ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags faith , skepticism

Reply
Old 8th December 2018, 01:41 PM   #121
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
It's not an argument at all, merely a term that succinctly describes a being that is all-powerful, omnipotent, invisible, is frequently referred to as "Father", and resides in Heaven.
do you call your father, daddy? Do you call your mother, Mommy?

I did, all the way up to 1st grade.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 01:45 PM   #122
xterra
So far, so good...
 
xterra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: On the outskirts of Nowhere; the middle was too crowded
Posts: 3,158
https://www.thesaurus.com/ gives these synonyms for 'myth.'

Of the more common, as opposed to obscure words, I find the ones with an 'x' in front of them more pejorative if they refer to a god of any type, or professed by any religion. (Some, like "folk ballad," don't apply here.)


fable
x fantasy
fiction
illusion
imagination
legend
lore
parable
x superstition
tale
tradition
allegory
apologue
creation
x delusion
x fabrication
fancy
x figment
invention
saga
x fairy story
folk ballad
x folk tale
mythos
x tall story

I believe Minoosh would agree with me that the X-ed words will lead to less-productive discussion. TBD might also.

Honesty compels me, however, to admit to using some of them when the "witnessing" and proselytizing gets too insistent:
"Sorry, I don't share your delusions," or

"I'm not superstitious; go bother someone else."
We now return you to your regular ... conversation.

-----------

attempt5001,



I agree Thor 2 on the harm Christianity has done, not just in fragmenting its original belief, but in murderous, horrific, inexcusable, organized institutional crimes in the name of its supposed savior. Consider the Inquisition, the expulsion of Jews from many European countries including England, the conversion of non-Christian populations by either physical force or psychological coercion, etc.

You can say "god is love," and you can equally say "the Christian god is hate." Look at the evidence and see where it takes you.
__________________
Over we go....
xterra is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 01:55 PM   #123
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by xterra View Post
the harm Christianity has done
I was informed quite authoritatively that belief or the lack thereof is quite irrelevant to such activities and that the sole cause is authoritarianism.

Because if one were to look at recent evidence, one would come to the conclusion it is those that believe there is no god have industrialized the business of evil.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 02:18 PM   #124
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Actually the discussion is that atheist believe they are skeptics yet are as susceptible if not more to relying on fallacious arguments as the people they mock.

Atheism does not equal skeptic and certainly does not equal critical thinking.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 02:21 PM   #125
Marcus
Illuminator
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,003
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
do you call your father, daddy? Do you call your mother, Mommy?

I did, all the way up to 1st grade.
No but my sister did.Okay, perhaps it's disrespectful, but not off the hook. It's not like you have a great deal of respect for atheists.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 02:38 PM   #126
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,992
Originally Posted by attempt5001 View Post
This is a difficult and very personal topic for me, so I figured an anonymous forum of strangers would be the perfect place to discuss it (actually serious about that).

I grew up in a Christian home and have interacted with a variety of Christian people, groups, organizations in a variety of roles throughout my life. With very few (minor) exceptions, it's been a tremendously positive experience; great family, sincere friendships, supportive and caring communities, people's lives changed for the better time and time again thanks to generous, compassionate and selfless expressions of faith. I think I've experienced some of the best that faith/religion has to offer.

I also am middle-age, have a family, a Ph.D. and am a critical thinker with open eyes/mind to the world around me. As such, there is inevitable (and increasing over the last number of years) tension/conflict between my faith and my skepticism. The former is both foundational and precious to me, but the latter is also essential to my ability to live life and explore and interact with the world-at-large in a genuine way.

I thought I would voice that in hopes there are others here who have a similar experience and would like to discuss it. Thanks.
Hello. Coming in late. I have read the whole thread, and you have already had a good many thoughtful answers.

I might add a few points (much of which you can observe in this thread) : The virtue of individual people is largely independent of their belief systems; there are saints and dicks in all camps.

The path of science is very rewarding if you are not afraid of the truths it reveals.

The path of belief is very rewarding if you avoid the pitfalls of self-righteousness it includes.

The two are not exclusive, just different.

... Good luck.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 03:18 PM   #127
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
 
Nay_Sayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,679
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
No but my sister did.Okay, perhaps it's disrespectful, but not off the hook. It's not like you have a great deal of respect for atheists.
or anyone at all.
__________________
I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds.
If you see a Nazi. Egg them
Nay_Sayer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 03:37 PM   #128
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,316
I was naively hoping this might be a thread that would be free of “All atheists are dishonest and nasty”'s personal crusade against “Haters of his/her particular god”. How silly of me.

Wonder how long it’ll be before “Nothing is real” and “Science doesn’t know everything” arrive to further derail this thread with their personal crusades?

Hope it hasn't totally discouraged attempt5001, I was appreciating and enjoying his/her contributions.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.
To make truth from beliefs is to make truth mere make-believe.

Last edited by ynot; 8th December 2018 at 04:58 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 03:57 PM   #129
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,316
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Hello. Coming in late. I have read the whole thread, and you have already had a good many thoughtful answers.

I might add a few points (much of which you can observe in this thread) : The virtue of individual people is largely independent of their belief systems; there are saints and dicks in all camps.

The path of science is very rewarding if you are not afraid of the truths it reveals.

The path of belief is very rewarding if you avoid the pitfalls of self-righteousness it includes.

The two are not exclusive, just different.

... Good luck.

Hans
Sure. One offers intellectual truths of reality, the other offers emotional beliefs of fantasy. Neither necessarily make individual humans better, but one is necessarily better for humanity. The question is . . . which one? I think the answer is blatantly obvious.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.
To make truth from beliefs is to make truth mere make-believe.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 04:09 PM   #130
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,992
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Sure. One offers intellectual truths of reality, the other offers emotional beliefs of fantasy. Neither necessarily make individual humans better, but one is necessarily better for humanity. The question is . . . which one? I think the answer is blatantly obvious.
The answer is that you don't have to choose one. They are not mutually exclusive.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 04:11 PM   #131
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,520
I thought 'sky daddy' was a play on 'sugar daddy', referencing getting rewarded.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 04:49 PM   #132
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,316
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
The answer is that you don't have to choose one. They are not mutually exclusive.

Hans
Mutually exclusive means two things that can’t be true at the same time. Are you claiming that science and religion aren’t mutually exclusive? Mortality and immortality are both true at the same time? How about consciousness being purely brain created as well as being cosmic and eternal at the same time? Are theistic magic and miracles mutually compatible with science?

The fact that science and religion are mutually exclusive is the very reason for this thread!
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.
To make truth from beliefs is to make truth mere make-believe.

Last edited by ynot; 8th December 2018 at 05:10 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 04:55 PM   #133
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,316
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I thought 'sky daddy' was a play on 'sugar daddy', referencing getting rewarded.
Looks at Thermal's avatar . . . thinks . . . "I see a theme here".
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.
To make truth from beliefs is to make truth mere make-believe.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 06:05 PM   #134
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,520
A variety of services are offered for all tastes and budgets!
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 08:26 PM   #135
Marcus
Illuminator
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,003
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I thought 'sky daddy' was a play on 'sugar daddy', referencing getting rewarded.
It's the carrot and the stick. Enjoy eternity in heaven (perhaps with 72 virgins, depending which god you subscribe to, I don't think the women get anything though) or suffer eternal torture, courtesy of the "loving god".
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 08:56 PM   #136
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,564
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Mutually exclusive means two things that canít be true at the same time. Are you claiming that science and religion arenít mutually exclusive? Mortality and immortality are both true at the same time? How about consciousness being purely brain created as well as being cosmic and eternal at the same time? Are theistic magic and miracles mutually compatible with science?

The fact that science and religion are mutually exclusive is the very reason for this thread!

That two things can't be true at the same time doesn't mean that one individual can't consider both true, some of them without feeling much cognitive dissonance (Wikipedia). See Bob Bakker (Wikipedia).
You seem to consider that science represents the belief in mortality and religion represents the belief in immortality, but nowadays some (too many!) believers in science hope that science will bring them immortality. There's a lucrative market for this kind of belief, which tends to be much more expensive than the religious belief in eternal life after death; look at these jerks (Wikipedia), for instance, and most Christians (at least in my part of the world) don't believe in life after death: Only 25% of Danes believe in life after death, 20% believe in JC's resurrection, 48% are non-believers, but 75% are members of the state church! (The last three links to news media in Danish)
Cosmic and eternal consciousness is probably a new-age idea and not theistic, but you are right about science not supporting the idea.
Nor are theistic magic and miracles compatible with science, which is the reason why many people of faith no longer believe in them.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 09:16 PM   #137
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,846
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
The path of belief is very rewarding if you avoid the pitfalls of self-righteousness it includes.
Belief in what, though? More and more things that were once matters of "belief" have been replaced by science. Science continues to chip away at the pillars of belief. Of course, some people don't believe science, preferring to continue with their previous, perhaps more comforting, beliefs.
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

- Professional Wastrel
sylvan8798 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 10:08 PM   #138
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,316
Originally Posted by dann View Post
That two things can't be true at the same time doesn't mean that one individual can't consider both true, some of them without feeling much cognitive dissonance (Wikipedia). See Bob Bakker (Wikipedia).
Obviously two things can be true at the same time, but two mutually exclusive things can’t (by definition), and that’s what we’re specifically talking about (please don’t obfuscate). “Consider both true" is inappropriate when two things CAN’T be true at the same time. An appropriate term would be “believe both true” (despite the fact they can't be). That some might not feel much cognitive dissonance, doesn’t mean it applies to them any less in reality.

Originally Posted by dann View Post
You seem to consider that science represents the belief in mortality and religion represents the belief in immortality,
Science establishes the knowledge of mortality, religion propagates the belief in immortality.

Originally Posted by dann View Post
but nowadays some (too many!) believers in science hope that science will bring them immortality. There's a lucrative market for this kind of belief, which tends to be much more expensive than the religious belief in eternal life after death; look at these jerks (Wikipedia), for instance, and most Christians (at least in my part of the world) don't believe in life after death: Only 25% of Danes believe in life after death, 20% believe in JC's resurrection, 48% are non-believers, but 75% are members of the state church! (The last three links to news media in Danish)
So what? What has that ramble got to do with science and religion being mutually exclusive or not? (please don’t obfuscate)

This isn’t all about your country or your personal crusade. I’m sure there’s as many god believers as “believers in science” world-wide that hope science will bring them immortality. So what? (please stop obfuscating)

Originally Posted by dann View Post
Cosmic and eternal consciousness is probably a new-age idea and not theistic, but you are right about science not supporting the idea.
Nor are theistic magic and miracles compatible with science, which is the reason why many people of faith no longer believe in them.
"Cosmic and eternal consciousness" is just another way of saying "immortal and eternal soul". More god believers world-wide obviously believe in the magic and miracles of ancient religious texts and myths than don’t. I don't know any that don't.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.
To make truth from beliefs is to make truth mere make-believe.

Last edited by ynot; 8th December 2018 at 10:43 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 10:51 PM   #139
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,082
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
More and more things that were once matters of "belief" have been replaced by science. Science continues to chip away at the pillars of belief.
"More and more things"? What things that were once matters of belief in the last, say, 25 to 50 years have been replaced by science? Go back a hundred years if you like. Perhaps the Big Bang theory, developed by Roman Catholic priest LemaÓtre? It was rejected initially by some scientists as seemingly supporting Genesis. From Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_H...f_the_Big_Bang
While having no argument with the LemaÓtre theory (later confirmed by Edwin Hubble's observations) that the universe was expanding, Hoyle disagreed on its interpretation. He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms" (see Kalam cosmological argument).
The idea that science is replacing belief "more and more" as the years progress, with belief retreating as science advances, is simply a myth. Outside of the usual suspects, it hasn't happened like that. Any recent examples please, showing the dogma being replaced? Or can we put that particular myth at least to bed?

Last edited by GDon; 8th December 2018 at 11:08 PM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 11:38 PM   #140
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,335
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
"More and more things"? What things that were once matters of belief in the last, say, 25 to 50 years have been replaced by science? Go back a hundred years if you like. Perhaps the Big Bang theory, developed by Roman Catholic priest LemaÓtre? It was rejected initially by some scientists as seemingly supporting Genesis. From Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_H...f_the_Big_Bang
While having no argument with the LemaÓtre theory (later confirmed by Edwin Hubble's observations) that the universe was expanding, Hoyle disagreed on its interpretation. He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms" (see Kalam cosmological argument).
The idea that science is replacing belief "more and more" as the years progress, with belief retreating as science advances, is simply a myth. Outside of the usual suspects, it hasn't happened like that. Any recent examples please, showing the dogma being replaced? Or can we put that particular myth at least to bed?
Well, health is clearly the most obvious. Thousands of years of prayers have never actually improved the chances of a sick person being cured and no prayer ever has brought lost limbs back or restored the lame.
Modern medicine does.

The other thing that springs to mind is the explanation of natural phenomena. Earthquakes, plagues etc were all thought to be the wrath of (the) god(s) and thus unavoidable. We can now explain them, and in some cases even avoid them.

In the near future even creating life will be something we can do and thus no longer be something only a god can do. Biologically we are close, and who knows what AI might bring?

And of course genetics is slowly showing that sexuality is (at least partly) a genetic predisposition, and since this is the consequence of several genes and expression factors it also explains that human sexuality, like the rest of social mammals, has a spectrum rather than the black/white dogma of most religions.

And of course, the knowledge that in most cases where a religious text tries to explain something (like categorizing animals, or how to combat diseases or natural history) they are just plain wrong.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 11:55 PM   #141
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,335
But, a question from the other side.
A number of atheists here, including me, have explained why they do not believe.

Perhaps some of the theists will explain why they do?
And what made them decide their interpretation of their faith was correct and all the others are wrong?

I see no real difference between Christianity and Islam, nor between protestant and catholic or orthodox christians. So what arguments convinced those that do believe to pick their version?
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 11:56 PM   #142
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,082
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Well, health is clearly the most obvious. Thousands of years of prayers have never actually improved the chances of a sick person being cured and no prayer ever has brought lost limbs back or restored the lame.
I'm after examples in modern times to support the proposition "Science continues to chip away at the pillars of belief." The idea that as science advances, belief retreats, is simply a myth. Science has increased exponentially over the last few generations. If increasing science results in retreating belief, then the number of conflicts in the last, say, 25 years must be higher than in the previous 25 years, and higher than in the 25 years before that, and so on. But that's simply not true. It's a myth.

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
In the near future even creating life will be something we can do and thus no longer be something only a god can do.
There is no religious dogma "creating life is only something god can do" as far as I know.

Last edited by GDon; 8th December 2018 at 11:59 PM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 03:07 AM   #143
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,901
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
I'm after examples in modern times to support the proposition "Science continues to chip away at the pillars of belief." The idea that as science advances, belief retreats, is simply a myth. Science has increased exponentially over the last few generations. If increasing science results in retreating belief, then the number of conflicts in the last, say, 25 years must be higher than in the previous 25 years, and higher than in the 25 years before that, and so on. But that's simply not true. It's a myth.
I don't understand the correlation between more science more conflicts. However the correlation between more religious beliefs and more conflicts is clear in history.
In addition the correlation between the level of knowledge in science and religious scepticism is well reflected in statistic, both at individual as social levels.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 05:06 AM   #144
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,564
You're the obfuscator, ynot! Welcome to the real world where you're trying to define your way out of your own cognitive dissonance:

Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Obviously two things can be true at the same time, but two mutually exclusive things canít (by definition), and thatís what weíre specifically talking about (please donít obfuscate). ďConsider both true" is inappropriate when two things CANíT be true at the same time. An appropriate term would be ďbelieve both trueĒ (despite the fact they can't be). That some might not feel much cognitive dissonance, doesnít mean it applies to them any less in reality.

Notice how Bob Bakker handles that cognitive dissonance: If the story of Adam and Eve is incompatible with the science of evolution, he discards Adam and Eve as nothing but a story and sticks with evolution:

Quote:
He has advised non-believers and creationists to read the views put forward by Saint Augustine, who argued against a literal understanding of the Book of Genesis.
Robert T. Bakker: Religious beliefs (Wikipedia)

He's obviously a believer whose belief is being secularized. And he himself is the one who's delivering facts and arguments for others to follow in his footsteps. That's real progress! Your bickering isn't.
Neither is the (pseudo-)scientific attempt to extend life beyond what the prevention of diseases brings. I'm ten years older than Aubrey de Grey, didn't buy into any of his ideas and practices, and yet not quite as grey as he is ...

Quote:
Science establishes the knowledge of mortality, religion propagates the belief in immortality.

Apparently, a lot of people who believe in science want it to propagate the belief in immortality, too. (And I find them much more embarrassing than the uneducated people who believe in Paradise.)

Quote:
So what? What has that ramble got to do with science and religion being mutually exclusive or not? (please donít obfuscate)

Please try to cope with your cognitive dissonance in a more productive way. In the real world religious scientists are an actual thing. You can't define them into non-existence.

Quote:
This isnít all about your country or your personal crusade. Iím sure thereís as many god believers as ďbelievers in scienceĒ world-wide that hope science will bring them immortality. So what? (please stop obfuscating)

You're still the obfuscator. I don't know what my "personal crusade" is supposed to be, but your idea that many "god believers probably "hope that science will bring them immortality" is probably true, which only goes to show the extent to which religious believers are being secularized and often aren't even aware that it is happening. Nowadays, the unrealistic hopes and dreams (as well as fears) of people take on the form of science fiction, which only goes to show the extent to which science has won and is still winning. Unfortunately, it also shows that the living conditions of ordinary people still haven't reached the level where they feel comfortable with giving up entirely on the opium of the people.

Quote:
"Cosmic and eternal consciousness" is just another way of saying "immortal and eternal soul".

No, it isn't. If it's your way of saying it, it's a very bad one.

Quote:
More god believers world-wide obviously believe in the magic and miracles of ancient religious texts and myths than donít. I don't know any that don't.

I don't know any, personally, that do.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 05:11 AM   #145
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,564
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I don't understand the correlation between more science more conflicts.

Neither do I. I think it's nonsense.

Quote:
However the correlation between more religious beliefs and more conflicts is clear in history.

Why do you think so? Where are your facts that show this? WW1 and WW2 were very secular and so was the Vietnam War, probably the three biggest in the 20th century.

Quote:
In addition the correlation between the level of knowledge in science and religious scepticism is well reflected in statistic, both at individual as social levels.

What is your point?
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 05:20 AM   #146
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,564
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
I'm after examples in modern times to support the proposition "Science continues to chip away at the pillars of belief." The idea that as science advances, belief retreats, is simply a myth.

So you don't think that the science of evolution has chipped away at the belief in Genesis?! Man, are you in for a surprise if you ever take a look at the real world!

Quote:
Science has increased exponentially over the last few generations.

Yes, it has, hasn't it?!

Quote:
If increasing science results in retreating belief,

It only does so in people who are taught science. There's no reason to assume that it does so in people who remain ignorant of science. However, even people whose children are protected from diseases by means of vaccinations can't help but believe in the white-coated distributors of vaccines rather than the witchdoctors of old, but to be on the safe side (they think), they sometimes use both ...

Quote:
then the number of conflicts in the last, say, 25 years must be higher than in the previous 25 years, and higher than in the 25 years before that, and so on. But that's simply not true. It's a myth.
Why?!

Quote:
There is no religious dogma "creating life is only something god can do" as far as I know.
That would depend on who you're asking.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; 9th December 2018 at 06:23 AM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 05:23 AM   #147
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,564
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
I see no real difference between Christianity and Islam, nor between protestant and catholic or orthodox christians.

Even if you don't, I hope that you've at least noticed that many of those guys do!
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 06:32 AM   #148
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,335
Originally Posted by dann View Post
Even if you don't, I hope that you've at least noticed that many of those guys do!
Yes, hence my question if someone who is religious can maybe explain what factors convinced him/her that their religion is right, and every other interpretation or faith is wrong.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 06:37 AM   #149
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,564
Sectarianism! (Wikipedia)
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 07:17 AM   #150
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,520
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
It's the carrot and the stick. Enjoy eternity in heaven (perhaps with 72 virgins, depending which god you subscribe to, I don't think the women get anything though) or suffer eternal torture, courtesy of the "loving god".
Never got the virgin thing. For a heavenly experience, wouldn't one want someone who knew what they were doing?
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 08:22 AM   #151
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,901
Originally Posted by dann View Post
Why do you think so? Where are your facts that show this? WW1 and WW2 were very secular and so was the Vietnam War, probably the three biggest in the 20th century.

What is your point?

Even in the twentieth century the conflicts in which religion has played a predominant role are legion, against a few counter-examples that you can propose. If we go back, the list increases. Here you can consult a list, although it is not complete (the Holy Crusade of GeneralŪsimo Franco in Spain, for example, is missing): http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki...the_Common_Era

My point: even if religion and science are not strictly incompatible in all cases, there is some thing in the practice of science that opens the eyes on the irrationality of religion. The habit of rational thinkng, perhaps.

Last edited by David Mo; 9th December 2018 at 08:26 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 09:57 AM   #152
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,564
You do know that you just referred to WW1, WW2 and the Vietnam War as "a few counter-examples," don't you?
But do you know that the Holocaust wasn't really about religion? That it was an attempt to exterminate a race not a religion? And that it didn't really matter to the Nazis if so-called Jews had converted to Christianity generations ago?
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 10:38 AM   #153
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,082
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I don't understand the correlation between more science more conflicts. However the correlation between more religious beliefs and more conflicts is clear in history.
It certainly is NOT clear. Otherwise people wouldn't keep using the same two "usual suspects": evolution and Galileo. If increasing science led to more religious conflicts, then you'd expect that there would be more conflicts in the (for example) last 25 years than in the same period before that. It just isn't there.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
In addition the correlation between the level of knowledge in science and religious scepticism is well reflected in statistic, both at individual as social levels.
Most religious beliefs have nothing to do with science. Sin, grace, forgiveness, indulgences, the after-life, etc. Some people speculate on how science may or may not prove or disprove such ideas, but dogma rarely is specific enough to be testable.

People use the examples of evolution and heliocentrism to try to extrapolate from that there is a broader conflict, but struggle to find examples beyond that, despite how science has increased so dramatically in the last 100 years. Why? Shouldn't there be more conflicts as science increases?

Last edited by GDon; 9th December 2018 at 10:42 AM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 10:42 AM   #154
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,082
Originally Posted by dann View Post
So you don't think that the science of evolution has chipped away at the belief in Genesis?! Man, are you in for a surprise if you ever take a look at the real world!
Right back at you! Evolution and heliocentrism are the go-to examples, what I call "the usual suspects". Even those aren't clear. A literal belief in Genesis has been questioned for thousands of years, long before evolution was thought of. Darwin worked with Christian biologists to help develop the theory of evolution, and those Christians (e.g. Asa Gray) helped Darwin to promote his theories.

Same question I posed to David Mo: People use the examples of evolution and heliocentrism to try to extrapolate from that there is a broader conflict, but struggle to find examples beyond that, despite how science has increased so dramatically in the last 100 years. Why? Shouldn't there be more conflicts as science increases?

Last edited by GDon; 9th December 2018 at 10:53 AM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 11:07 AM   #155
Pixel42
SchrŲdinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,903
I can think of quite a few conflicts that have arisen in the last 25 years. Whether people should be kept alive (often against their will) with advanced medical treatment, the morning after pill, stem cell research, genetic engineering, etc. Religious and non-religious people tend to have very different opinions about such things, with the religious usually objecting using phrases like "playing God", "the sanctity of life", "God's will", etc.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by Pixel42; 9th December 2018 at 11:08 AM.
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 11:40 AM   #156
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,082
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
I can think of quite a few conflicts that have arisen in the last 25 years. Whether people should be kept alive (often against their will) with advanced medical treatment, the morning after pill, stem cell research, genetic engineering, etc. Religious and non-religious people tend to have very different opinions about such things, with the religious usually objecting using phrases like "playing God", "the sanctity of life", "God's will", etc.
Yes, both those aren't conflicts between science and religion in the way that expression is usually used, but the moral implications arising from scientific advances. For example, no religions oppose stem cell research per se. They do oppose the use of embryos in embryonic stem cell research, while not opposing adult stem cell research. That is related to the moral implications of using embryos, and not to the science involved. Similarly "playing God", "the sanctity of life", etc.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 11:42 AM   #157
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,316
Originally Posted by dann View Post
You're the obfuscator, ynot! Welcome to the real world where you're trying to define your way out of your own cognitive dissonance:
"No I'm not! You are! So there!" = Childish.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with addressing mutual exclusivity or cognitive dissonance.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.
To make truth from beliefs is to make truth mere make-believe.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 11:46 AM   #158
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,316
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Never got the virgin thing. For a heavenly experience, wouldn't one want someone who knew what they were doing?
Virgins have no prior male performance experience to rate you against. Therefore you're "the best" by default.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.
To make truth from beliefs is to make truth mere make-believe.

Last edited by ynot; 9th December 2018 at 11:51 AM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 11:49 AM   #159
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,564
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Right back at you! Evolution and heliocentrism are the go-to examples, what I call "the usual suspects".

I don't see your point. Does it comfort you to know that you've given them a nickname?

Quote:
Even those aren't clear.

There's nothing unclear about heliocentric and evolution - except for the fact that helios turned out be be just the centre of the solar system, nothing more.

Quote:
A literal belief in Genesis has been questioned for thousands of years, long before evolution was thought of. Darwin worked with Christian biologists to help develop the theory of evolution, and those Christians (e.g. Asa Gray) helped Darwin to promote his theories.

Yes, and Newton was a (weird) kind of Christian, too, and at one point Darwin himself was a Christian, too. Nobody's been denying the contribution of Christians to the fact that "Science continues to chip away at the pillars of belief." In fact, their contribution is much appreciated. I already mentioned Bob Bakker as one of the modern contributors. He is still a believer, but what he believes has been reduced from what Bible thumpers used to* think to "an ethical and moral guide, rather than a literal timetable of events in the history of life." I.e. The Old Testament has been more or less obliterated, and a dwindling minority believe in the stories about Jesus waking people from the dead, walking on water, turning water into wine etc.

* Some still do, of course.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 11:50 AM   #160
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,564
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
"No I'm not! You are! So there!" = Childish.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with addressing mutual exclusivity or cognitive dissonance.

Yes, ignoring my arguments is the adult way of handling them ...
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.