Beyond Belief Science talking about religion

[Cyrus]

On the other hand, when the scientific community makes claims such as 'God does not exist', or blanket statements like 'religion is wrong', I can't help but dismiss their arguments.

Why? Do you believe in Thor as well, or are you an Athorist? How about Zeus? They are not blanket statements, its just you have not read any of their books which goes into more depth.

To attack religion in its entirity is to replace one dogmatic belief with a worse dogmatic belief, veiled in the guise of reason.

Thats not a dogmatic belief.

Personally, I think science should not concern itself at all with denouncing religion; only with promoting reason.

Why not? It sure can, should, and does. Personally, I would love to see more of it. That way when people mention God, creative intellegence, or stem cell reserach, people will just laugh at them like there nuts. (The same way we laught at people who still blindly believe evlis is still alive).

What concerns me most is the devaluing of the personal experience, mentioned briefly in the Q&A section of the lecture.

Again, this has to do mainly with the brain making false interpretations from signals it gets. For more on this, you should read Dawkins book, or watch Ramachandrans lecture.

While I can envision a peaceful world without religion, I can't envision one that reduces all things to the physical without some method of reverence for the value of the human condition.

Thats exactly what they are NOT trying to do, and they all clearly said so themselves.

I think you misunderstood many of the points made in the lectures.

 

[Moridin]

While I can envision a peaceful world without religion, I can't envision one that reduces all things to the physical without some method of reverence for the value of the human condition.

To be honest, that is an irrational fear of reductionism. Science are exploring morality, consciousness and meaning as we speak, so that gap is being filled with scientific knowledge. The supernatural is running out of places to hid.

 

[Cyrus]

I suggest watching this video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8680343761655636470&q=beyond+belief&total=1445&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

 

[Moridin]

Here are some videos with Ayaan Hirsi Ali with her experience with Islam:





Cultural relativism is an intellectual poverty.

 

[ShawnD]

Seriously, pay attention.

First you said this:

Well, no. It was about getting rid of the irrationality of religion in society (science, medicine, politics) which leads to harmful end products.

I replied with:

They're still basing this on the assumption that humans won't just find another way to separate themselves. First we hate each other because we're a different color. Then it's because they're a different religion. Then it's because people in this area talk funny. Then it's because they want to be called Unified Atheist League instead of United Atheist Alliance. Stopping religion won't stop people from being idiots.

Then you come back with:

You are the first person here that basically argued against yourself in your own post, as I said nothing you argued against

So what exactly are you saying? You said religion is irrational and has harmful effect, to which I say religion is the result of irrationality. Your reponse, of course, is LOL I DIDNT SAY THAT LOL. Good luck trying to backpedal out of this one.

What kind of nonsense is this? I don't see any more point to this than your first tangent.

It's nice to see the Chewbacca Defense is still alive and kicking. Even when I directedly stated "Does Obama read the bible to see how cigarettes and alcohol should be taxed?" you still jump up and scream that this is all confusing and makes no sense. Sure it's confusing. There's no possible way a politician could make decisions without consulting with religion, or make policies that are not religious in nature, such as taxing alcohol and cigarettes even though the bible makes no mention of them being bad
Culture is not religion. How many times do I need to say that.

Again, neither I, nor the people in the talks [blamed Islam for Arab cultural issues]

Actually they did, repeatedly. You even said yourself:

What harris, dawkins, and hitchens are saying is that it is the moderates that give support for [terrorists/bombers] when they do not publicly denonce them. Also, Atran must have forgotten about the Danish cartoons and the uproar it caused across the board in muslim countries.

You directly stated that Islam is tolerant of violence, rather than Arab culture being tolerant of violence, and that it was across the board is Muslim countries as opposed to saying Arab countries. You then tried to backpedal by saying

Again, false argument. I never said this. I said influenced

Oh so Islam influences people, but only people in Arab countries. Those Muslims I work with just don't apply, right? Do you sometimes draw the trend line first then see which data points fit the trend line?

Your opinions about Islam and religion in general are both ignorant and offensive. You'll jump on the bandwagon and say religion causes irrationality and attrocities, but look the other way when an atheist like Stalin kills 20 million people. He may have killed millions, but at least he wasn't driven by irrationality of religion, right guyz?

 

[Cyrus]

If you are going to snip what I respond to you, then have the honesty to put what you said inbetween. You said this:

This entire conference was about scientists getting up there and saying "oh well Muslims are suicide bombers so Islam promotes suicide bombers".

And I said this:

Well, no. It was about getting rid of the irrationality of religion in society (science, medicine, politics) which leads to harmful end products.

You are being dishonest and playing with what I said. Please dismiss yourself from my thread if you are going to act like this.

jump on the bandwagon and say religion causes irrationality and attrocities, but look the other way when an atheist like Stalin kills 20 million people. He may have killed millions, but at least he wasn't driven by irrationality of religion, right guyz?

Again, you nothing about what your talking about. The fact that Stalin was athiest has nothing to do with why he killed millions of people. By definition, atheist means no belief in god. Nothing more nothing less. It makes no statements on mass murder. You should go read a book on Stalin. He was also revered as a God by the orthodox church and people had to praise him.

Again, pay attention or leave. In the mean time, some of us will have a serious discussion.

 

[Moridin]

ShawnD, reply to my reply to your post. Thanks.

 

[Huckleberry]

Thats exactly what they are NOT trying to do, and they all clearly said so themselves.

I think you misunderstood many of the points made in the lectures.

I know what they said. The guy who said it also stated that science does not concern itself with such things. So even if they succeed they only replace one unfalsifiable philosophy for another. It won't magically turn ignorant people into intelligent ones, or bad people into good people. It's a pointless crusade.

To be honest, that is an irrational fear of reductionism. Science are exploring morality, consciousness and meaning as we speak, so that gap is being filled with scientific knowledge. The supernatural is running out of places to hid.

To be honest, this is an irrational fear of objectivism. I prefer a more balanced approach, reductionist towards the reducible and objective to the irreducible. The thing is, there are so many people on this site that are vastly more knowledgeable than I am that any scientific contribution I could have here is rather small. But there is a definite lack of objectivity here, and in that aspect I try to be helpful. Valuing the human condition is not an irrational fear.

Ok, take your shots. I'll probably view some more of the links here, but I doubt I'll be posting again in this thread.

 

[Cyrus]

I know what they said. The guy who said it also stated that science does not concern itself with such things. So even if they succeed they only replace one unfalsifiable philosophy for another. It won't magically turn ignorant people into intelligent ones, or bad people into good people. It's a pointless crusade.

The point is religion and God can be replaced by science and philosophy. Two systems based on logic and reason. Nothing is mystical or magical about science or philosophy, and together the two deal with the natural world and human nature and the condition of our existence without the nasty side effects or religion. And, both open up your mind to new and fascinating ideas; whereas, religion is closed and dogmatic.

 

[Moridin]

I know what they said. The guy who said it also stated that science does not concern itself with such things. So even if they succeed they only replace one unfalsifiable philosophy for another. It won't magically turn ignorant people into intelligent ones, or bad people into good people. It's a pointless crusade.

As I have already explained, it is neither unfalsifiable or philosophy. It is science.

To be honest, this is an irrational fear of objectivism.

As in the philosophy cult created by Ayn Rand? You do know that she affirmed tabula rasa and did not accept evolution, both positions which have crumbled in the face of reductionist science?

I prefer a more balanced approach, reductionist towards the reducible and objective to the irreducible.

Assuming such a thing exists.

Valuing the human condition is not an irrational fear.

Agreed, but reductionism is not some kind of threat. Fearing scientific inquiry into those areas are.

"Ignorance most frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science" - Charles Darwin, (The Descent of Man)

Ok, take your shots. I'll probably view some more of the links here, but I doubt I'll be posting again in this thread.

I understand that this can be hard for you on an ideological level.

 

[Huckleberry]

Hmm, to rebut slander or let it stand uncorrected. Tough choice. Probably a mistake to allow myself to be goaded...

I don't concern myself with adopting other people's philosophies. I don't know the details of Ayn Rand, tabula rasa or her version of objectivism. Perhaps I should have said objectivity.

I do not consider reductionism a threat. I consider it an appropriate tool for the appropriate application. I do not consider it the only proper method of thought for any possible situation. What I do consider a threat is the incapability to be objective.

If science claims that God does not exist, then any philosophy created with that axiom is unfalsifiable.

Balanced approaches to philosophy do exist. They happen when one creates their own philosophy to suit the needs for their own environment. They don't come from wikipedia.

Darwin was a smart man, though I'm not sure why you chose this quote. I've already stated that I think science may have a thorough explanation for the human condition. At least try to properly interpret my meaning, rather than pigeon-holing me under some wiki-philosophical category. I assure you, I don't fit entirely into any of them. I know that may be hard for you. Pigeon-holing is a common symptom of reductionism.

 

[Cyrus]

If science claims that God does not exist, then any philosophy created with that axiom is unfalsifiable.

To be clear, the claim science makes is that the probabilty of Gods existence is not 50/50, but is stacked very much against his existence. Also, the concept of a personal God that answers prayers is certainly not true, and is different from an einsteinian concept of God. These are two different concepts of God that need to be distinguished.

 

[ShawnD]

False. France is very atheistic / secular. About 50% of the US population are biblical creationist fundamentalists. Your ignorance is showing.

According to the https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html, France is 83-88% Roman Catholic, 2% Protestant, 1% Jewish, 5-10% Muslim, 4% unaffiliated. That's very high.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html is 52% Protestant, 24% Roman Catholic, 2% Mormon, 1% Jewish, 1% Muslim, 10% Other, 10% atheist.
So while USA is ~78% Christians, France is up over the 80% mark.

When the religious scriptures themselves promote certain actions and beliefs, then it has everything to do with religion. Cultural apologetics can not save you.

True, but people have enough common sense to pick and choose the ones they want. The bible says you're not allowed to lend money at interest, but that's how our entire western economy works. Religious people in the west don't follow that rule. Religious people in the middle east do follow that rule, and their economy is totally screwed. Would I blame the scripture for that, or would I specifically say that people in the middle east are idiots because they follow that rule?

Bush is performing new crusades in the middle east and claims that god has told him to do it. The same goes for Blair. QED

You're right. I was wrong on this one.

It is certainly motivated by secular values. We could say that they discovered it because religious dogmatism got removed.

Possibly, but isn't France a very socialist place even though it's mostly christian? Refer to the CIA link at the top. Not only that, but aren't most libertarians atheists, just like the socialists in Sweden? It seems like religion and socialism are independent of one another. You can be a socialist christian, a socialist atheist, capitalist christian, or capitalist atheist.

1500+ years of fundamentalist religion ensures that everything that is "wrong" with "arab culture" (if such even exists; you seem to arbitrarily assume this) comes from Islam. This is easy to understand if you learn the history and read the Qur'an and the hadiths.

That's certainly true in the middle east, where extremism is the norm. My point is that Muslims living in the US or Canada or France or wherever are often normal people with normal world views. To assume that all Muslims act like Osama Bin Laden is like assuming all Christians act like Pat Robertson. Similarly, most atheists are just normal people with normal lives. You only hear about the crazy Christians who speak directly to god, crazy Muslims who want infidels out of the holy land, and crazy atheists who say "for the love of good." Their insanity does not represent the entire group. I can't say with a straight face that 80% of Americans and French are hopelessly retarded just because they have some religious views that Pat Robertson agrees with.

There is almost a universal correlation. The most democratic states in the world are secular / atheistic, such as Sweden, Norway, Canada and so on and they have the highest living standards. Countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and so on are the most Islamic states, and consequently, have the lowest standards of living.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html is also a very religious country. It's religious to the point where Catholic schools are publicly funded. I attended Catholic schools from k-12. For each "public" school, there is a Catholic school within a few blocks; they're usually on opposite sides of the street and facing each other.

Islam creates suicide terrorists because their religious scriptures support and glorifies it. I'm afraid that your personal ideology of cultural relativism gets in the way of facts.

The Christian scripture also promotes martyrdom, but you don't see a lot of Christians doing that these days. Whenever you walk into a church and see stained glass pictures of religious people, remember that most or all of those people are martyrs. christian martyrs (wiki article)

What exactly is this so called "Arab" culture? What is Scandinavian culture? What relevance do they have?

They have everything to do with this. If religious people in country X have completely different values than people of the same religion in country Y, you have to assume the difference is due to regional cultural differences. If their values were based entirely on religion, people of the same religion would universally agree with each other on everything. Looking at how there have been many religious schisms in history, it's unlikely that religion causes universal agreement on certain issues.

Ask yourself this: Where are the Buddhist suicide bombers?. They have been tortured and invaded by the Chinese, so according to your logic, they should be blowing themselves up by now. I'll tell you the answer: Buddhism does not glorify martyrdom the way Islam does. This is a fundamental disproof of your entire argument.

I could ask you that same question about Christians. If Christian texts glorify martyrdom, then why don't we have more Christian martyrs?

Enforcing science and reason will. Both racism and nationalism are substitute for Messianism and basically dogmatic religions in their own right.

This creates a paradox in which enforcing science is the new dogma and new church. Holier than thou *******s will always be that way. It used to be that other people were not as holy as you, then it was that other people are not as well mannered as you, and eventually it will be that people are not as scientific as you, or that their rational abilities are not as rational as yours. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

There is a growing consensus within the scientific community that the existence of the supernatural can be scientifically disproven. In fact, 93% of the members of the national academies of science and royal society are atheists.

And again there's nothing wrong with being an atheist. You can believe whatever you want, but it seems ridiculous to think that your belief is the solution to everything. That's what every fundie believes, and so far they've been wrong every time.

 

[Moridin]

Huckleberry, no one has made any slander. This is a rational discussion.

What I do consider a threat is the incapability to be objective.

Objective does not mean "not taking sides". Objective means not letting feelings get in the way of facts. It is perfectly already to make propositions and be objective.

If science claims that God does not exist, then any philosophy created with that axiom is unfalsifiable.

It certainly is and it is not an axiom, it would be a conclusion. It could be falsified by

Successful Prayer Experiment
Advances in Parapsychology
The falsification of evolution
The falsification of Big Bang
Scriptural predictions (before the fact).
A demonstration that the existence of the universe violates the conservation of energy or the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

etc.

There are a wealth of possible evidence that would in principle refute it.

 

[Moridin]

According to the CIA, France is 83-88% Roman Catholic, 2% Protestant, 1% Jewish, 5-10% Muslim, 4% unaffiliated. That's very high.
USA is 52% Protestant, 24% Roman Catholic, 2% Mormon, 1% Jewish, 1% Muslim, 10% Other, 10% atheist.
So while USA is ~78% Christians, France is up over the 80% mark.

Irrelevant. What matters is secularization, not which organization people are arbitrarily born into.

True, but people have enough common sense to pick and choose the ones they want. The bible says you're not allowed to lend money at interest, but that's how our entire western economy works. Religious people in the west don't follow that rule. Religious people in the middle east do follow that rule, and their economy is totally screwed. Would I blame the scripture for that, or would I specifically say that people in the middle east are idiots because they follow that rule?

That behavior was caused by the religious scriptures, so the scriptures are to blame.

Possibly, but isn't France a very socialist place even though it's mostly christian? Refer to the CIA link at the top. Not only that, but aren't most libertarians atheists? It seems like religion and socialism are independent of one another. You can be a socialist christian, a socialist atheist, capitalist christian, or capitalist atheist.

See my refutation above. What matters here is that there is an almost universal correlation between high living standards and secularization.

That's certainly true in the middle east, where extremism is the norm. My point is that Muslims living in the US or Canada or France or wherever are often normal people with normal world views.

They cannot be called Muslim if they do not follow the creeds of their religion.

To assume that all Muslims act like Osama Bin Laden is like assuming all Christians act like Pat Robertson.

Strawman. My argument is that religious ideology and dogmatism is responsible. Also note that someone who do not embrace the creeds of their religion cannot be said to belong to that religion, just like capitalists cannot be considered communists.

Similarly, most atheists are just normal people with normal lives. You only hear about the crazy Christians who speak directly to god, crazy Muslims who want infidels out of the holy land, and crazy atheists who say "for the love of good."

No, I read the scripture and study the history of the negative influence of Christianity and Islam. You seem to be the one who are selectively affirming "normal people".

Their insanity does not represent the entire group. I can't say with a straight face that 80% of Americans and French are hopelessly retarded just because they have some religious views.

If you are not insane, you are not part of the group, by definition. I can say, with a straight face, that if 80% of the American and French believed in the existence of pink invisible unicorns that watch them as they sleep, that they would be hopelessly mad.

"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." (Robert Pirsig)

It isn't just "some religious views", it is creationism, the belief that the Earth is 6000 years old and that evolution did not happen. Surely, you say, not everyone believes that?

43% of the US Population are Creationists

Canada is also a very religious country. It's religious to the point where Catholic schools are publicly funded. I attended Catholic schools from k-12. For each "public" school, there is a Catholic school within a few blocks; they're usually on opposite sides of the street and facing each other.

No, Canada is also quite secularized. Citing data on what institution bookmarks then without their permission as soon as they are born is not a valid argument.

The Christian scripture also promotes martyrdom, but you don't see a lot of Christians doing that these days. Whenever you walk into a church and see stained glass pictures of religious people, remember that most or all of those people are martyrs. christian martyrs (wiki article)

That is because they are secularized, something Islam is not. Christians in the west has seen reason. Also, that was 500-1000 years ago. Islamic martyrs exists today.

I could ask you that same question about Christians. If Christian texts glorify martyrdom, then why don't we have more Christian martyrs?

Because of secularization. Now answer the question! If you think that suicide bombers are the way they are because of "culture" (which you have not cited any evidence for), then where are the suicide bombers among the devoutly religious Buddhists?. This is the key. You are forced to confess that suicide bombings have nothing to do with culture, but because of religion. If it was culture, then there would be a massive amount of Buddhist suicide bombers, but there are not, so your argument collapses.

This creates a paradox in which enforcing science is the new dogma and new church. Holier than thou *******s will always be that way. It used to be that other people were not as holy as you, then it was that other people are not as well mannered as you, and eventually it will be that people are not as scientific as you, or that their rational abilities are not as rational as yours. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

There is nothing wrong with enforcing things that are true; we do it all the time, such as teaching that the Holocaust happened or that democracy is a good thing. Truth is not dogma.

And again there's nothing wrong with being an atheist. You can believe whatever you want, but it seems ridiculous to think that your belief is the solution to everything. That's what every fundie believes, and so far they've been wrong every time.

Had fundamentalists presented evidence for their claims, they would not have been wrong.

 

[Moridin]

ShawnD, do you even have any evidence at all that "culture" is responsible for the terror performed in the name of Islam?

 

[Huckleberry]

Huckleberry, no one has made any slander. This is a rational discussion.



Objective does not mean "not taking sides". Objective means not letting feelings get in the way of facts. It is perfectly already to make propositions and be objective.

I know what objective means. Bias is the result of not being objective. When people are biased they take a side regardless of the truth, or perhaps misinterpreting the truth to their own purpose. The fact that you keep misinterpreting me makes me believe that you are biased in this matter, hence, not objective.

It certainly is and it is not an axiom, it would be a conclusion. It could be falsified by

Successful Prayer Experiment
Advances in Parapsychology
The falsification of evolution
The falsification of Big Bang
Scriptural predictions (before the fact).
A demonstration that the existence of the universe violates the conservation of energy or the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

etc.

There are a wealth of possible evidence that would in principle refute it.

These conclusions may falsify some interpretations of religious scripture, but none of these things proves or disproves the existence of God. It only means that there may or may not be alternate physical explanations. The non-existence of God would be a poor conclusion based on results from these tests. It more resembles an axiom to me.

 

[Cyrus]

Huckleberry, the conclusions most certainly do invalidate God in the biblical sense. If your 'religious text' is found to be in error, then its not the word of God. If its not the word of God its simply the word of man, and God cannot be the divine author of it. It seems that when shown wrong, you are holding on to whatever you can to rationalize a false ideology. What is so hard to believe that God is not real, anymore than thor or Zeus is not real? I am sure you would consider anyone that believes in thor to be crazy.

 

[Moridin]

These conclusions may falsify some interpretations of religious scripture, but none of these things proves or disproves the existence of God. It only means that there may or may not be alternate physical explanations. The non-existence of God would be a poor conclusion based on results from these tests. It more resembles an axiom to me.

You seem to be misunderstanding. The examples I cited could, in principle, be considered evidence for the existence of a god. It would actually be a strong conclusion. If you want to read about scientific evidence against gods, pick up physicist Victor Stenger's latest book, God: The Failed Hypothesis.

 

[ShawnD]

Irrelevant. What matters is secularization, not which organization people are arbitrarily born into.

Those are self reported numbers from government census forms. It's more reliable than some gallup poll.

That behavior was caused by the religious scriptures, so the scriptures are to blame.

True, but what makes the US so different? The US has a lot of fundies, but they probably still own bonds in their retirement fund. I can't say those fundies are secular, but they sure like to skip rules they don't agree wtih for whatever reason. What exactly makes US fundies skip rules that Saudi fundies don't skip? I don't know what the answer is.

See my refutation above. What matters here is that there is an almost universal correlation between high living standards and secularization.

I'll agree with you on this one. While a place like the US might have 10% atheists, it's probably more like 0% over in Saudi Arabia.

They cannot be called Muslim if they do not follow the creeds of their religion.

Christians and Jews have all kinds of crazy rules that are nearly impossible to follow, but people are still allowed to call themselves Christians or Jews. That same rule should apply to Islam. Being a rational person doesn't automatically get you kicked from Islam, just as it doesn't get you kicked from Christianity.
The question we should be asking isn't why people believe or don't beleive, but why are some people fundies and other people are not.

Strawman. My argument is that religious ideology and dogmatism is responsible. Also note that someone who do not embrace the creeds of their religion cannot be said to belong to that religion, just like capitalists cannot be considered communists.

Again, you don't need to follow all beliefs of a group to be part of that group. Do all republicans think the way Bush does? Do all Muslims think like suicide bombers? Are all Star Trek nerds virgins? You don't need to agree with everything before you're considered part of the group.

No, I read the scripture and study the history of the negative influence of Christianity and Islam. You seem to be the one who are selectively affirming "normal people".

How is the majority considered "selectively affirming"?

If you are not insane, you are not part of the group, by definition. I can say, with a straight face, that if 80% of the American and French believed in the existence of pink invisible unicorns that watch them as they sleep, that they would be hopelessly mad.

Fair enough. That's your own opinion and I can't argue with that.

It isn't just "some religious views", it is creationism, the belief that the Earth is 6000 years old and that evolution did not happen. Surely, you say, not everyone believes that?

43% of the US Population are Creationists

In that case, 43% of the US population is functionally retarded. Not quite 80%, but I agree that it's a shockingly high number.

No, Canada is also quite secularized. Citing data on what institution bookmarks then without their permission as soon as they are born is not a valid argument.

It seems like a pretty strong indicator of religion when the government census shows high percentages of Christians, and there's enough demand for Christian education that half of the publicly funded schools have a Christian theme to them.

That is because they are secularized, something Islam is not. Christians in the west has seen reason. Also, that was 500-1000 years ago. Islamic martyrs exists today.

How do you secularize a religion? You're saying Christians don't blow themselves up because their religion is more secular, but religious and secular are exact opposites, by definition. When something is secular, it is no longer religious.

Because of secularization. Now answer the question! If you think that suicide bombers are the way they are because of "culture" (which you have not cited any evidence for), then where are the suicide bombers among the devoutly religious Buddhists?.

They don't blow themselves up but they have a nasty habit of setting themselves on fire.

Buddhism is a more self focused religion where everything you do is about you and how you treat othres, so those are the kind of people who really latch onto it and run with it. Christianity and Islam are very group-oriented. The people who latch onto Christianity and Islam are people who have a cause (sometimes political), people who like to lead, people who like to follow others, and people who love power. It's not so much their beliefs that are dangerous, but the way a heard mentality is encouraged. When the wrong person takes charge of the heard, all kinds of damage can be done.

There is nothing wrong with enforcing things that are true; we do it all the time, such as teaching that the Holocaust happened or that democracy is a good thing. Truth is not dogma.

Closing the door is in itself very anti-science. Science is about debating things, disagreeing, people going in different directions on things. It would be doing humanity a disservice to shut the door on options and declare that it was in their best interest.

Had fundamentalists presented evidence for their claims, they would not have been wrong.

Then again, do you have evidence that destroying religion will fix world problems? Theocracy has been done, and it was terrible. Then the opposite was done when USSR was officially an atheist state, and that was just as bad as theocracy. The one thing in common between those two is that neither allowed for dissent. Both were very tyranical. If you want to preserve your country's freedom then you'll allow people to have different ideas on things. And yes some of those ideas will be crazy.

 

[Werg22]

Huckleberry, the conclusions most certainly do invalidate God in the biblical sense. If your 'religious text' is found to be in error, then its not the word of God. If its not the word of God its simply the word of man, and God cannot be the divine author of it. It seems that when shown wrong, you are holding on to whatever you can to rationalize a false ideology. What is so hard to believe that God is not real, anymore than thor or Zeus is not real? I am sure you would consider anyone that believes in thor to be crazy.

Though an atheist myself, I cannot help but to point at your flawed conceptions of philosophy and reason. If a presumed text from God is found to be in the wrong, it does not give us any information other than that alone. There are an infinite number of possible explanations; perhaps the text was perverted by man? perhaps God wants to fool us? perhaps it is the work of an entity other than God, but not human? Simply having chosen the answer makes your philosophy not any different than any other; it is perhaps truth, but this can neither be proven nor disproven, and it is certainly not immune to attack, as you seemingly fail to realize. Stop the pretense that your philosophy alone embodies logic and truth.

 

[Cyrus]

Though an atheist myself, I cannot help but to point at your flawed conceptions of philosophy and reason. If a presumed text from God is found to be in the wrong, it does not give us any information other than that alone. There are an infinite number of possible explanations; perhaps the text was perverted by man? perhaps God wants to fool us? perhaps it is the work of an entity other than God, but not human? Simply having chosen the answer makes your philosophy not any different than any other; it is perhaps truth, but this can neither be proven nor disproven, and it is certainly not immune to attack, as you seemingly fail to realize. Stop the pretense that your philosophy alone embodies logic and truth.

Thats the biggest bunch of mumbo jumbo I have read yet (no offense). Perverted by man? This is making excuses to support something that has been demonstrated false. Give me a break.

 

[ShawnD]

ShawnD, do you even have any evidence at all that "culture" is responsible for the terror performed in the name of Islam?

Um yes? Who exactly do you think Scott Atran is? He's a world class anthropologist who studies the way terrorists think. He got up there and called out Sam Harris because Harris was making a bunch of assumptions that directly contradicted the research Scott Atran had done. That's what this whole debate is about.

 

[Moridin]

Again, you don't need to follow all beliefs of a group to be part of that group. Do all republicans think the way Bush does? Do all Muslims think like suicide bombers? Are all Star Trek nerds virgins? You don't need to agree with everything before you're considered part of the group.

Logical fallacy. Bush is not a doctrine within the republican party. If you believe that the old testament is symbolic, and that the death of Jesus on the cross is just symbolic, then you cannot properly call yourself a Christian. There is a logical cut-of point.

If you do not follow the religion you claim to have, you are not a member of it, just like capitalists cannot be considered communists.

How is the majority considered "selectively affirming"?

I've refuted that with the link to the Gallup Poll. You have shown zero evidence of this so called "majority". Read the news.

It seems like a pretty strong indicator of religion when the government census shows high percentages of Christians, and there's enough demand for Christian education that half of the publicly funded schools have a Christian theme to them.

Again, your entire argument is based on institutionalized bookmarking.

How do you secularize a religion? You're saying Christians don't blow themselves up because their religion is more secular, but religious and secular are exact opposites, by definition. When something is secular, it is no longer religious.

No, 'secular' simply means a separation of state and church or a more focus on the material world. Christians are more secular.

They don't blow themselves

Then you are forced to confess that the reason Muslims blow themselves up is not due to some arbitrary, vague "culture", but because of religion, since if it was "culture", we would see Buddhists blowing up Chinese people. This refuted your entire argument.

Closing the door is in itself very anti-science. Science is about debating things, disagreeing, people going in different directions on things. It would be doing humanity a disservice to shut the door on options and declare that it was in their best interest.

So you think that teaching that the Holocaust never happened is science? Boy, you get yourself in a lot of trouble here. Science is about determining the truth and attacking lies and misconception.

Then again, do you have evidence that destroying religion will fix world problems? Theocracy has been done, and it was terrible.

There is a universal correlation between secularization and high living standards. So far, you have presented zero evidence for any of your somewhat twisted cultural apologetics.

Then the opposite was done when USSR was officially an atheist state, and that was just as bad as theocracy. The one thing in common between those two is that neither allowed for dissent. Both were very tyranical. If you want to preserve your country's freedom then you'll allow people to have different ideas on things.

The USSR was not an "atheist" state, just as it wasn't a "a-thorist" or "a-unicornist" state. There was only one God for the people of the USSR, and that was Stalin. For hundreds of years, millions of Russians has been indoctrinated into the belief that the head of the state is a supernatural power. The Czar is not just the king, but stands between heaven and earth. What do you think happens when someone beat that supernatural power? You cannot even become a totalitarian dictator if you cannot already exploit a ready-made reservoir of human credulity and servility that is as big as that. Russian never experienced the Renaissance or the Enlightenment. It was the most religion states, not the more atheistic nations like England or France that fell to communism. In essence, it is a substitute for Messianism.

Don't forget Christian Hitler and his slaughter of 6 million Jews.

Though an atheist myself, but I cannot help from pointing at your flawed sense of reason. If a presumed text from God is found to be in the wrong, it does not give us any information other than that alone. There are an infinite number of possible explanations; perhaps the text was perverted by man? perhaps God wants to fool us? perhaps it is the work of an entity other than God, but not human?

The point is that it clearly falsifies the beliefs of the extremists. You can try to make ad hoc arguments all you want, the god of the fundamentalists still stays dead.

Simply having chosen the answer makes your philosophy not any different from another; it is perhaps truth, but this can neither be proven nor disproven, and it is certainly not immune to attack, as you seemingly fail to realize. Stop the pretense that you wield logic and truth.

People keep repeating that; it is almost like an irrational religion in itself. God(s) can be disproven by science, just like astrology, the notion that diseases are spread by witches rather than germs or denial of the Holocaust can.

 

[Werg22]

Thats the biggest bunch of mumbo jumbo I have read yet (no offense). Perverted by man? This is making excuses to support something that has been demonstrated false. Give me a break.

It is as unlikely as the possibility of Aliens having built the Eiffel Tower, with the argument that nobody alive today was there to see its edification. But you are clearly missing the point. You can't argue that you're stance is irrefutably the only reasonable one because the inherent ideas of your philosophy can certainly be doubted, despite the ridicule these doubts may bear.

 

[Huckleberry]

Huckleberry, the conclusions most certainly do invalidate God in the biblical sense. If your 'religious text' is found to be in error, then its not the word of God. If its not the word of God its simply the word of man, and God cannot be the divine author of it. It seems that when shown wrong, you are holding on to whatever you can to rationalize a false ideology. What is so hard to believe that God is not real, anymore than thor or Zeus is not real? I am sure you would consider anyone that believes in thor to be crazy.

I don't have a religious text. Though there are many aspects of Christianity that are dear to me, I have no use for organized religion or strict adherence to scripture. I am also fond of other religions and philosophies, but again, I don't fit entirely into any of them. I really don't care if Noah was in a flood, or if man evolved from ape-like ancestors, or any other physical myths in any scripture. The intent of my posts were not originally to defend scripture. The intent was primarily to make a statement that the purpose of the lecture was not objective, and secondarily to voice my concern about what philosophy science would choose to replace the religious function within the human condition. I find it very odd that we are now discussing scripture, but that was exactly what I figured would happen when I said I wasn't going to reply the first time. If I didn't feel the need to correct gross misinterpretations about my character then I wouldn't be writing right now.

Some of my best friends are atheists. It has no effect on how I treat them. I often appreciate their point of view on religious matters just because they are unbiased. I feel a reassured when we talk because there is no prejudice; only understanding, honesty and freedom. Those are the kind of things that concern me, not some ink on flimsy, gold-trim paper.

 

[ShawnD]

Perverted by man? This is making excuses to support something that has been demonstrated false. Give me a break.

I think what he means is translated. Remember that translation is an interpretation, so somebody with a particular religious bias might interpret something incorrectly without knowing it. This is particularly bad with metaphors or common terms that describe the same thing. Example: a french guy I know asked "do you have a fire?" but what he was asking was if I had a lighter to light his cigarette. Jesus could say something like "I am the light" (metaphor) and it could be translated as "I emit visible radiation" (literal).

 

[Cyrus]

Converge what Moridin and I are saying Shawn. To be a Christian means you accept everything in the bible. To be a muslim means you accept ever last word in the qur-an. To be a jew every word in the torah. These interpretations are not up for debate and your picking and choosing. Its simply not.

If you pick and choose your NOT following the words of christ. I am sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Now, considering the fact that every word must be followed, in combination with the fact that many stories in the bible are historically wrong, and make scientifically false claims. You have a MAJOR problem with the credibilty of a CHRISTIAN god. Notice I said christian. We can rule out with GOOD reason that there is no Christian God as written in the bible.

The point is, you have to evalute the likelyhood of each Gods existence based on religious texts. If you want to believe in an Einsteinian God, more power to you. I can't disprove that, and I would fully support that type of God. (because that does not have the implications of social matters in the real world, its a private god). But you can't cherry pick what parts of the bible you want God to have said based on your own subjective morals at the time. (At the time meaning socially at the time).

 

[Werg22]

I think what he means is translated. Remember that translation is an interpretation, so somebody with a particular religious bias might interpret something incorrectly without knowing it. This is particularly bad with metaphors or common terms that describe the same thing. Example: a french guy I know asked "do you have a fire?" but what he was asking was if I had a lighter to light his cigarette. Jesus could say something like "I am the light" (metaphor) and it could be translated as "I emit visible radiation" (literal).

I wasn't giving an explicit reason as to why a religious text may contain fallacies. My sole declaration is that philosophy cannot be made rigorous by any means. In the matters we are discussing, there are no absolute truths so that we can arrive at a set of irrefutable statements. Philosophy is not mathematics; this is why there is place for debate whenever philosophy is concerned.

 

[Moridin]

Um yes? Who exactly do you think Scott Atran is? He's a world class anthropologist who studies the way terrorists think. He got up there and called out Sam Harris because Harris was making a bunch of assumptions that directly contradicted the research Scott Atran had done. That's what this whole debate is about.

Who exactly do you think Sam Harris is? He is a world class philosopher and has studied religion and its effects on society for 25+ years as well as getting a doctorate in neuroscience. He and Ayann Hirsi Ali called out Scott Atran, due to the fact that his personal ideology of cultural relativism does not fit the actual facts.

If someone is making assumptions, it is Scott Atran, who probably have not even been to the middle east and seen the destructive power of Islam, which means "submission".