An interesting thread. Religion (i.e. belief and worship) when practiced by an individual, or a group, need not offend anyone else, provided the belief and worship does not impact on any third parties. However, religion is also used in an attempt to control others. Whether this was the original intent of the original religion I do not know, but some people have chosen to use it for this purpose. But why do they seek to control others through religion? Fear/insecurity. Why do people say they hate religion? Fear/insecurity. Spot the common factor between Guinevere and the thread subject? Fear/insecurity. This isn't new stuff peoples, we've been here before... Hate all you want. It's not helping.
I consider myself to be not just an Atheist, but an Anti-theist. I think religion itself is a bad idea, I see some of the things in the world and think "why all this over religion?" People are killed, murdered and wars are waged because of different religious beliefs, scientists are constantly mocked by majority of religious extremists who deny what is right in front of our eyes. There is some good, they help the homeless and faith can help some people recover from a destructive life. But there are many organisations that do exactly the same thing without religion being involved. Our societies are built upon archaic religious rules and traditions that really don't make any sense anymore, like marriage and holidays. There are many things that can be just as bad as religion; but most of the very worst things to happen in human history stem from it.
Ok you are stretching what I mean here. Most religions claim some God micromanagement in earths affairs. This can be "proven" scientifically to be wrong. God "could" have created the universe and let it run, but it's unlikely. That's the deist point of view, not the "religious" one. It is so unlikely that it's not even worth spending time on it. The scientists say, we don't know but here are the likely theories and here is how we got there. The Religious say we know for sure: it's God. Who is more correct? Also saying the results of the scientific method are "always" better than intuition doesn't make intuition useless. But science will always be an upgrade to that. Give me an example where intuition gives a better result. Not sure what you mean with this: Religion is a product of philosophy. Science had humble beginnings.
Stuff like friendships/relationships? Is there a scientific way to know if people will get on etc? I guess once you start to get to know people then it's a form of scientific method, but I mean from the get-go so to speak, would that be intuition? I've no idea just wondering
Faith, whatever it means to you, has a dictionary definition: "Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." Whether you believe that people go to heaven when they die, or fly around on a winged horse or that you'll be surrounded by virgins. That God created everything, that the Universe is <10000 years old or that a man rescued all the animals grom a flood and all surviving animal species originate from the mount Ararat region - where he landed his enourmous boat. You can't pick and choose what is faith and what it is not on the basis of what you consider to be valid or a fairy tale. All that's needed is belief without evidence. Faith is the belief in anything "just because". It is what prevents people asking, "Are you sure about that, where is the evidence? What about this evidence to the contrary?". Faith is unquestioning. Faith is acceptance.
I don't think young Earth Creationists are particularly loony. Believing the Earth is <10000 years old is no more bizarre than, say, believing in talking snakes, or a man parting a sea for example. It's all a bit "far out".
Of course it isn't. But the bible is not presented in the Catholic Church as literal fact. Allegory, parables, etc. Most mainstream Christian churches are not literalist fundamentalists.
Some of it is taken literally though, isn't it? What about homosexuality for example? Edit: I had to add this: Jesus and Mo on the literal vs metaphorical dilemma. http://www.jesusandmo.net/2012/10/17/ebay/
Well there are branches of sociology that try and model that. One of the dating sites tried to figure out an algorithm. Still, we do rely a lot on intuition day to day, just because it's more convenient rather than whip out a spreadsheet. A simple example to illustrate would be this. You can look at cow and guess its weight - That's intuition You can get a cow trader to guess the weight - That's a better form of intuition, let's call it experience. You can get a group of people to guess it, and get the average - That's an even better way, let's call it wisdom of the crowds. It turns out that gives a pretty good estimate. But... the absolute best unbeatable way to get the weight of a cow is.... use a scale! That's what I call the scientific method. It's using whatever is the most accurate, and it does that by removing as much human bias as possible, amongst other things.
An interesting comment yet I am not fearful or insecure in any way... so I'm not sure how it applies. I know a lot of people have some fears or insecurities. Not me. Now tolerance that's a different thing. That's something I aspire to subscribe to, but at times I find difficult to reconcile against occasional feelings of intolerance against the intolerant. I wouldn't ever act on my 'intolerance intolerance' but it's still there from time to time. And that is why I started this thread. Not because I am insecure or fearful but because of the opposite. I wanted to internally explore these contradictory feelings, and my method of choice was via this forum.* It's also why I started the Is it okay to feel 'glad' when someone we hate dies? thread a while back. http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=268376 * The curse of being a self employed home working parent with a kid with needs. Serious discussions that don't involve the next hospital trip, aspects of parenting or Fraggle Rock** are hard to come by these days. **It's amazing the depth of discussions that two over tired mums can have over the consumer / creator dynamic between Fraggles and Doozers. Never ask us about the Gorg factor!
* I'm more a Sesame Street man myself, I must admit. One of the functions of religion is as a social/tribal bonding framework. So it almost naturally follows that it is used by alphas to control the tribe. And what designed and built the weapons that are so exceedingly effective at killing people? Why, science! Sinners, aren't we all. It's nice that you feel able to judge how God would run the universe. Seems you have something in common with religious folk after all. But I would counter: "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all." --God(?), to Bender, in Futurama: "Godfellas", episode 20, series 3. ^ Required viewing. Also a principle of good management. How do you feel? Both spiritual philosophy and science are philosophical attempts at making sense of the world. Science does the "how does it work" bit. Spiritual philosophies do the "what does it mean?" bit. How do you measure beauty? Meaning? Love? The enjoyment of good food, good sex, friendship? The right shade of red for your bedroom wall?
Nexxo, the weight of a cow isn't subjective. It has an actual weight that's the same whoever is weighing it. No-one can say "but to me the cow weighs X", not with any hope of being taken seriously at least, no more than they can say "but to me the Sun orbits the Earth". These are facts with no room for any "Woo".
Yes, and our scientific prowess and astonishing knowledge of the atom is utilised by religious fanatics to wage wars for a god that doesn't exist. Science is constantly used by religious sects to do what they cannot do themselves.
Is life only a matter of facts, or does it also mean something? So science is an accomplice to religious extremism? Because last time I checked, nobody twisted scientists' arms to force them into making weapons. They did it freely and of their own accord, for power, money and status --and of course just because they could. Gather round while I sing you of Wernher von Braun A man whose allegiance is ruled by expedience Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown "Ha, Nazi schmazi," says Wernher von Braun Don't say that he's hypocritical Say rather that he's apolitical "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun Some have harsh words for this man of renown But some think our attitude should be one of gratitude Like the widows and cripples in old London town Who owe their large pensions to Wernher von Braun You too may be a big hero Once you've learned to count backwards to zero "In German oder English I know how to count down Und I'm learning Chinese," says Wernher von Braun
Good for the cow --although with a pure grass diet, I'm not surprised. I hear it is a low GI food and keeps your bowel movements regular. Does life have meaning to you? Scientific answer, please, with proof.
Not sure how you got to this from what I said. I am claiming it is wildly unlikely that a "God" created the universe. And if we want to stretch it and adopt a deist viewpoint, then It certainly didn't run it as religions describe it. You are the one that suggested that God may have just created the Universe and let it run. In modern philosophy there is no such thing as a "spiritual philosophy", it would be Theology if you want. I am not being facetious, but I regard Philosophy as a discipline similar to Maths. Ie a serious discipline that uses deductive reasoning, and that IMO, belongs to science, which leads me to your next comment. [/QUOTE] These are the topics handled by philosophy. It's a massive, massive topic, here is a taster: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty/ My point is, deductive reasoning (call it science if you want), trumps "intuition". There will certainly be topics that are particularly hard to analyse deductively, and where all we can do is rely on intuition. Fine. But It is still not ideal and more work needs to be done.
Sure, look up "genetics". Be warned though, there's no woo. Are you sure you're atheist, Nexxo? You don't sound like one. Oh, and the cow still weighs the same.
Since it is impossible to know what preceded the Big Bang, it is impossible to make any judgements on how likely it is that it was created by an entity of any sort (let alone what the nature of such an entity could be). We simply don't know what was the cause. Is it possible to intervene in a system in a way that it leaves no obvious trace of the intervention? In a non-linear, chaotic and emergent system (you know, like the universe) it sure is. Philosophy is (put simply) the study of the nature of fundamental reality: what is, how we experience it and what we make of it. It's an interesting exploration of the concept of beauty, but I note that it does not come up with a definite answer. I think, therefore I am. But... how do I know that I think? No, that is how life works. What does it mean? Are you uncomfortable with having your atheism challenged? And what does that mean to you?
