Not true. Science and religion can bothe become orthodoxy, and are both subject to challenge. It is what prophets are all about. Ask Buddha. Ask Jesus, or Mohammed. Ask the church about its split on gay and women priests. Religion is far from set.
Yes, there are prophets, but they split the religion in to one absolute truth and another absolute truth. e.g. Jews and Christians. With regards to the gay debate, Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, but because the Old Testament (which influences Christian ideology extremely heavily) did there is debate on the Absolute Truth Which Cannot Be Proven.
What about the different churches of Christianity. You have the main churches like Catholicism and Protestantism that have beliefs and practices that are quite different. Then you get different subsets of those churches and other smaller churches. Even then, ask one person in a church their beliefs and I'm sure you'll find differences from another follower.
Same can be said for researchers with competing theories. Of course, scientific discipline should confirm who is closer to the truth. But even there, politics prevail. lt's the human factor, see? Both science and faith have their foundations in philosophy: the meaningful interpretation of life, the universe and everything. Science is a discipline based on the philosophical question of how to find truth; faith is based on the philosophical question of how to find meaning. Hence the Declaration of Independence, for instance, starts with: 'We Hold These Truths to Be Self-evident, that All Men Are Created Equal...'. There is no (meaningful) scientific way to prove that premise --in fact, science is best left out of it. We accept it as a matter of moral principle: we believe it to be valid and "true" from a existential framework, rather than a scientific one. It's a valid way of looking at the world too.
I find the message a bit weak: if you're so convinced it should read "there is no god". The "probably" is kinda like covering your but "just in case.....". Having said that, there's better ways to spend you money then to have that message plastered all over buses. Good to see a discussion though without all the ranting and cursing that usually seems to start the minute religion is mentioned. Makes one appreciate the common sense of the average bit-tech reader.
He lives in the UK, which AFAIK doesn't explicitly provide a right to religious freedom, and certainly doesn't have a constitution or bill of rights (even if they have in place laws that provide similar rights). And while America was largely founded on the basis of providing religious freedom (and our hatred of your damned tea, it seems), we've certainly devolved away from that in recent years. Muslims especially have to be careful with whom they discuss their religion in this country (95% the media's fault, but that doesn't change the fact), Jews have always taken crap worldwide and the USA is no exception, and even the five thousand different variations on Christianity often seem to come up with some reason to argue with each other. And to say that Atheism/Agnosticism is frowned upon in the states is... putting it rather mildly. Of course, there's no excuse for the Jehovah's Witnesses. Any ass that goes door to door trying to convert people deserves to be locked up. For trespassing, if nothing else.
Look, both Science and Religion are at their most basic, ideas. One has a framework to prove itself, the other requires blind faith. It was my assertion that the one with the framework to prove itself (over time) is less dangerous than the one without - There is a big difference between "The word of god holds absolute authority over this dominion" and "Here's my theory, lets do some tests to see if it's true". Also there are no absolute truths in ethics. Ethics are to support the needs of the community, but these needs change over time. There isn't any religious law that cannot be subverted through mere circumstance. Science did not set out to disprove religious ideas, that was just a bi-product of understanding the universe around us. They arent at loggerheads with each other. There is no balance to be maintained between the two. One simply disproves the assumptions of the other. There ends the relationship. Science is ethically neutral. Nuclear science didn't kill anyone. Democrats killed Socialists, the bomb just made that process more efficient. All I'm saying is that there are no absolute, unchanging laws of ethics. And therefore people should not be deluded in to thinking that the sociological rules, laid out by religious texts, have the unquestionable authority of a diety. You, me, the h-bomb, the computers we're using, the cars we drive - its just what hydrogen atoms do given 3 billion years to cool.
Yeh, but people's version of what is right and wrong differs, across religions. Look at fundamentalists, they are running around beating people over the head with their holy books, and they moral standpoint is so skewed its ridiculous. They are throwing their lives away due to blind faith... Science is entirely neutral, a scientist will develop something because its challenging or the work in that field is necessary, someone else will be the one to use it. How many of the atomic bomb scientists actually used the bomb? and yet due to their work we now have clean and safe nuclear power. if religion had its way, we'd still be in the dark ages. As for eugenics, the most common example anyone can think of would be the nazi's, and yet people forget that the nazi's were quite a "christian" bunch of chaps, i don't think their religion stopped them: http://nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm
Could it not be that millions have died in the name of religion, and continue to do so? Or because religion is often pushed on people, and atheism is not. So perhaps this is a reaction to that. There are religious signs and statements all over the place, so having one that's the opposite to that might make people think. And perhaps it's helpful to make people think. Religion can have quite a significant impact on people's lives, often in a negative way (no sex before marriage, no alcohol, church every sunday, prayers however many times a day, no hair cutting, etc) and IF it's all based on a phony story, then perhaps if people care, they should step in and make a statement about it? I can see how it's nice ideal for people to be left alone to do what they like and believe what they want, but there are times when that shouldn't happen. When something is harmful, then it's time for other people to get involved, and many believe religion creates far more harm and very little good. If there was no religion in the world, wouldn't it be a better place? And would anyone really be any worse off? Lol. Right. I am in England, and I care! I think lots of people care. There is a big issue about what should be presented to children at schools, and it's all about Science Vs Religion. It's a big deal. And the happy children analogy I don't think is quite right, because happy children are most likely completely innocent and harmless, but religion isn't, for the reasons I said above. When you think about all the stuff that has happened over the decades in Northern Ireland and is still happening now in the Middle East etc. That all mostly comes from religion, and it's just not really a good thing to have people here who blindly follow a bunch of beliefs that in most cases, they had drilled in to them at such a young age that they never had a chance to think about it for themselves, or were scared to question it. (And who can blame them seeing as they are told they will burn in hell for eternity etc..). If some other organisation behaved like that, it would be shut down immediately and everyone would probably be imprisoned. There is also the whole thing about how religion completely defies basic scientific understanding, and ignoring that it doesn't make much sense, it surely isn't a good thing to be teaching and preaching something that goes against science and logical thought. But this isn't saying that they should be stopped is it? It's not like a call to arms to stop religious people or something, it's just a kind of random comment which should be just as valid as all the billions of religious statements. In fact, moreso because it is presented better. Someone made a good point that it's a bit hypocritical to make a statement against religion by having a statement against no religion. But still, it's just a statement that people are free to ignore, and perhaps the purpose is just to get people thinking, or to give religious people a taste of their own medicine for a change. And surely "getting people thinking" is a far more righteous pursuit than just telling people what to believe else they'll be violently tortured in the firey pits of hell... Maybe that's the point though? To make people think, "GOSH! They are blatantly questioning our beliefs on a sign! THAT CAN'T BE RIGHT OR FAIR!!" and then hopefully they pass by a church and realise that they have been doing it for centuries in a MUCH bigger way. If I decided that women were evil, am I free to start running around murdering them? No. So why should people be free to believe in religion? And you can't say because it doesn't affect other other people because it clearly does. I think that was his/her point. It's a belief system that is arguably harmful. So why should that be allowed and others aren't?
When was the last time faith in a potentially omnipitent being, or several, killed someone? If I said to you, "I believe in having another beer" then you're not going to keel over (Unless you were brainwashed, and that's somehow your termination phrase or something..), and the chances of me keeling over are unlikely (Unless I try and drink my own weight in beer). I was under the impression that 'holy killings' or 'holy wars' were the sole cause of extremist groups of whichever religion, rather than the 'general' believers. That said, it would be pretty kick ass if the Pope was anything like Battle Pope.. Things like Scientology don't count, since they're a cult masquerading as religion.
To take the obvious, and extreme, example: suicide bombers On a less extreme level though, how many people has the religious idea of an afterlife killed? The idea that it doesn't matter if you throw your life away because you'll carry on in the afterlife is not a healthy state of mind to have.
You're kidding right? I think that's the wrong impression, because both do it. And they are both part of the same team anyway, which is my point. The question asked was, 'why *should* we be entitled to religious beliefs'. And someone replied (sarcastically unfortunately) with "Freedom". So my point is, not all beliefs are freely accepted. So who decides this freedom to believe what you want? It's a belief by some people that dirty foreigners should sod off back to their own country and stop stealing our jobs. But that's a belief that is frowned upon by most people (to say the least). So why should that be frowned upon, and yet the bible story should be accepted? So you see the point? Just because it's "a belief" doesn't mean you automatically have the right to believe it and preach it. That's not what freedom is about at all. If having freedom meant you can do anything you want without question, we would be a lot of trouble.
How many suicide bombers would be classed as extremists, or radicals? Does your average church/temple going person think that blowing themselves up is a good idea? I'll bet on no, they don't. I never said that it is a healthy thing to do - But I would bet that most religious people do not want to kill themselves for their faith - I honestly don't think individuals are that insane. My point is believing something does not automatically make you like to think "Hey. I could go explode myself to get my religious agenda across". I've known a lot of religious people, and every single one of them has been at least level headed enough to know that blowing **** up is not the way to get a point across. As for throwing your life away because there's an afterlife, isn't there some 'code' or whatever for what gets you into heaven? I don't know the religous doctrine of any faith well enough to argue this, but I would have thought that to get into heaven there would be some requirements involving not being a jerkoff and just flushing your life away. Could be wrong though. Not a person of any religious faith. So, just taking "And they are both part of the same team anyway, which is my point" - Isn't that like saying "You believe in X which means you suck and I hate you now"? What happened to tolerance? While I am trying to understand where you're coming from, I just don't see it myself. 'Freedom' is a very vague term, you're free to do anything you want within the laws of the host country is how I interpret the word. With that in mind, people are free to say "Hey. I believe in this God, and you should too." and I am just as free to tell them where there's a pole they can sit on. However, I am not free to take a spade to their head, because that is not within the laws of the country (As far as I know, anyway..). With the foreigners arguement, they're free to believe it, but they're not free to act upon those beliefs in a violent manner (Again, due to law), which I assume means, that they can be as racist and ignorant as they like. We, as the saner members of society, do not have to agree with them, but by the same token, we're not free to go upside their head with the nearest blunt object. Dictating what people can and can't believe is, in my opinion, a very dangerous situation to get into. Dictating, via law, how they can act is a much easier way to go. Saying that, by law, someone can't kill someone for any reason (As is the case in most first world countries) short of self defence (I bet that carries a prison sentence anyway) or for whatever reason, they're ordered to do so by their job (Armed response unit, military, etc). Someone telling you that you should believe in their god is not a violent act on its own, unless the person preeching it starts demanding you join and is generally intimidating etc. towards you. In every day 'hey, you should believe in this' there is no law saying you can't, or shouldn't, tell them where to get off. There is a law saying you can't go and club them to death for interupting your tit watching, or whatever it is you were doing at the time they started talking at/to you. I don't know whether I explained that very well - It reads fine to me, but then, I wrote it. So..
as an aside, its pretty ironic that near death experience were explained in a purely scientific manner. An atheist would be wow what a crazy dream while a religious person would interpret it as a sign of an afterlife. A persons religion or lack there of affects their perception of reality. It really frustrates me to see how religion destroys people inner strength, they have been told since they were young that their life is not in their hands and that god has a plan for them, that they have no control over their life. I've had friends that during troubled times would sit on their asses and say god will provide instead of getting up and doing something about it. Even worse when they have a close call and say "god saved me" instead of "**** that was close". People need to realize that the only person in control of their life and the only person with any power to change it is them. There are still cultures on earth where women are worth nothing according to their religion, they get treated as slaves, is that right? is that moral? where's your philosophy now?
My ex girlfriend is a devout Catholic (Church twice a week, believes whole heartedly in.. whatever it is they believe etc) and she was pretty damned smart, one of the best students in our year at school. Not to say they're all like her, but at the same time, having a religious faith doesn't always mean you become stupid
