teapots orbiting Europa.

Again, you are claiming they are true; you are claiming reality is merely your perception of it, not it itself. That's your job to prove, not mine zippy.

However, to humor you, I have proven Christianity false via logical contradiction and contradictory empirical evidence. It's quite litterally so implausible it's as good as impossible.


No, see I'm not making an absolute claim. I'm not saying religion is definately true. But you and pirate are claiming that religion are making absolute claims as to it being false.

When something lacks scientific evidence that it not the same as it's wrong or it doesn't exist. That would require scientific evidence counter to it. Pirate should know that. It means there is no scientific evidence to support it.

For example, evolution has plenty of evidence for it, and that evidence runs counter to traditional creationism. Because there are mountains of evidence against traditional christian creationism we can say that it is false, with about as much certainty as we can have with these issues. But, when it comes to an issue like the divine, we don't have evidence against it. Using science you can't say it's definately false since the evidence does not support that argument. The evidence supports saying "we have no evidence of its existence", but not the claim you and others made, that religion is absolutely false. If you want to say that it is definately false then fine, but that is an opinion, not a claim based on evidence.

[Elrathin]

So if you're saying that PMs claim of all religions are false is not true, then what religion is true? That would prove him wrong.

[piratemonkey]

No, see I'm not making an absolute claim. I'm not saying religion is definately true. But you and pirate are claiming that religion are making absolute claims as to it being false.

You are completely and entirely wrong.

Show me anywhere where I said all religions are definitely false.

I did not.Â*Â*Nor would I.

Saying something isn't provable, doesn't mean it's false.Â*Â*Occams Razor requires us to function as if it were false in order to be rational, but that doesn't mean it is false.

Otherwise, we would have to assume all faiths are true.Â*Â*You use Occam's Razor when you say that you don't believe in Islam.Â*Â*You didn't make a rational decision to choose one faith over another.Â*Â*It's impossible to, without ANY evidence.

Picking one over the other without any evidence at all isn't a rational decision.


When something lacks scientific evidence that it not the same as it's wrong or it doesn't exist.
But it's the burden of the person making the positive statement of fact to produce evidence.

That's the point I think Technocrat was making.

[piratemonkey]

You keep ignoring the point that the jury has to BELIEVE what the person is saying is true.


You seem to be confused between the words "think" and "believe."
You believe in fairies.
You think someone is telling the truth.

Evaluating objective evidence is what rational thought is all about. This is what you are doing when you are deciding the veracity of testimony.

No belief is necessary when there is evidence.

Saying "I think that person is telling the truth based upon the evidence," is not the same as "I believe that person is telling the truth."

[AlonzoMourning23]

It is that belief IMO which makes a person happy, not just religion.


That is true, but achieving that is more difficult outside of religion.

Do you have any evidence for this theory?Â*Â*I completely disagree.

The studies of religion and happiness support that conclusion.

Are you serious?

Religions are the primary cause of tribal and feudal strife.Â*Â*They may unite groups, but, at the same time, they isolate those groups from other groups with different religions.

But, without religion, would those regions unify? Great societies have been built under a religion, and those societies were united by it. Without such beliefs, would the unity that the society required have occured?


Bullcrap.Â*Â*Where do you get the idea that non faith-based societies don't unite?Â*Â*That's absurd and not supportable by any real-world evidence.

Proof:Â*Â*Is Western Europe devolving into tribalism because the majority of people don't believe in the same religion now?
The only places where there's significant societal strife in Western Europe are places were religion is separating groups.

Your argument is exactly backwards.

But religious unity, to at least some degree, came first, before national unity. If religion was removed from their history entirely the results may be very different.




Again your example argues exactly against your point.

Rome wasn't unified by religion.Â*Â*It was unified by a rational set of laws and systems that took into account differing belief systems. There was no "Roman" religion or faith.

No, the incorporation of other religious views into the local religion allowed relatively religious harmony. The oppenness of the religion allowed the incorporation of many other views. And, the unity provided by offerings to the emperor provided a religious similarity among them.

The ability of the religion to incorporate various gods and the practice of sacrifice shared by all enabled unity.


Necessary speculation because we have no examples.

Men in power used fear and religion to maintain their power for the vast majority of human history.Â*Â*To say that this is what caused society to develop is specious.Â*Â*See my Soviet school example above.

Correllation does not imply causation.

Your entire argument is speculation. I can point out various items in history, you have to guess.


Prove all religions are false. I don't care about your opinion, it's not evidence. What I care about is can you prove it. You claim they are false and fake, back it up.

This paragraph shows you aren't using basic logic and you are now putting up Strawmen.Â*Â*Not good for your position, either one.

Two problems with this paragraph.
1) I never said all religions are false.Â*Â*That's a Strawman.
2) You can't prove a negative.Â*Â*Just by asking me to, you show that your position likely isn't logical.

That was not directed at you, it was directed . If you had even read the part I was responding to, which I quoted, you would see you weren't the target. It was a response to teknocrat.


That's my point. They're both opinions on what is and isn't moral. Neither can be proven right or wrong. You can detest or uphold one or the other, but in the end they aren't facts.

Again, you ignore the fact that I can show you that societies with the morals you listed function better than societies without them.

That's provable.Â*Â*So you are wrong on this point.

But there are still societies, such zimbabwe and south africa (to a lesser extent), that were actually more prosperous under racist rule. And, one of the most prosperous nations today is Japan, a very homogeneous society, in terms of ethnic background.


Again, bullcrap.Â*Â*Why would you even think this is true?Â*Â*It's astounding you could type the above words.

You are saying religious life is better than athiestic life just because you think so.

No, I am saying that studies conducted indicate those who engage in religious type community activities, have a sense of purpose, and are fulfilled are happiest. Those are ready in religion, and require much less personal insight.



Wow... now we are really seeing you have a very distorted concept of what an atheist is.

Those reasons for "being and atheist" listed are not how atheists think.Â*Â*They assume the default of believing in a god and then deciding not to.Â*Â*The default isn't belief in a particular mythology.Â*Â*It's the opposite.

That is how some atheists think. You are discussing a more sophisticated level of atheism. And, quite honestly, most atheists I have known gave a variation of the suffering argument that caused them to question the existence of a being that would allow such things, and it provided significant evidence to them that such a being did not exist. I tried to find a poll or study on atheists reasons but can't. Can you?

Faith is faith. It's evidence is unverified.

There is NO evidence to verify.

Again, you have used a logical error: argumentum ad antiquitatem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

To say that a brand new belief system is any more or less valid than an old one isn't rational.


No it is not. It's not a question of age, but the issue of someone giving indication of wanting to start a religion and then coming up with various religious beliefs, beliefs that came after the initial desire to start a religion. That's why I say almost, since you can't absolutely prove that to be the case, but there is evidence in such a scenario that the founder does not actually believe in it.

[sbannon]

PM, you're so busy making your point that I think you failed to grasp mine. Your world view which you say is based on reality and provable makes the assumption that every person of faith is wrong,

This is completely wrong.

Saying my world view is provable in no way makes any claim that faith-based world views are "wrong." They are not provable.

I, like almost all scientists, subscribe to Occam's Razor. If something isn't provable, the default assumption is that it doesn't exist. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that we should assume it doesn't until there's the slightest bit of evidence to suggest otherwise.

So I live my life assuming there is no God... but I also live my life assuming there's no invisible, giant hamster in my closet. Could either exist? Sure they could. It's just very, very unlikely, absent any evidence.
It always amazes me how many bright people, usually academics, fall back and rely on assumptions as proof for their beliefs rather than acknowledging that at the end of the day there is no absolute evidence to connect A to Z in their belief so the possibility exists that they could be wrong.

Occam's Razor is fine for theory, but it's not and shouldn't be definitive proof of anything because it begins on an assumption, and no matter how likely it is an assumption is by definition a lack of proof.


Your reality is only correct with the assumption that spiritual beliefs are all false. But if you can't prove they are all false, which you can't, then you also can't prove your beliefs are correct.

You can't prove a negative. And it's not my job to disprove the 100,000,000 individual faiths out there.

Prove to me that aliens aren't living somewhere on earth.
But your own world view is a negative in the sense that you can't prove various aspects of it, and you're the one who's said the beliefs of the faithful are false.

If you want to make the claim then you must provide proof of it. I didn't make the claim so I have no burden to support it, you did.


If you just want to show that faith-based thinking can lead to bad consequences, then be fair about it and also add that non-faith based thinking also can--and has--lead to bad consequences for people as well. There's simply no position of superiority on either side here.


Non faith-based thinking has checks and balances. They call those facts and evidence. Can rationists do bad things? Of course. But most of the time when they do, they aren't being rational.


"They call those facts and evidence."--with a bit of assumptions thrown in when they lack facts or evidence.

Look, I have no beef with science at all. I oppose the teaching of ID in schools and though I believe in a God and talk to Him almost daily I never attend formal services because I see a difference between religion and faith. Faith elevates the individual, organized religion divides people--in my opinion.

Still, lacking any evidence to prove otherwise it's elitist and closed-minded for someone who doesn't believe in anything beyond science to take such a hard stance that it doesn't exist. That's just your belief and no more a proven fact than mine or anyone else's. This is why it amazes me that such smart people are the one who most often display such ignorance of thought.

[piratemonkey]

The studies of religion and happiness support that conclusion.

I have literally read much of the primary research on this topic.

Have you?

The studies don't in any way support what you are saying.Â*Â*If they do, show us quotes and evidence.Â*Â*You won't, because I know the studies don't show what you think they show.


But, without religion, would those regions unify? Great societies have been built under a religion, and those societies were united by it. Without such beliefs, would the unity that the society required have occured?
Most societies united my authoritarian governments, some of which used religion as a tool to achieve this unity.

Show us religion was the cause of this unification.


But religious unity, to at least some degree, came first, before national unity. If religion was removed from their history entirely the results may be very different.
Maybe, maybe not.

"Maybe" isn't a very convincing arguement that something is necessary.


The ability of the religion to incorporate various gods and the practice of sacrifice shared by all enabled unity.

What's funny is that that above sentence shows the arbitrary nature of faith-based beliefs.

That's the whole point of this thread.



Your entire argument is speculation. I can point out various items in history, you have to guess.

Analogy to your argument:
The sky couldn't be any other color than blue.
Why?Â*Â*Because it's blue.
You're speculating if you are saying it could have been another color.

[quote=alonzomourning23]
That was not directed at you, it was directed . If you had even read the part I was responding to, which I quoted, you would see you weren't the target. It was a response to teknocrat.
I didn't see Teknocrat making the claim that all religions are false either.


But there are still societies, such zimbabwe and south africa (to a lesser extent), that were actually more prosperous under racist rule. And, one of the most prosperous nations today is Japan, a very homogeneous society, in terms of ethnic background.
An exception doesn't mean the rule isn't mostly true.

If you are actually arguing that racists societies are more propserous, then make that claim and support it.

I don't think that's what you are saying though...


No, I am saying that studies conducted indicate those who engage in religious type community activities, have a sense of purpose, and are fulfilled are happiest. Those are ready in religion, and require much less personal insight.

And those studies weren't controlled properly.

They compared people who participate in religious activies to those that participate in NO activities... rather than comparing them to people who participate in non-religious community-building activities.

Your studies don't show what you think they show.

That is how some atheists think.
Not a single atheist I know thinks that way.Â*Â*This is what happens when people look at atheism through a theistic lens.





No it is not. It's not a question of age, but the issue of someone giving indication of wanting to start a religion and then coming up with various religious beliefs, beliefs that came after the initial desire to start a religion. That's why I say almost, since you can't absolutely prove that to be the case, but there is evidence in such a scenario that the founder does not actually believe in it.

Huh?
You just changed what you originally said:
But creating a religion out of scrap is almost demonstrably false, unlike most established belief systems.
You said nothing about whether the "founder" believed in the tenets or not.Â*Â*The beliefs or "intial desire" of the "founder" are irrelevent to your above statement.

The premise of someone deciding to start a religion and then coming up with the belief system is a specious one because, as far as I know, it's never happened.

[piratemonkey]

It always amazes me how many bright people, usually academics, fall back and rely on assumptions as proof for their beliefs rather than acknowledging that at the end of the day there is no absolute evidence to connect A to Z in their belief so the possibility exists that they could be wrong.

Huh?Â*Â*The above paragraph makes no sense.

I have A to Z.Â*Â*My world view is provable.Â*Â*

Yours is not.Â*Â*You don't have A to Z to prove your world view.

Explain how my worldview doesn't "connect the dots" and yours does.


Occam's Razor is fine for theory, but it's not and shouldn't be definitive proof of anything because it begins on an assumption, and no matter how likely it is an assumption is by definition a lack of proof.

You are making statements that fly in the face of logical thought.

Occam's Razor isn't a proof.Â*Â*It isn't even a testable theory, so your above statement is

It's a logical tool that is necessary for rational thought.Â*Â*How do we know?Â*Â*Use the opposite and see if we could function rationally.Â*Â*Can you believe in all religions at the same time?Â*Â*Could they all be true?Â*Â*In addition, you are forced to also believe in all possible beliefs, including the Easter Bunny and the invisible giant hamster in my closet.

With no evidence at all, all beliefs are equally valid, from a logical perspective.




But your own world view is a negative in the sense that you can't prove various aspects of it, and you're the one who's said the beliefs of the faithful are false.

Huh?Â*Â*What can't science eventually prove?Â*Â*

You aren't seriously saying that because we don't know everything, that we should believe in mythological explanations, are you?

Every single previous "unknown" that we have discovered the "known" for has had a rational, naturalistic, scientific cause.Â*Â*It's rational and logical to think this trend will continue.

Let me say that again:Â*Â*There are NO exceptions to the naturalistic view of the world

None.

Ever.


"They call those facts and evidence."--with a bit of assumptions thrown in when they lack facts or evidence.

You don't seem to understand the difference between logical predictions, based upon evidence, and Mythological guesses based upon no evidence.

If you think those are equivalent from a rational standpoint, I don't think we have much to talk about.


Faith elevates the individual,
How?

Why do you think this?


Still, lacking any evidence to prove otherwise

This is completely illogical.

Again, you asking me to prove a negative... that exactly what the above sentence requires and it's exactly impossible.

Statement: Aliens live somewhere on Earth.
What?Â*Â*You "lack any evidence to prove otherwise?"
Then they must exist. :rolleyes:


it's elitist and closed-minded for someone who doesn't believe in anything beyond science to take such a hard stance that it doesn't exist.

Again, I never said that "it doesn't exist."Â*Â*I live my life that way, because to do otherwise is irrational.


That's just your belief and no more a proven fact than mine or anyone else's.

This shows you aren't understanding the difference between thought and belief.

I don't "believe" in anything that isn't rational or logical.


This is why it amazes me that such smart people are the one who most often display such ignorance of thought.


*laugh*
Since you don't seem to have a problem making personal attacks:
What you have written shows profound ignorance of logic.Â*Â*

Advice:Â*Â*If you don't understand logical rules of argument, learn humility.Â*Â*Something like 90% of the scientist in the National Academy of Sciences are atheists.Â*Â*Do you really think that they all show "ignorance of thought?"Â*Â*Isn't that bit unlikely?Â*Â*I'm only appealing to authority because you don't seem to understand the argument.

[piratemonkey]

Statement: Aliens live somewhere on Earth.
What?Â*Â*You "lack any evidence to prove otherwise?"
Then they must exist. :rolleyes:


Let's take this analogy a step further.

Do you live your life as if aliens live on the Earth?
No?
Then you are using Occam's Razor in the exact same way about aliens on Earth as I am using it for religion.

[sbannon]

piratemonkey, that was not a personal attack, it was a general observation of behavior. I'm sorry that you took it otherwise. As I said from the start, neither side can absolutely support their positions in this type of debate with concrete proof and it always leads to both sides appearing arrogant and ignorant to the other.

I'm a person of faith, but I also respect what science can and does account for--and respect the opinions of those like yourself even in disagreement. It's what science doesn't account for--the lacks of conclusive evidence--that also allows me to respect and embrace mine and other's faith-based beliefs. Sadly, in post after post and despite the fact that science can't conclusively account for everything you don't seem willing to acknowledge the opening that leaves for the possibility there might be something else.

It's almost doing exactly as the Greeks and Romans did in creating their Gods in reverse. There were natural phenomenon that they couldn't explain so they created numerous Gods to answer their questions. Here, there are large questions which science still can't answer with any evidence but you're using the assumption that it someday may to dismiss all other possibilities.

What you seem to fail to grasp here is that some of your beliefs, regardless of how rational or logical they may be, they simply aren't proven facts and therefor no more conclusive or superior than another's beliefs.

As for your advice, it only displays the behavior I've been saying would occur all along. I respect atheist's positions, but expect them to respect mine as well.

[sbannon]

Statement: Aliens live somewhere on Earth.
What? You "lack any evidence to prove otherwise?"
Then they must exist. :rolleyes:


Let's take this analogy a step further.

Do you live your life as if aliens live on the Earth?
No?
Then you are using Occam's Razor in the exact same way about aliens on Earth as I am using it for religion.


piratemonkey, the difference here is that while I don't think there are aliens living here on Earth, I also acknowledge that I can't say that's true with 100% certainty and I don't automatically assume a position of superiority or intellectual high-ground over someone who does. I simply concede that while no evidence exists to indicate there are aliens on Earth I still might be wrong about it.

[piratemonkey]

piratemonkey, the difference here is that while I don't think there are aliens living here on Earth,
Some people do.

From an outsider's standpoint, it's no different than religous beliefs.Â*Â*No proof.


I also acknowledge that I can't say that's true with 100% certainty
And I can't say with 100% certainty that a god doesn't exist.

It's just that there's not a shred of evidence to suggest that it's true.


and I don't automatically assume a position of superiority or intellectual high-ground over someone who does.
You think you are "right" just as much as I do, so please stop with the superiority comments.


I simply concede that while no evidence exists to indicate there are aliens on Earth I still might be wrong about it.


And I might be wrong about religion.

But the rational standpoint is to assume the negative, absent the smallest piece of evidence.

If there is no evidence that the aliens in question are blue or grey, why would one assume they are grey?Â*Â*From my perspective that's equivalent to choosing between Islam and Christianity.Â*Â*No evidence for either, why would I choose one over the other?Â*Â*Why would anyone?

[piratemonkey]

As I said from the start, neither side can absolutely support their positions in this type of debate with concrete proof and it always leads to both sides appearing arrogant and ignorant to the other.

You are wrong on this point and you keep saying it.

My worldview is provable.Â*Â*I have evidence.

Yours isn't.

It's not my job to disprove your worldview, when you have no evidence to back it up.Â*Â*It's your job to either prove your view, or disprove mine.Â*Â*You aren't even attempting to do either.


It's what science doesn't account for--the lacks of conclusive evidence--that also allows me to respect and embrace mine and other's faith-based beliefs.

So science can't explain right now exactly how gravity works.

Is the viewpoint that "Gravity Gods" pull objects to earth more or less valid than the viewpoint that science will someday figure out the naturalistic explanation.

You are actually arguing that both of those are equally valid.Â*Â*I disagree, since every single historic unknown that is now "known" has had a naturalistic explaination.

Every single one.


Sadly, in post after post and despite the fact that science can't conclusively account for everything you don't seem willing to acknowledge the opening that leaves for the possibility there might be something else.

Science can't account for everything now.

That doesn't mean science won't figure it all out.

EVERY SINGLE unknown for the history of humanity that has been figured out has had a naturalistic explanation.

Is it reasonable to think that the next discovery will be supernatural in origin?


What you seem to fail to grasp here is that some of your beliefs, regardless of how rational or logical they may be, they simply aren't proven facts and therefor no more conclusive or superior than another's beliefs.

Again, you are wrong.

I don't "believe" in anything that can't be proven with real evidence.

So, I don't have "beliefs"... I have knowledge, thoughts, and opinions.

As for your advice, it only displays the behavior I've been saying would occur all along. I respect atheist's positions, but expect them to respect mine as well.


If by respect, you think I shouldn't question your beliefs, you are arguing for dogma and not rational thought.

[Technocrat]

Science works off of disproving or falsification. It takes claims or hypothesis and tests their predictions. You can, through science, directly test the claims of many religions.

If those results test negative in predicative validity, then they are falsified. There are many things advocating as "true" in religions which are demonstrably false or logically and physically impossible. Therefore, those aspects are falsified. If such aspects are the core predictions or ideas or concepts of the religion, the end result is as good as falsifying the whole religion.

Science cannot 100% disprove the concept of God existing. However, it also cannot 100% beyond any doubt, disprove or prove anything. It goes by reasonable levels of certainty due to the evidence. Much of what is in the bible is impossible. God, as is described in Islamic and CHristian tests are falsifiable, even if "any" God isn't.

The problem for the theist, though, even if we assume we cannot fully disprove every concept of God, is that the concept of God itself would therefore be meaningless. In other words, if you have something that's neither provable or disprovable, because it's impossible to test and predicts every result, the idea is worthless. The theist can merely go "god did it" with no mechanism. That's not an explaination. "Anything is possible" isn't a hypothesis. It doesn't predict anything. It predicts everything simultaneously. There's nothing you could ever do to disprove it. It's like Freundian Psychoanalysis, which has many unfalsifiable elements to it.

As an Atheist, I simply don't believe in Gods. I don't find any evidence for them, and it's actively possible to disprove many of the types of Gods people have advocated in divine literature. I simply do what you already do; I just take it 1 step further. That is, you are atheist when it comes to Zog, Thor, and Hera. I simply go one God further.

[sbannon]

piratemonkey, the difference here is that while I don't think there are aliens living here on Earth,
Some people do.

From an outsider's standpoint, it's no different than religous beliefs. No proof.

Right, no proof either way to draw an absolute conclusion with, so the rest of what I said there stands. I don't feel right or correct over those who believe aliens do live among us on Earth. I don't believe it, but I accept not knowing definitively and respect their beliefs.


I also acknowledge that I can't say that's true with 100% certainty
And I can't say with 100% certainty that a god doesn't exist.

It's just that there's not a shred of evidence to suggest that it's true.

Do you believe there's life on other planets in the universe? Do you believe in dark matter? How about the Big Bang? Evolution?

Each of these are statistically probable and widely accepted, yet have no physical evidence to support them beyond any doubt.

I myself believe each to be a likely truth as well, but I also accept that there's the possibility one or more could be wrong so I won't dismiss alternative ideas or theories simply because I'd find them implausible or uncomfortable to my own thoughts.


and I don't automatically assume a position of superiority or intellectual high-ground over someone who does.
You think you are "right" just as much as I do, so please stop with the superiority comments.You're wrong there. I 'believe' my faith is correct and important to me. I also acknowledge and accept that it may not be. There is, in my opinion, no right or wrong that can exist in this debate at this time. That may change someday, as science advances, in either direction.

What I don't do is view the probability that it'll change in one direction over the other as a certainty. I've seen over and over just in my lifetime with science, that each advance usually comes coupled with new information or findings that dispel previously widely accepted ideas or theories.


I simply concede that while no evidence exists to indicate there are aliens on Earth I still might be wrong about it.


And I might be wrong about religion.

But the rational standpoint is to assume the negative, absent the smallest piece of evidence.

If there is no evidence that the aliens in question are blue or grey, why would one assume they are grey? From my perspective that's equivalent to choosing between Islam and Christianity. No evidence for either, why would I choose one over the other? Why would anyone?



And respectfully, that's where I'll leave this discussion stand for now. You assume the negative with faith, and assume science may one day answer all questions. That's an awful lot of assumptions to me.

I on the other hand, concede that your assumptions may all be correct, but until so I'll maintain my faith which has served me well in life so far.

[Elrathin]

Right, no proof either way to draw an absolute conclusion with, so the rest of what I said there stands. I don't feel right or correct over those who believe aliens do live among us on Earth. I don't believe it, but I accept not knowing definitively and respect their beliefs.


The problem really isn't "prove what you believe" until it comes down to people trying to force their morals of their religion or belief on everyone else.

If PM said that there is no god and as such, there should be no churches allowed in the U.S., then the burden of proof is on him to prove that there is no god and that is something that cannot be done.

Likewise, when opponents of say gay marriage say it should be illegal because their god tells them it is wrong, the burden of proof is on them to prove their god is the true god and that is something they cannot prove.

That is the real issue. I take offense to anyone, atheist, Christian, Muslim, whatever that tries to make laws based SOLELY on their religion and force everyone else to live by them. Soo far I rarely see atheists doing this, but I see Christians and Muslims doing it more.

[Technocrat]

Do you believe there's life on other planets in the universe? Do you believe in dark matter? How about the Big Bang? Evolution?

Each of these are statistically probable and widely accepted, yet have no physical evidence to support them beyond any doubt.

I myself believe each to be a likely truth as well, but I also accept that there's the possibility one or more could be wrong so I won't dismiss alternative ideas or theories simply because I'd find them implausible or uncomfortable to my own thoughts.

The problem with this is it's not the case that both are equally likely or unlikely. The "alternative ideas" are not as equally likely as the ones taught, so it's silly to give them equal time, consideration, and respect.

You cannot compare evolution, the big bang, to religion, since those have actual hard evidence for them. No religion does. They are not both equally likely. Your position, to be valid, must assume they are.

Your defense justifies believe in anything, since there's not 100% absolute proof, but such a requirement is absurd and unreasonable anyway. You don't need that for truth.

[underdawg]

I think it is totally cool for people to believe in a God. In this country the problem arises when people of faith try to impose their religious morality upon everyone else. Religious belief is protected under the constitution and so should the lack of religious belief. I believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality and I expect the constitution to protect my rights and my beliefs just as must as it does Christians.