Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andir]

It's not really off topic - the idea of the thread is to say that God is an intrinsic part of evolution, so it's actually pretty much back to the original topic.

It's interesting to note how religion gradually retreats as new scientific discoveries are made - from the world not moving, to miracles, to the great flood, to the creation story.  All of them gradually turn into metaphors (except for those who take the evangelical approach - see above).

Also how gods have moved from mountain tops, to clouds, to space, to "exo-space" to exo-dimensional beings.   As we progress through time and learn about our universe, religion pushes "God" further away.

[sonerohi]

Because religion has always been the idiots approach to science.

[Enzo]

Because religion has always been the idiots approach to science.

You could toast a marshmallow on those flames.

[Andir]

Andir McHuman cancels post.  Placing Marshmallow on stick.

[Leafsnail]

Since it's not an attack on another poster, it's not technically a flame.  Could be seen as trolling though.

[Pleeb]

Could be seen as trolling though.

Verily. Could be seen as you enjoying trolling too.

It's interesting to note how religion gradually retreats as new scientific discoveries are made

Religion never retreated, it changed, just as the science did.

I see so many people that think there's some kind of a battle here and that science truly triumphs religion. Life can occur spontaniously. Ok. The Earth is not the age as written in any religious text. Ok. Go ahead and list more. I'm sure you've your own handwritten list somewhere. Now flip through it. Did any of it cancel out the point? No. Only the details of religion change, adapts as our understanding adapts.

Also how gods have moved from mountain tops, to clouds, to space, to "exo-space" to exo-dimensional beings.

The Gods never "moved". Those are all the same Gods you've listed, just from different periods of understanding of our world.

Here's a more fitting usage of the word "evolve", since all you semantic fans shove it towards "adapt", Religion evolves. It's always the same. The details and rough bits come and go with the flow, but religion has always been the same. Regardless of whether or not it has been proven that religion is incorrect in saying that the sun revolves around the Earth, was the sun revolving around the earth the point of religion? Was God living on a mountain, or life poofing into existence the point of religion?

religion has always been the idiots approach to science.

Does anyone here even understand what religion is about? Yes there are idiots out there who will take the pope's word about abortion over their doctor's, but is that religion? No, that's a bunch of idiots following religious theories and hypothesises with illegitimate backing and you are getting caught up in the details. Do I think you're wrong to oppose such idiots? No. Go ahead. But I still think you're missing the point.

Occam's razor?

Eventually we will run out of simpler hypothesises and theories to test and then even Occam's razor will guide us to religion. Yes, Occam's Razor take us to religion, and then science will serve religion. Oh yes. Religion is, has been, and may always be, a question. Merely a question to be answered. All else of it has always been temporary and evershifting details.

42.

TLDR

religion retreats

no

[Leafsnail]

Does anyone here even understand what religion is about? Yes there are idiots out there who will take the pope's word about abortion over their doctor's, but is that religion? No, that's a bunch of idiots following religious theories and hypothesises with illegitimate backing and you are getting caught up in the details. Do I think you're wrong to oppose such idiots? No. Go ahead. But I still think you're missing the point.

Is that not the "No true Scotsman"?  They are following exactly what "God's representative on earth" is saying.  They are religious, whether you like it or not.

I see so many people that think there's some kind of a battle here and that science truly triumphs religion. Life can occur spontaniously. Ok. The Earth is not the age as written in any religious text. Ok. Go ahead and list more. I'm sure you've your own handwritten list somewhere. Now flip through it. Did any of it cancel out the point? No. Only the details of religion change, adapts as our understanding adapts.

I'm not so sure what your second last sentence means.  The point of what?  Well, yes, I think that the fact that prayers do not work in any way does get rid of the original "point" of religion.  And science doesn't "trump" religion - they're two totally seperate things.  Science is the process for understanding the world, wheras religion is belief based upon old texts (usually).  This means that, as a tool for understanding things, science (the process of studying the natural world) will always be better than religion (belief in a set of beliefs).  Religion has, to some extent, retreated as gaps in our knowledge has been filled - that was my only point.

Here's a more fitting usage of the word "evolve", since all you semantic fans shove it towards "adapt", Religion evolves. It's always the same. The details and rough bits come and go with the flow, but religion has always been the same. Regardless of whether or not it has been proven that religion is incorrect in saying that the sun revolves around the Earth, was the sun revolving around the earth the point of religion? Was God living on a mountain, or life poofing into existence the point of religion?

Your argument seems to hinge on "The point" of religion.  Which is difficult to pin down, really.  Since you don't specify what this mystical point is, I'm not sure what you're driving at.

Eventually we will run out of simpler hypothesises and theories to test and then even Occam's razor will guide us to religion. Yes, Occam's Razor take us to religion, and then science will serve religion. Oh yes. Religion is, has been, and may always be, a question. Merely a question to be answered. All else of it has always been temporary and evershifting details.

What is this question?  If we narrow it down to Christianity, we do get a very clear answer to one question, and one question only.  That question being:

What do you get if you take what the ancient Israelite tribe believed in, wrote as propaganda and used as tools to oppress their people, combine it with changes by a group of people in circa 100 AD along with later changes by the Romans and anyone who translated the book?

And the bible is the answer to that question.  But I fail to see how religions answer any questions other than specific cultural ones.

TL;DR

Please don't allude to "ultimate points" and "ultimate questions" without saying what they are, and why apparently all religious people hold these two things.

[Enzo]

Since it's not an attack on another poster, it's not technically a flame.  Could be seen as trolling though.

Well, it's not a direct attack on a single poster. It is an attack on every person with any sort of religious beliefs on this board, however. Call that what you will. As a staunch atheist there's very little I dislike more than when someone argues so poorly that I feel I must jump to religions defense.

Anyway I always thought the point of religion was hope and guidance, not answers. Science has got the market cornered on answers. But it's true, Pleeb, you said Leafsnail was missing the point several times without actually stating what the point was. It's just bad form.

[Andir]

The only "point" I can think of is the answer to the question: "Why are we here?" and both Science and Religion try to answer that is different ways.  From my point of view religion plays the placebo role and declares that we are here for some high purpose.  I say we are here to live and then die, just like everything else.  That's it.  Just live.  Live for yourself.  Isn't helping others remotely helping you... you ego driven fool? [not directed at one particular person]  I mean, if you help some homeless man on the street, that's less you have to pay the city to clean up after him or so that he will maybe take that help to get back on his feet so you don't have to see it anymore.  (Even if you claim it's for humanitarian motives, I feel it's [subconsciously] more likely the points I made.)  The problem arises when people start trying to live or dictate other people's lives by claiming a higher purpose.  "God" is there as a self perceived moral judge of sorts, IMHO.  But that only makes me question if the person is only restricted by this "God" and they truly aren't "good" people... I mean, if you need "God" to keep you from killing innocent people, doesn't that say something is seriously screwed up in your head?

[LegoLord]

I'm inclined to agree with Pleeb.  You guys attacking religion don't really seem to get it.  I get the impression that someone's trying to establish this as a "theist-hater's circle-jerking" thread (pardon the crudeness).  It probably isn't what's happening, but it feels like it.  It doesn't seem to matter what we say - it seems like you will reject it automatically, pausing only to re-word previous arguments, and only praise other atheists that hate theism.

A lot people simply need something to believe in, and religion has always been handy for that, if nothing else.  A lot of people derive their morals from religion, and some may not see the point of morality without consequences they feel they couldn't avoid (this last is me, somewhat.  I think about that, at least, and am baffled, honestly.  However I would cower in fear under a desk instead of hurting people).  And these are only some of the basics.  Simply put, the point of religion is to give people advice and incentive to be better people.  It doesn't always work; as with most things, they can be twisted to rally people to a dubious purpose.  But this explanation is all for naught, as my words fall either on blind eyes or those that do not need this.

I would also like to point out, Andir, that people are messed up.  The fact that we cling to the fossil fuel industry, which will only wind up hurting us in the end, is proof of that, as is the Cold War, WWI, WWII, and a good deal of what you might find opening a history book at random.  That's with morals as a part of society.  Without morals in society, what would stop you from going to steal some poor old lady's money?  You only have morals because you've grown up in a society that has them.  Now think:  Where did these morals come from, originally?

[Andir]

Warning:
I'm going to twist your words... you just said that we had wars and such because of morals?  I agree, and disagree.

I base my actions on logic.  It's logical for me to drive an efficient car because (if I had kids) they could enjoy their life by me not burning off the ozone or whatever is going to happen by pumping CO2 out like mad.  It has nothing to do with morals except that logic helps shape morals (sometimes.)  I would argue that it was logical for us to enter WWII to stop the global takeover...but it was morally acceptable because we were taught that monopolistic government/people/companies are overly illogical and detrimental to living as a whole.  [Also an interesting point... some people believe that Microsoft is a morally straight company because of their founder's actions to charity... another topic of conversation there.]  It's logical to help your neighbor so your community will thrive.  Morals are taught values.  Logic is a deduced/learned outcome of an action.  There's a slight difference.  One involves deduction, another involves acceptance of teaching.  Sometimes they clash (abortion/genocide/national laws) and sometimes they jibe (community/"do unto others"/etc.)  Morals are taught to you from your parents.  Sometimes they are derived from logical decisions, sometimes they are not.  If you cling to only your morals without looking at the effect, you are doing more harm to the world than good (because morals can be twisted, changed...)

I'm going to pick on health care because it's a hot topic right now.  If you allow the government to take on national healthcare, you are eliminating competition.  (the provisions they want to pass penalizes those that do not choose national, doesn't allow anyone to leave, and doesn't allow anyone that switches to choose private again... it's going to eventually kill private health care.)  Now, it's drilled into our heads that it's morally prudent to make sure everyone is healthy, but without looking at the outcome of that event, we will stagnate our healthcare system and there will be no innovation (because there's no incentive.)  It might be "sort of working" in other countries because WE are driving innovation and research through competition, but if doctors have no competitive edge and benefit other than moral conviction (which changes over time) then we will stagnate and make no major advances.  Morally, people need to live.  Logically, people need incentive to live.  Morally, you take care of the homeless man.  Logically, you create jobs by lowering taxes to create a market, and demand for labor so he can help himself.  Somewhere along the line the famous "Teach a man to fish" was changed to "Give a man the rich man's fish."

Yeah, that was a bit of a rant on my part, but you asked

[LegoLord]

The world is not full of logical people, and the whole world is not American (this last referring to your response to my mentioning WWII).  Second, "teaching a man to fish" is both logical and moral, if you think of it.  Logic and morality are not mutually exclusive.  Simply giving a hobo money is a lazy way of helping.  "Teaching him to fish" is the better way of helping.  But as I said not everyone is a logical person.

As for this:

Warning:
I'm going to twist your words... you just said that we had wars and such because of morals?  I agree, and disagree.

Not what I said at all.

[Chutney]

Logically, you create jobs by lowering taxes to create a market, and demand for labor so he can help himself.

Wrong. Logically, you look back at the Great Depression and notice how Govt spending started pulling us out (of course it was the war that finally did it but this isn't nearly as bad as a depression) so you increase taxes, so the government can spend more (making jobs by launching large government funded projects)

Lowering taxes means we leave it up to the people (who are all greedy bastards and would mostly hoard that money anyways)

[Andir]

Logic and morality are not mutually exclusive.

I never said they were...

There's a slight difference.  One involves deduction, another involves acceptance of teaching.  Sometimes they clash (abortion/genocide/national laws) and sometimes they jibe (community/"do unto others"/etc.)  Morals are taught to you from your parents.  Sometimes they are derived from logical decisions, sometimes they are not.  If you cling to only your morals without looking at the effect, you are doing more harm to the world than good (because morals can be twisted, changed...)

[Andir]

Logically, you create jobs by lowering taxes to create a market, and demand for labor so he can help himself.

Wrong. Logically, you look back at the Great Depression and notice how Govt spending started pulling us out (of course it was the war that finally did it but this isn't nearly as bad as a depression) so you increase taxes, so the government can spend more (making jobs by launching large government funded projects)

Lowering taxes means we leave it up to the people (who are all greedy bastards and would mostly hoard that money anyways)

I've read different viewpoints that states the government involvement in trying to recover actually increased the length of the depression... I would agree that most people are greedy initially, but if you give a man a million dollars he'll spend it all eventually.  Even if he hordes it till death, it will be inherited and spent, or forfeited to the state.  So I don't buy the idea that cutting taxes will only create thicker mattresses.

Edit: One of such:
"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

I'd actually state that the "New Deal" was the beginning of the "too big to fail" era because Roosevelt thought that too much competition was bad for our economy so he allowed companies to merge and become powerhouses without anti-trust concerns.  He screwed the country over something terrible as calculated by many economists.  Now Obama is following right along he same lines as Roosevelt did as far as his financial, political, and social policies.

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx