Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[Sydney Bloods]

You might be confusing all atheists with New Atheism. And Evolutionists as atheists.
Similar to the logic that cats are actually dogs. Each are mammals, carnivores, have tails, are domesticated pets and carry fleas. So, must be the same!!?
Sydney Bloods is on the money: atheists don't believe in deities. Strict definition. That's it!!
Some may choose to believe in the Big Bang, some may believe religion is the root of all evil, some have leftist leanings and some to the right. Some are racist, bigots or philanthropic or rationalists. Up to the individual, I guess. Most Christians I know accept evolution and reconcile it with their beliefs.
There is also confusion between the terms belief and religion. I'll save that for another time.
I have a problem with New Atheists because their primary belief is that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises." That tends to make them anti-religion rather than atheist, but they have now redefined the general term atheist within those narrow parameters. I don't identify with them at all and resent their intrusion. I am an atheist, but not anti religion. I have a range of other beliefs, but detest bigots and fundamentalists. New Atheists are both by virtue of their mantra.
So are some Christians.
Hmmmm! Does this also mean that Christians are actually atheists?

That rise, sadly is due to the relationship between believers and non believers in political realm's. It occurs due to people who simply didn't have a deity being treated as a group in the late 80's through to most of the 90's, now whether that was through ignorance or simply practicality of politics we're still stuck with it today.

as always it is the views of those that talk the loudest which ends up as identifying traits of the group, even if that group doesn't actually exist. and its always inevitable that those with the deepest held beliefs will be the ones speaking loudly.

It's why I as someone who is anti-religious hates being asked are you an "atheist" or addressed as "oh you're an atheist." because vast majority of the time i'm not being addressed as definition of the term not believing in a god. I'm being addressed as belonging to a "group" with a whole magnitude of beliefs which i simply don't subscribe to.

I very much despise this notion of an atheist "community" which is gaining momentum. I understand the reasons for it, i even see that in some places like the USA for example it is required due to the invasive nature religion plays in politics over there, but i just cannot support it.

 

[Number37]

and that's what this is supposed to be about, anyone thinking their going to change someone else belief in an online forum, is a narcissist of the highest order. this is about trying to understand other peoples view points this cannot occur if A) someone refuses to explain their position and simply s**t talks someone with explaining what their own beliefs what their point of view is. or B) has no interest in understanding someone else point of view.

don't get me wrong we can all s**t talk each other but there has to be give and take, because otherwise its not a debate its just an old man yelling at a cloud.

I think you will find everybody learns something from the discussion, most (perhaps all?) just won't admit it.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

Philosophers are still important to science. It is just harder for them to start from somewhere that is relevant. In many areas science has become too complex and too specialised for non-scientists to just pick up and consider philosophically.

That rise, sadly is due to the relationship between believers and non believers in political realm's. It occurs due to people who simply didn't have a deity being treated as a group in the late 80's through to most of the 90's, now whether that was through ignorance or simply practicality of politics we're still stuck with it today.

as always it is the views of those that talk the loudest which ends up as identifying traits of the group, even if that group doesn't actually exist. and its always inevitable that those with the deepest held beliefs will be the ones speaking loudly.

It's why I as someone who is anti-religious hates being asked are you an "atheist" or addressed as "oh you're an atheist." because vast majority of the time i'm not being addressed as definition of the term not believing in a god. I'm being addressed as belonging to a "group" with a whole magnitude of beliefs which i simply don't subscribe to.

I very much despise this notion of an atheist "community" which is gaining momentum. I understand the reasons for it, i even see that in some places like the USA for example it is required due to the invasive nature religion plays in politics over there, but i just cannot support it.

Agree. I don't get the group part. I am a non-uzbekistani, non-blond, atheist, non-swimsuit-model. But that doesn't mean that I spend my life considering and fighting against being Uzbekistani, being blond, believing in a God and modelling swimsuits.

 

[skilts]

hehe, mere technology, he says ungrateful of the fact that technological advancement is the only reason he lives at a time where the average child doesn't die before there twelfth birthday.

Would not the time period into which one was born also be a determinant of the state of technology we encounter? My statement about your view of the nexus between technology and science moved you to the conclusion that technology was of more value than science. Is this what you meant to say?

perhaps if got you're head out of clouds and realised the reason society advanced was questioning philosophy, in its most zealous forms political and religious it was science that did away with caste systems and superstitions and all the worthless s**t that restrained society for so long.
belief was challenged on empirical evidence.

What empirical evidence do you provide that "society advanced"? Do you mean that a philosophy which was questioning caused this supposed advance, or do you mean that the questioning of philosophy itself was what caused it? It is unclear from what you have written what is meant. In the bolded bit, are you referring to the zealous nature of political and religious science? If so, this is an innovative approach I've not before encountered. In fact, to call anything political a science seems peculiar. To call anything associated with religion a scientific pursuit is downright bizarre? You are aware that empiricism is a notion which has its roots in philosophy of 3 - 400 years ago? How do you decide which parts of philosophy science will take up and those which will be discarded? To assert that society has advanced in some sort of linear progression is to beg the question. You have provided no evidence to support this proposition, much less proved it to be so.

your problem is you think that in order to critical analysis anything one must dive wholesale and give credit to the entire realm of philosophy. this utter nonsense feed to you by self aggrandising ******s. once again there's no need to throw the baby out with the bath water you take the some principals and foundational ideas from philosophy and move on. that is advancement, you take what is needed you, refine it, you produce a better product.

This paragraph makes little sense to me. What has diving to do with anything? If you so despise philosophy, why would you embrace any of its precepts. I fail to see how the baby and the bath water metaphor advances your argument. It would appear that you think the only measure of human existence is 'advancement'. Who is doing the measuring of this which would allow such a conclusion. Which scientific methodology is employed in this project? I would have thought this to be within the purview of sociologists. Are you claiming sociology as a science?

for someone who claims that philosophy gives you a better more intermittent understanding of existence. you seem to have a toxic objection to the very things that enable to indulge in such mental masturbation. and this is where philosophical crap falls apart, you could have attempted to sight a number of things from the evolution of modern democracy, women's rights, peace movements. economic theory, ethics, hell even modern tv programs. But you didn't and the reason is, is because like all pedallers of philosophy you've lost sight of what actually matters. tangible results. so caught up in you're woo you've failed to address that which is demanded of actual progress. advancement. here is where we were, here is where we are, here is where we're going. philosophy as a field of study has not just slowed down its stopped.

Are you referring to a particular school of philosophical pursuit here, or to all of philosophy? Despite you advocating that science should cherry pick from philosophy, you insist upon the utter uselessness doing so. I find this to be inconsistent. This paragraph is an example of a teleological argument. You, of course, would be aware of this aspect of Aristotle's philosophy. What, exactly, is there in all the philosophical theories you have read that you find so objectionable? To say that you hate philosophy and philosophers is to say nothing, unless you are able to provide specific instances of which philosophical thinking you find so objectionable. A list of those philosophers whose writings you find most odious would be instructive.

No amount of pondering ever put a man on the moon, eventually you're going to have to pick up a tool, if you want to actually contribute to the world, produce something. mindless prattling doesn't cut it these days.

Now we come to the root of your problem. In what way would your life be a lesser thing had man never landed on the moon? Obviously, this is not a question that has ever occurred to you. This is because you have deliberately chosen to be an acolyte of the god of science. You think there is only one way of thinking, the scientific way. It is sad that you should choose to cripple an otherwise fine mind by embracing such blinkered and restrictive thinking. I smell a member of that farcical organisation The Australian Skeptics. Have they sorted out who is rooting whom in that dysfunctional shambles yet?

As usual, it is engrossing to have discourse with you. Think yourself lucky I'm not intercourses.

 

[Pie eyed]

Thinking about thinking isn't trivial. That you believe philosophy is an exercise in woo is proof positive that with age doesn't necessarily come wisdom.

Much philosophy is woo. The only way to remove the woo is to narrow the scope of what it is you consider philosophy.
I don't pretend to be wise, but I'm not stupid...

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Would not the time period into which one was born also be a determinant of the state of technology we encounter? My statement about your view of the nexus between technology and science moved you to the conclusion that technology was of more value than science. Is this what you meant to say?

technology and science are interchangeable, technology all technology is based off analysis of the physical world, that is science. of course if you were born at a time where there was less technology you would also have an increased chance of dying. that is the entire point. you dismiss the advancement science and technology saying have we advanced? lets see richer, healthier, better educated. are you seriously going to claim that one in three women no longer dying in child birth is not an advancement?

What empirical evidence do you provide that "society advanced"? Do you mean that a philosophy which was questioning caused this supposed advance, or do you mean that the questioning of philosophy itself was what caused it? It is unclear from what you have written what is meant. In the bolded bit, are you referring to the zealous nature of political and religious science? If so, this is an innovative approach I've not before encountered. In fact, to call anything political a science seems peculiar. To call anything associated with religion a scientific pursuit is downright bizarre? You are aware that empiricism is a notion which has its roots in philosophy of 3 - 400 years ago? How do you decide which parts of philosophy science will take up and those which will be discarded? To assert that society has advanced in some sort of linear progression is to beg the question. You have provided no evidence to support this proposition, much less proved it to be so.

questioning the basis of philosophical thought put into practice. religion and political theory's were based upon philosophical principals. that the theory could be correct. philosophical teachings taught that theory was to be unquestioned that any evidence that did not fit there preconceived notions was inherently wrong due to the fallibility of man and his senses. it bred this primitive notion that you could dismiss evidence that questioned what ever clap trap you thought up. It was science and its technology which put an end to, science producing evidence that proved such concepts were rubbish that you could not ignore evidence, it was pushing against the tide. technological advancement that is a result of science brought people closer together again people saw the theories pushed by religion and politics were rubbish.

how does one separate what parts of philosophy to discard? quite simply, if it is untestable its discarded because it is worthless there is nothing to learn from it. and who said progression was linear? progression ebb's and flows it doesn't change the fact that it is discovery and invention that drives it forward. what examples would you like? ships? cars? medicine? something smaller perhaps a pulley? a square? a knife? a club? a piece of flint? now i'm sure you're taking the piss.

This paragraph makes little sense to me. What has diving to do with anything? If you so despise philosophy, why would you embrace any of its precepts. I fail to see how the baby and the bath water metaphor advances your argument. It would appear that you think the only measure of human existence is 'advancement'. Who is doing the measuring of this which would allow such a conclusion. Which scientific methodology is employed in this project? I would have thought this to be within the purview of sociologists. Are you claiming sociology as a science?

its based on evidence of the conditions of human life getting better as advancement in the fields of science and the development of technology. its the only way one can judge advancement. specifically because it is testable. of course then we need to utilise scientific fields such as geology, genetics. etc, etc.

Are you referring to a particular school of philosophical pursuit here, or to all of philosophy? Despite you advocating that science should cherry pick from philosophy, you insist upon the utter uselessness doing so. I find this to be inconsistent. This paragraph is an example of a teleological argument. You, of course, would be aware of this aspect of Aristotle's philosophy. What, exactly, is there in all the philosophical theories you have read that you find so objectionable? To say that you hate philosophy and philosophers is to say nothing, unless you are able to provide specific instances of which philosophical thinking you find so objectionable. A list of those philosophers whose writings you find most odious would be instructive.

the tradition school of philosophy which concerns itself with the immaterial, subjective idealism especially such as Berkeley. you seem to completely misunderstand my position philosophy has no place in modern society. it is outdated and provides nothing of use TODAY. it is the clinging on to philosophy as a discipline which i reject. Science has supplant what was true nature of metaphysics as Aristotle aimed to understand. What is really there? scince has given us the tools to find out. If you're own concepts do not submit themselves to be tested in the real world how do expect to actually find out the answer to the question?

Now we come to the root of your problem. In what way would your life be a lesser thing had man never landed on the moon? Obviously, this is not a question that has ever occurred to you. This is because you have deliberately chosen to be an acolyte of the god of science. You think there is only one way of thinking, the scientific way. It is sad that you should choose to cripple an otherwise fine mind by embracing such blinkered and restrictive thinking. I smell a member of that farcical organisation The Australian Skeptics. Have they sorted out who is rooting whom in that dysfunctional shambles yet?

are you serious? you understand man landing on the moon was part of the space race, lead to the development of satellites without which i wouldn't have the internet, mobile phones, which are required to do my job. establishment of nasa which improved airtravel which i use on a weekily basis. the laptop i'm currently using right now. the cordless drill i use for countless odd jobs around the house. the smoke detector which saved my mums life. there's plenty ways of thinking, but none that have contributed to the actual advancement of humanity as has science. you continue with this claptrap notion of science as a god, science is not above questioning. science demands to be questions that's why it works.

this is the very w***ery i'm talking about when it comes to philosophy. a line which goes against every aspect of science attempting to discredit the field because you can not defeat and to what end? a pointless attempt to and harken back to the days where people marched lockstep with whatever sounded good, with zombie like adherence? a time where people could not be questioned because of there position? attempting to call scientific based thought blinkered is rather, amusing given that those that reject it, fight against every piece of testable evidence that shows their theories and analysis are wrong, then cling to that which has no way to be tested in order to keep it alive. armchair critics unwilling to actually step onto the field.
actually stop and think for moment, without science we would not even be able to have this discussion. the distance between us is just too far. you and i would never even know each other existed...................... and you think that's limited? for all your groundless musings what do they actually contribute TODAY! as for you're australian skeptics, i'm barely even aware of what that group is about.

As usual, it is engrossing to have discourse with you. Think yourself lucky I'm not intercourses.

touché.

 

[Number37]

technology and science are interchangeable, technology all technology is based off analysis of the physical world, that is science. of course if you were born at a time where there was less technology you would also have an increased chance of dying. that is the entire point. you dismiss the advancement science and technology saying have we advanced? lets see richer, healthier, better educated. are you seriously going to claim that one in three women no longer dying in child birth is not an advancement?




are you serious? you understand man landing on the moon was part of the space race, lead to the development of satellites without which i wouldn't have the internet, mobile phones, which are required to do my job. establishment of nasa which improved airtravel which i use on a weekily basis. the laptop i'm currently using right now. the cordless drill i use for countless odd jobs around the house. the smoke detector which saved my mums life. there's plenty ways of thinking, but none that have contributed to the actual advancement of humanity as has science. you continue with this claptrap notion of science as a god, science is not above questioning. science demands to be questions that's why it works.

this is the very ******y i'm talking about when it comes to philosophy. a line which goes against every aspect of science attempting to discredit the field because you can not defeat and to what end? a pointless attempt to and harken back to the days where people marched lockstep with whatever sounded good, with zombie like adherence? a time where people could not be questioned because of there position? attempting to call scientific based thought blinkered is rather, amusing given that those that reject it, fight against every piece of testable evidence that shows their theories and analysis are wrong, then cling to that which has no way to be tested in order to keep it alive. armchair critics unwilling to actually step onto the field.
actually stop and think for moment, without science we would not even be able to have this discussion. the distance between us is just too far. you and i would never even know each other existed...................... and you think that's limited? for all your groundless musings what do they actually contribute TODAY! as for you're australian skeptics, i'm barely even aware of what that group is about.



touché.

I don't want to rain on your parade but your spirited defence of science sounds a lot like blind adherence. I am not questioning the validity of science and scientific thought relative to anything else or absolutely but if you are going provide a balanced view you could at least acknowledge the many shortcomings of science. Yes there are people that will dispute it regardless, but by definition science does NOT provide the answer it provides a answer. The suggestion that scepticism stems purely from religious bias is impossible to substantiate , but provides people like yourself a perfect opportunity to present a 'compare the pair' argument. I would suggest there is far more to it than that, and just because there isn't a scientific explanation (psychology for example) doesn't necessarily strengthen the scientific argument, at least not as much as you think it does.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

I don't want to rain on your parade but your spirited defence of science sounds a lot like blind adherence. I am not questioning the validity of science and scientific thought relative to anything else or absolutely but if you are going provide a balanced view you could at least acknowledge the many shortcomings of science. Yes there are people that will dispute it regardless, but by definition science does NOT provide the answer it provides a answer. The suggestion that scepticism stems purely from religious bias is impossible to substantiate , but provides people like yourself a perfect opportunity to present a 'compare the pair' argument. I would suggest there is far more to it than that, and just because there isn't a scientific explanation (psychology for example) doesn't necessarily strengthen the scientific argument, at least not as much as you think it does.

science does not produce the/an answer in and of its self, it provides us the tools to find an answer ourselves. The strength of science is that the answer we come to is verifiable. No one is judged merely by their word, or a feeling or whatever other answers are out there.

 

[Number37]

science does not produce the/an answer in and of its self, it provides us the tools to find an answer ourselves. The strength of science is that the answer we come to is verifiable. No one is judged merely by their word, or a feeling or whatever other answers are out there.

Yes I understand that, but you are selling it like it is a sure thing...at least in comparison to its opposition (religion).

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Yes I understand that, but you are selling it like it is a sure thing...at least in comparison to its opposition (religion).

it goes beyond religion, religion is a product of a line of thinking that thought alone is all anyone can trust and therefore thought alone is the only thing one requires.

 

[Number37]

it goes beyond religion, religion is a product of a line of thinking that thought alone is all anyone can trust and therefore thought alone is the only thing one requires.

That is a bit of poor generalisation and demonstrates the problem with selling the scientific method.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

That is a bit of poor generalisation and demonstrates the problem with selling the scientific method.

and what would be a more precise critique of religious thought?

 

[Number37]

and what would be a more precise critique of religious thought?

You think the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency got his doctorate from the Koran?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

You think the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency got his doctorate from the Koran?

so you think the only draw back of religious thought is its contribution to modern society and advancement of humanity as a whole? or were being facetious and dodging the question?

 

[Number37]

so you think the only draw back of religious thought is its contribution to modern society and advancement of humanity as a whole? or were being facetious and dodging the question?

What?
You were making it out like religious peope are anti-science knuckle draggers which is not wholly true nor it is wholly false.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

What?
You were making it out like religious peope are anti-science knuckle draggers which is not wholly true nor it is wholly false.

I wasn't not talking about religious people at all i was talking about religion as a discipline. you claim that my critique was a generalisation. i asked you for a more exact critique, you chose to avoid giving one.

 

[Number37]

I wasn't not talking about religious people at all i was talking about religion as a discipline. you claim that my critique was a generalisation. i asked you for a more exact critique, you chose to avoid giving one.

Not quite, you say you were talking about religion as a discipline but how could that mean anything other than religious people?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Not quite, you say you were talking about religion as a discipline but how could that mean anything other than religious people?

religion as a branch of knowledge, the methodology behind it. what is the underlying structure of religion.

 

[Number37]

religion as a branch of knowledge, the methodology behind it. what is the underlying structure of religion.

You seem to be back-tracking.

it goes beyond religion, religion is a product of a line of thinking that thought alone is all anyone can trust and therefore thought alone is the only thing one requires.

Beyond religion means?
I assumed your meant religious practice.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

You seem to be back-tracking.



Beyond religion means?
I assumed your meant religious practice.

i don't see how i'm back tracking. When i say beyond religion, i mean the line of thinking which religion is based on.
Science for example is based on drawing conclusions based solely on verifiable evidence?

 

[Number37]

i don't see how i'm back tracking. When i say beyond religion, i mean the line of thinking which religion is based on.
Science for example is based on drawing conclusions based solely on verifiable evidence?

Yes I got that bit, but as I tried to point out to you, people can be both religious and acceptors of science at the same time, if I am not mistaken you speak as if the 2 are mutually exclusive.

 

[Boston tiger]

Science shows us we are in a place where there could be a power beyond our comprehension.
Science will happily go about its business with no real agenda .. finding things out and benefitting humanity ( if used appropriately) and some people think through discovery will show that there isn't any power out there beyond our comprehension. It's just our ignorance.

Science v philosophy. I really don't even know what philosophy is but humans can really stuff things up.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Yes I got that bit, but as I tried to point out to you, people can be both religious and acceptors of science at the same time, if I am not mistaken you speak as if the 2 are mutually exclusive.

i believe reality is more of a venn diagram. you still haven't addressed my question. If you don't know just say so. there's nothing wrong with not knowing.

 

[Number37]

i believe reality is more of a venn diagram. you still haven't addressed my question. If you don't know just say so. there's nothing wrong with not knowing.

You mean this question;

and what would be a more precise critique of religious thought?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

You mean this question;

in the context in which i asked it, yes.