Slashdot Mirror
Search
Search the archive with full-text matching across story titles, bodies,
and comments. Phrases are quoted; or, -word,
and parentheses behave as in a web search. Queries must be at least
3 characters.
Search the archive with full-text matching across story titles, bodies,
and comments. Phrases are quoted; or, -word,
and parentheses behave as in a web search. Queries must be at least
3 characters.
One could easily argue it the other way. What's the point of getting up and doing stuff when at any instant, your god of choice could decide he's bored with the universe, wipe it clean, and start over from scratch with a different set of config options? Maybe he just did, and you can't tell because he created you with a bunch of fake memories to fool you into not noticing. If you believe in an omnipotent god who does things for reasons we can't understand, you can't dismiss the possibility. Now THAT'S a bleak belief system in my book.
Somebody is laughing at, just a matter of who actually are the terrorists them or us.6 75910247150
IMHO the US/UK goverments are the terrorists and 9/11 7/7 where orchestrated.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3249714
Theism its all about GOD "Gold Oil Drugs" repent your sins, you gold wearing, oil using, drug taking, theism.
However, you believe strongly that there are no gods, which is as unscientific as a belief that there are gods. Furthermore, you claim you are indisputably right and everyone else should "just get used to it." The you claim science backs up your belief (which it does not).
"There is no god" is not a scientific statement since there is a total lack of evidence. "We have very successfully explained virtually all observed phenomenon without needing to postulate a god" is closer to something actually backed up by science.
People who use the name of science to "support" their arrogant atheism are at least as bad as those who use it to support their arrogant theism.
Evolution isn't a religion anymore than gravity or atomic physics are.
When Galileo interpreted that he was seeing moons orbiting Jupiter, rather than the Earth, it may have had implications for the religious dogma of the day, but he was not establishing a new Copernican religion as a replacement for it, he was simply doing science, which is independent of religion.
You are quite right that the scientific community *in*other*fields* did fine when it was still thought that the Earth's geology was produced rapidly in a gigantic flood, but geology was a *mess*, and the old idea that the Earth's geology had to conform with a strict, Biblical literalist interpretation hindered the field for a good century or so. Some people realized the problem and questioned it earlier, such as Leonardo da Vinci's bit of work on the subject, but the majority of European scientists who addressed the question of the Earth's origin didn't toss the global flood ideas they were so religiously attached to until the late 1700s, which is relatively late compared to scientific progress in other fields. To put it on par, not realizing the Earth was vastly old would be like not realizing the planets were alot closer than the stars.
You are also quite right that a little rational debate on the subject is no threat, but the problem is, anyone who wants such a debate on the subject of the origin of the Earth is about 200 years too late to the debate, which was largely settled decades before Darwin started talking about his ideas in biology. That hasn't stopped some people from trying anyway, and claiming such debates are legitimate material in a science classroom. They aren't, anymore than the suggestion epicycles and geocentrism might be right after all would be correct in a astronomy class. As a historical novelty or point of contrast with current ideas, or to show why they are wrong, sure, but as a competing modern theory with equal merit? No way.
You are conflating the fact that scientists of the past and present can be religious with the status of the scientific issues themselves, and then surmising that some scientific theories are establishing a religion. That's just silly. Scientific theories are not atheistic, they aren't theistic either, in that theism isn't considered or negated by them. Do theists and atheists accept that the planets move in accordance with gravity? Mostly, yes (though we can rationally scientifically debate whether current theory about gravity is correct, of course). Does the Hand Of God guide the planets in their orbits or is it a purely atheistic process devoid of God's involvement? Guess what: this isn't a scientific question at all, regardless of what you personally think the answer is. Likewise for all the other scientific issues you have raised. Does that make the idea of gravity atheistic and its teaching in school the establishment of atheistic religion? No. Likewise biological evolution or any other scientific theory you wish to consider. I like to use the term *non*-theistic to describe scientific theories -- they aren't theistic or atheistic. If you were storing their status in a relational database, you'd put in a NULL, not a True or False.
To address your final point, the "fruits" of nuclear physics aren't entirely positive either, and our understanding of everything from gravity to chemistry and fluid dynamics has yielded ever more effective weapons that have provided people with the means to kill each other more efficiently if they decide that's what they want to do. What's your point? These are scientific theories. Their validity as scientific theories says *NOTHING* about philosophy or political systems based on them. If they did, why, based on Newton's theory of gravity I could say it is entirely natural to drop anvils on people's heads from tall buildings.
On top of that, most of the philosophy and politics that people have tried to base on evolutionary theory have been based on gross misunderstandings of the theory, so you can hardly blame the theory itself for the problem. If anything, this is grounds for more extensive education about it.
Right. So then, you think you have a right to be intolerant of all Creationists? Because, by definition, all Creationists tell you what to believe? And you, convinced you're right, don't *ever* try to convince someone else that they're wrong?
What on earth are you talking about? Do you usually just make claims without explaining them? The Big Bang theory makes no claim about its cause. Did you know that? Or do you have an alternate source of information, some pseudo-scientific model that gives a cause to the Big Bang? (such as the oscillating universe?) How exactly is it obvious to you that I don't understand the Big Bang? You might need to start explaining yourself instead of just slinging insults. You look a bit stupid saying I don't believe the Big Bang occurred, when I've told you plain as day I do. Maybe I'm lying about being a theist too!
You're a strange person, crying out "fool!" when all along you are the one who made the mistake. You still think that I reject the Big Bang? What argument are you making? That because you think I misunderstand it, that I must not accept the Big Bang? You'll need to start making sense if you hope to convince people you're rational.
That was not my argument, but it shouldn't surprise me that you can miss the subtleties. You made the ignorant argument that theism is wrong because it is taught to children at a young age when they don't question. I was merely rebuking that argument by pointing out that some people become theists when they are adults, therefore your argument that theism is wrong just because they come to that knowledge in childhood is false. I was not claiming that theism is true for those reasons, I was merely saying that your stupid argument is invalid.Imagine a murder scene. You see the murderer John holding a gun over the body and you call him guilty. Later on you find out that the person had been murdered hours before, with a knife. But, it was still the same person. So your belief that John was the murderer was true, but it was originally believed for the wrong reasons. That is the point of my argument - you can't just say religion is false because some people come to believe it in a way which you think is inadequate.
Do you have children? Will you raise them to choose between atheism and theism? Or will you impart to them your enormous wisdom on the lies of religion? Should I call your children fools if they grow up to be like their parent, raving mad at creationists and a die-hard atheist? Or do you think they, unlike theists, are allowed to be taught from a young age what their parent believes?
I'm intolerant of jihadists, too, as well as people who step on my feet on the subway. That doesn't make me a bigot. I'm intolerant of people who treat me badly, as I specified. I don't care what you think, until you try tell me what to think or do myself, or obviously threaten my freedom or wellbeing. Like you - not all religious people. You hide behind religion, demanding tolerance for your intolerance and agressive ignorance, as if all religious people are like you. I don't play that game, even if you're not used to losing your figleaf.
I made no mistake. You can make the usual religious mistake of declaring you accept the Big Bang theory, but get it wrong. The Big Bang theory doesn't say "it just happened" like a miracle; you got it wrong because you don't understand the science. So I don't merely assume your rejection of the actual Big Bang: I can see that you do. Stop crowing about some kind of mistake that is all yours, from your pit of ignorance.
Logic? Cut the crap. Your argument tries to say that because some people don't accept their childhood training until adulthood, that it didn't have an effect. That because some people become theists without childhood training (like who?) that theism is valid - without accounting for the other reasons why they become theists, like peer pressure or alcoholism. You want to use logic to justify your brand of faith, tell me the logical reason people choose faith. Don't bother - that's a contradiction, though I'm sure you love it anyway.
http://www.answers.com/bigot&r=67
Perhaps I misunderstood then when you said, 'stick your fake "respect for learning" up your blind, stupid ass.' But it does seem to fit the definition of 'bigot' as I quoted. If you're not intolerent of creationists, then I'd love to know what intolerence is. Woe to anyone on slashdot who disagrees with Darwinism...
This is fresh. You make the mistake, and then try to make it sound like I'm the one making the mistake. You are the one who claimed I rejected the big bang. That was your mistake and your assumption. Now you're assuming that I accept the big bang on faith. You're assuming I don't understand the science for it. Did you read my innermost thoughts? Perhaps you've heard me say that to someone else? Maybe you hold an irrational belief that those who reject Darwinism can't understand science. No, I accept the big bang because of the tests and studies that point towards its occurance. So I have no idea what you're saying here. You must be confusing me with someone else.
Can't wait to see what embarrassing assumption you make next.
Any answer for why it's not blind faith to believe something comes from nothing?
And what of those adults who become theists? This is just a plain stupid argument. A lot of people probably do become theists because they were raised to be. That doesn't mean that:
a. theism is wrong
b. the sole reason anyone ever becomes a theist is because of upbringing
Ever studied logic?
I'm no bigot. I hate only those "Christians" who tell me or others what to think or do because of the "Christian's" faith.
As for missing your points, you're the one missing the points of testing. Maybe you accept the Big Bang on faith, but that's only because you can't understand the science. Your limited intellect doesn't reduce science to the primitive weakness of religion.
"Freedom and knowledge" my ass - "Christian theism" is based on training children before they're old enough to question adult authority. Just like the rest of the world's religions. You've apparently fooled yourself easily enough. Find your own values somewhere they don't try to insult my intelligence.
Perhaps it escaped your notice that I did not deny the big bang. In fact, I'll put it clearly: I believe the big bang occurred.
The atheist believes that the big bang was uncaused, and came from nothing.
*BANG!*
Atheist's Friend turns around startled, seeing a mess in the kitchen: what caused that?!?
Atheist: Nothing did!
Atheist's Friend: Nothing?
Atheist: Yes, nothing, my dear friend. It just happened!
No miracle that the theist claims is more absurd than the atheist's miracle.
Give me the atheistic agenda, freedom and knowledge and stick your fake "respect for learning" up your blind, stupid ass.
The hatred and bigotry you show for us theists is nothing less than remarkable. The "respect for learning" was me quoting back your own words to you. You may have missed that, too.
Freedom and knowledge are the cornerstones of Christian theism. Find your own values.
No, you're ignorant as to what an atheist is (commonly). Read the wiki: "Atheism, in its broadest sense, is a lack of belief in a deity or deities: the opposite of theism. This encompasses both people who assert that there are no gods and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions of atheism typically regard as atheists only those people who actively assert the nonexistence of gods, leaving other nonbelievers classified as agnostics and/or non-theists." To the best of my knowledge, few accept the narrow definition effectively and most that do are trying to lump atheists in with other religious types. I.e., like yourself, you assert that atheists have some belief (they don't, some do but not simply by virtue of being atheists) which is untrue. See also the wiki for agnotics: "Agnosticism has suffered more than most expressions of philosophical position from terminological vagaries."
I imagine one could argue that the Wager was intended as an argument against atheism in the face of theism, regardless of its religious manifestation. A possibly better refutation of Pascal's Wager would involve questioning whether a judgmental god who (by its function of judging) would need to be omnisceient could not differentiate a true believer from a pragmatist, and deal with him accordingly. Those gods who do not include moral judgment in their canon would not care either way, and hence can be safely excluded from the Wager.
One could have also used Pascal's Wager against him to convince the mathematician that unforeseen circumstances could make it in his best interest to believe that 1+1=3, regardless of whatever pretentions of truth he previously had. (Not a perfect analogy, I know, given that such a statement is truth by definition, not empiricism...) The point being, we must believe or disbelieve things based upon our best discernations of their truthfulness, not on whether such a belief would merely benefit us pragmatically.
Regardless of the details, good call on bringing up the Wager. It seems far too few people see its flaws.
Not that it really matters for anything, but I can vouce that Spun and Dada are not the same person. Or at least, if they are it's an extremely well-constructed ruse. Dada has been on my Friends list since an interesting conversation I had with him a while back about theism, and as such, he gets +1 moderation in my preferences (not because I agree with him, which I often don't, but because he has some interesting ideas and tries to back them up well). Thus threads with a lot of him in them grab my attention, and I noticed the thread where he met Spun, who is also Friended.
So, if this is a ruse it's been well executed in public and it's been going on for a while. Parsimoniously, I'm inclined to conclude that Spun and Dada are actually separate people. And even if they're not... the one person behind it seems pretty interesting to me, and I'm curious what his actual position is, if any.
Atheism is, in my opinion, a higher evolutionary state than theism.
Nah. Atheism is "Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods". In other words, it's just another belief ... like beliving that there is a God or gods. A higher evolutionary state would be to have the knowledge sufficient to accurately state that there is no God or gods.
Mankind suddenly didn't fall into all sorts of inventions by embracing atheism. Most of the knowledge of the world has been lost and is only being "re-discovered", unfortunately shaped by the ego-centric society of today. Archimedes had a steam-powered cannon over 2000 years ago. People have been harnessing the power of electricity for thousands of years -- perhaps not for powering computers, but for other purposes (really, there are other/additional purposes). Knowledge of plants and herbs in the use of treating disease, infection, and general health has been known for even longer, was FAR more effective, and had significantly fewer side-effects (don't get me started on the state of modern "medicine"). Oh, and all of these civilisations were highly religious, attributing their wonders to the power or blessing of God or gods. How much more has been lost that is now being "discovered" by "modern scientists"?
One could go so far as to say that to deny the existence of God or gods with the limited understanding that mankind truly has today is not a higher state of evolution, but is instead a higher state of arrogance and merely an attempt to completely escape the confines of any sort of laws, rules or regulations imposed by any and all such systems of beliefs. But that could lead to a flamewar, so we'll not go there, eh? :D
-M
Devnull, I disagree strongly with many of the ideas in your post, and I'm surprised that you make such aggressive claims with so little evidence.
First, your discussion of the advances scientists bring to society. You laud scientists, and not priests, for bringing us technology. But producing technology is not the job of a priest. You might as well castigate a teacher for failing to put out house fires. Second, the religious analogue to a scientist is not a priest but a practitioner of religion. (Only a fraction of religious believers support a professional, celibate, spiritually authoritarian priesthood.) And the fact is, that it was primarily practitioners of religion who brought us all three of the advances you list. Indeed, all of our greatest scientists--Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and the list goes on--have been deeply religious men and women.
Even if we take up the argument on your terms, that is, looking for the value of religion in the technological achievements of celibate clergy, the contributions of monks to our most basic technology--written language--is quite significant. And that's not to mention their work in fields such as mathematics, architecture, viticulture, and art.
You offer no evidence for your claim that "religion has generally been the biggest impediment to scientific progress." Whether or not religion has impeded scientific progress is an interesting question upon which reasonable men may disagree, but it seems clear that it could not possibly be the biggest impediment. What about the fact that most humans throughout history have been illiterate? Scientific experimentation is an expensive luxury; don't you think that poverty is a greater impediment to science than religion, if indeed religion is an impediment at all?
You say that religion has been used by "a manipulative few to gain control over and wealth from the gullible masses." This is true, but it is a fault of political rulers, not of religion. Technology is also used to kill and control. Shall we abandon science because it leads to the discovery of information that can be misused? It is the misuse of science and religion that should be condemned. It would be foolish to slander an honest pursuit such as religion or science because it is abused by irresponsible and immoral rulers.
We agree that political control and its concomitant economic benefits are one use of religion, but your contention that control is religion's "main use" is impossible to prove, and, I believe, incorrect. If we measure how often religion is used for any given purpose, the billions of people who use religion in their personal life to better understanding their identity and their connection to God surely outweigh the "manipulative few" who use it maliciously. And even in the realm of politics there are wonderful uses of religion: it was religious conviction that gave Gandhi the strength to free a billion people from colonial rule; religion motivated Martin Luther King; evangelical Christians, first in England and then in America, spearheaded the first movements to eradicate slavery on moral grounds. And besides, when political leaders do use religion for nefarious purposes, they generally use it for its instit
And don't give me noncense about how helping people is the best way to live a happy fulfiled life - you are just prooving my point, if you are only helping people because it helps you, then you are doing exactly what I said: living for your own pleasure. I just so happens you are helping people along the way, but that's not why you are doing it.
Someone please mod parent up. This post so well summarizes the problem of theism: what exactly the "believers" just don't get.
It's not about "happy" or "fulfilled". Those are irrelevant.
If you want to look at it from a personal perspective, you find this truth: people tend to treat you the way you treat them. Help your neighbour, he's likely to help you. Ignore him and he's more likely to ignore than help you. Rape him and you're very likely to get acquainted with a baseball bat or similar object of retribution (unless he's much smaller than you and you live in a chaotic society where he has no support structure; but then you are both barbarians anyway so the point is moot). Very simple. This is based on how our instincts are built. This is how we, and most animals, work. It's about survival. In a modern society nice people fare better than the punks and idjits. Reciprocation.
But ultimately a thinking person, past the basest of needs and wants of individual survival, sees a bigger picture: it's about evolution - survival of the species, if you will. As individuals we expire in a relatively short time. During that time we have the opportunity to contribute to the evolution of the species, "leave our mark" if you will. Improve things for the generations to come. For some that realizes as bringing up their kids smarter and better than they themselves were; for some the realization is a scientific achievement (which may be in the form of improving society, in order to facilitate others' evolutionary work), or contributing to such. For many it's a combination of these. Again, this is how we're wired: for reproduction, in physical or abstract form, and ensuring the survival of our offspring (and thus our own genes).
You don't need an abstract deity in order to determine a reasonable value structure and to find meaning to your life. All you need is a working brain, and a post-barbaric society where you have the opportunity to utilize the said organ.
Look at any old religion's holy scripture (Scientology and such are modern day con jobs, they don't count). Read with the above reasoning in mind, one can (usually without squinting too hard) see a group of smart and well-intentioned people trying to write down a code to help their less civilized brethren to work towards the common-good goals I outlined above. Since they knew the brethren are not as educated and civilized, they needed to include a "because this really big and strong guy tells you to" clause to justify the code.
God is a crutch in a civilized society. Think and you will find the reasons why.
And the answer to Stephen's question: the best thing we can do to ensure mankind's survival is to eliminate the unavoidably jilted thinking (think, you'll see why it is unavoidably jilted) of the theists.
Start aggressively on step 1 now, and we might see the fruition of step 3 in about 2 centuries (about 3 generations of old codgers dead and buried).
I just believe in the empirical. If God comes down from Heaven and starts talking to me tomorrow, I'll believe in God. I just like having proof of something before I let it shape my worldview. I'm silly like that.
The difference is that if you eat McDonald's every day, it will probably kill you, but it won't have any direct effect on me. However, if some nut with a suitcase bomb steps onto my subway train with a plan to get his 72 virgins, that is very much everyone else's problem. If you want something a little more close to home, look at the control that Christians are intent on exercising on other peoples' decisions about gay marriage, drugs and abortion. Or the insistence that everyone else's children be taught fairy tales in biology class. Or the fact that the Christian voting bloc was the swing vote that put that monkey idiot president of ours in power. If you're more "spiritual" than "religious," more power to ya. But I've found that the vast majority of religious people out there are little more than sheep.
I agree that the world is magnificent, and that people haven't been taking very good care of it. But that's neither here nor there. Painting things with such broad strokes (world good, man evil) doesn't seem very helpful to me.
Christianity was, in fact, a cause of serious turmoil in Rome. The Spanish are infamous for their particularly cruel brand of Catholicism, and there have been dozens of feuds in Western Europe caused by some petty disagreement between Christian sects. And the Cold War wasn't a war, but many viewed it as a conflict between God's America and the godless, cold communist state.
Would you disagree with any of the following?
I'm not talking about individuals; I'm talking about sociological trends.
Huh? They're not at all alike. Politics is a necessary evil that comes with a government run by a hierarchy of people. But it's better than anarchy. There have been times throughout history when church and state were one, but law and order come from the "state" part, and secular governments function jus
First up atheism takes as much faith as religion. So I applaude that you have a faith based system integrated into your life.
"Religion threatens us in a very serious way" so do saturated fats, should we hold McDonalds (religion) accountable for all the fat, unhealthy people (zealots) in the world? Or instead should we say that how people interact with McDonalds is the real problem? A burger a month... no problem... three a day every day... big problem. Like wise faith and religion implemented as caring and sharing, or implemented as a holy war against everyone.
"The world would be so much better off if people would just see it for what it was"... the world is a brilliant magnificent place, screwed up by people, just like everything else.
"Religion has had a role in almost every war in human history" WTF? Mongols? Roman? Spanish? Cold war? Way go to with the generalisations.
"A higher evolutionary state than theism" so its more evolved? More evolved would indicate some kind of advantage over lesser evolved entities, so why aren't the 'evolved' running and governing the world in a athiest way? Aparently you guys are 'the elite' yet your not at the top (most western politicals leaders are affiliated with some religion as are a large number of business people)... go figure?
" Its main use was (and continues to be) as a device allowing a select, manipulative few to gain control over and wealth from the gullible masses" oh you mean like politics? So we should ditch that was well and all revert to anarchy? Because thats more eveolved right?
"religion has generally been the biggest impediment to scientific progress" generally, generally, generally, the catch cry of someone with no idea. Generally people that generalise generally have no idea... in general.
OK, I'll bite.
Atheism is, in my opinion, a higher evolutionary state than theism. If you want to talk about progress, the secular, scientific worldview has brought us all kinds of advancements in virtually every aspect of life. Scientists, not priests, discovered electricity, developed antibiotics, found a way to travel to the moon; the list goes on and on. If you look back at human history, religion has generally been the biggest impediment to scientific progress. Its main use was (and continues to be) as a device allowing a select, manipulative few to gain control over and wealth from the gullible masses. Religion has had a role in almost every war in human history, and there's been a clear trend over the past few centuries: The more secular a country is, the less likely it is to go to war.
It's popular among secularists these days to placate believers by saying that science and religion can coexist, but I don't believe that's true. The progressive believers, those who no longer believe in stoning disobedient children to death, for instance, are deliberately ignoring a portion of what they consider to be the word of God. The extremists, on the other hand, may find themselves at odds with the modern world, but they're the ones who are truly being faithful to their beliefs.
I'd also like to add that the human mind has the capability to convince itself of the veracity of some incredible horseshit--look at Scientology, for instance. Heaven's Gate? Jonestown? These people were all sure they were right about the nature of the universe, just as you appear to be. The only difference between your beliefs and theirs is that yours are more widespread.
Take a step back and look at the modern world objectively. Religion threatens us in a very serious way. Islamic terrorism is a threat now, but it's nothing compared to what it will be when nuclear weapons technology becomes more advanced and widespread. It doesn't help that the world's only remaining superpower is being run by what the Muslims (and some of us) see as a villain straight out of central casting.
Believing in God, in my opinion, is no different than believing in Santa Claus. It may be comforting, but no matter how much you want to believe it, a fat man in red is not going to make presents appear in front of the tree in your living room. The world would be so much better off if people would just see it for what it was.
Science is built upon making predictions out of an understandible and consistent universe. Science and the realm of nature can be extended to include any such things. The supernatural by definition is so hopelessly beyond any understanding, consistency or prediction that science cannot include it because no progress in understanding can be made.
I am of the position that a piece of knowledge that is totally, 100% useless should be ignored. Since every piece of knowledge in the natural world can contribute to extending general knowledge about nature to at least some small degree, only the supernatural fits that requirement. Thus purely supernatural knowledge is not worth having. I'm not sure that it's even possible to have; there's no way to rationalize confidence without consistency. Well, you were saying earlier that belief in a God had been a useful method of furthering scientific progress, such as by inspiring Kepler. Personally, I think that usefulness is an important foundation for choosing a method. Yeah, I guess in the same way that believing the world to be flat or not are the only two worldviews possible. It's just one of many belief options that exist in a finite set. So?