Print

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

[Idiom]

My point is just that if a religion is making someone do something rude and inconsiderate that is not an excuse for it.

Of course it isn't an excuse. Religion is a horrible excuse and if it's an excuse then it's being used wrongly. I don't find feeling that you're "correct" good motivation to try to correct everyone you come across either.

But you must've seen them.  A lot.  Hence the "vocal" part.  And I wasn't actually making an argument - just correcting your overgeneralization.

I'm not overgeneralizing. I'm reporting from happy-ville over here the fact that lone nutjobs are lone nutjobs.

Uh... I didn't say there weren't?  At any point?

Thank you! You agree with one of my points I'm trying to get across.

Uh... what?  I don't follow.  Some people have been drifting away from religion ever since the Enlightenment... how would this make a "fad"?

Away from religion =/= atheism. People have drifted more towards personal spirituality rather than listen to the man with the pointy hat.

But it's a motive people have for converting someone that isn't purely dickish...

Removing stains with a shotgun not dickish? Again, there are less invasive methods of achieving your goal.

I don't get this either.  I think you're confusing the term "religion" and "philosophy", perhaps?

Replying to both of those: religion - superhuman agencies = philosophy according to the dictionary. Specifically on creationism taught in schools: Creationism/Intelligent Design was the hypothesis that superhuman agencies could artificially create life. Seeing as religion is the topic of superhuman agencies (+philosophy), the scientific explanation of superhuman agencies is the same thing. Intelligent design was proven as a feasible scientific possibility as soon as we started artificially designing food back in the 80's. I recall the guy who said this mentioned the theory's application in space exploration, where Intelligent Design offers more benefits over Robotics, and something about the messenger theory where we are likely to encounter intelligently designed lifeforms before we encounter the original natural ones.

Uh... for someone telling us to calm down and not force beliefs on people...

OK look:
"How to resolve between theists and atheists? [INSERT SUPERIORITY HERE]"
Pisses me off for it's sheer irony.

"Which religion would that be? Christianity? If so, are you denying that the bible is full of morally questionable content and rules?"

I'm getting to that. "Christianity" from A =/= "Christianity" from B. The flavor of Christianity around where I am cherry picks the best life advice from the Bible and isn't a bunch of robotic nitwits about it. There is "bad" Christianity, but regardless of rotten bits of the Bible there are good branches of it too.

(sorry for double-post)
And, even more...

see above reply

Shouldn't believing members of a religion do everything to convert the people around them?

Depends on the religion.

Fair enough. Although of course you like to generalize over all atheists as well.

Overgeneralize? Fine then:
AtheistsThe majority of atheists are far more aggressive, invasive, rude, ungraceful, and inconsiderate than they need be. Or better yet "The majority of all atheists I have ever met online".

What about believing that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."  Is that stupid enough to argue against?

"Stupid" as in dangerous. I was referencing to the previous example where a very religious person might do something that endangers their physical well being.

Why do most of the postgraduate, hence, intelligent people, believe in evolution?

At least it's getting better.

Probably because it has evidence. You can remain religious and still believe in creationism and evolution.

[Leafsnail]

Thank you! You agree with one of my points I'm trying to get across.

Again, I never contested this point :/.

Removing stains with a shotgun not dickish? Again, there are less invasive methods of achieving your goal.

Sometimes, though, people prefer to be completely liberated from the oppressive cult they were brought up in.  Not all people in such cults, but a significant amount of them.  For them, the idea that there doesn't have to be a good can be empowering.

Replying to both of those: religion - superhuman agencies = philosophy according to the dictionary.

Not true.  If I start believing in my own made up God, it would not be a religion.  Religion needs to be an organized group of people with the same beliefs.

Specifically on creationism taught in schools: Creationism/Intelligent Design was the hypothesis that superhuman agencies could artificially create life.

No.  Creationism is the literal interpretation of the "6 days" bible story.  Intelligent design is the idea that there is a supernatural entity guiding evolution (it's much "softer" than creationism, is this regard).

Seeing as religion is the topic of superhuman agencies (+philosophy) the scientific explanation of superhuman agencies is the same thing.

Intelligent design was proven as a feasible scientific possibility as soon as we started artificially designing food back in the 80's.

Uh... no.  It wasn't.  Simple logic dictates that something would've had to create this superhuman agent... and where would it end?

I recall the guy who said this mentioned the theory's application in space exploration, where Intelligent Design offers more benefits over Robotics, and something about the messenger theory where we are likely to encounter intelligently designed lifeforms before we encounter the original natural ones.

Sorry, this is just very misleading terminology.  You're conflating and confusing genetic engineering and intelligent design.  They are not the same thing at all.

OK look:
"How to resolve between theists and atheists? [INSERT SUPERIORITY HERE]"
Pisses me off for it's sheer irony.

But what makes you think being insulting to that person will work any better?

The majority of atheists are far more aggressive, invasive, rude, ungraceful, and inconsiderate than they need be.

I'm sorry, this is personally offensive to me (and those at my school, the majority of whom are atheist).  I don't see how you can be emphasizing a tiny but vocal minority one moment and then start making sweeping statements about the majority of another group.

Probably because it has evidence. You can remain religious and still believe in creationism and evolution.

Creationism is, by definition, incompatible with evolution.  Intelligent design is not incompatible, however.

[dreiche2]

Edit: Ninja'ed in parts.

I don't have much more to say, but for the record, I think you're mixing up creationism, intelligent design, and their definitions a little bit much. As far as I'm aware, the narrowest definition of creationism refers to a literal belief of the story in genesis (again, that's what essentially 45% of Americans believe, and that's what I meant when I talked about creationism). In the broadest sense it's the hypothesis that the universe and life etc. were created by supernatural entities. Neither fits this:

Creationism/Intelligent Design was the hypothesis that superhuman agencies could artificially create life.

It's not about "could".

Overgeneralize? Fine then:
AtheistsThe majority of atheists are far more aggressive, invasive, rude, ungraceful, and inconsiderate than they need be. Or better yet "The majority of all atheists I have ever met online".

Well, I can kind of see where you're coming from, but I guess that's partially a result of atheists being more dominant on the internet.

What about believing that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."  Is that stupid enough to argue against?

"Stupid" as in dangerous. I was referencing to the previous example where a very religious person might do something that endangers their physical well being.

Well, see, me personally, I'm a scientist. I'm afraid arguing for science is part of my job.

[Idiom]

Again, I never contested this point :/.

I was trying to make the point regardless.

Sometimes, though, people prefer to be completely liberated from the oppressive cult they were brought up in.  Not all people in such cults, but a significant amount of them.  For them, the idea that there doesn't have to be a god can be empowering.

A significant proportion of cult members, while cults themselves are not a significant proportion. If you want to dismantle dangerous cults, go right ahead.

Not true.  If I start believing in my own made up God, it would not be a religion.  Religion needs to be an organized group of people with the same beliefs.

OK, religion = Philosophy + superhuman agencies agreed upon by multiple people. Whether or not your personal religion would be recognized by the state as an official "religion" religion, probably not, but it would be a religion in personal regards.

No.  Creationism is the literal interpretation of the "6 days" bible story.  Intelligent design is the idea that there is a supernatural entity guiding evolution (it's much "softer" than creationism, is this regard).

"Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe  were created in some form by a supernatural  being or beings."

"Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe  and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Guiding evolution? I haven't heard that since someone who believed in both creationism and evolution. I suppose that could be a subset of intelligent design, but the idea behind intelligent design isn't that specific.

Gah, look. Philosophy is just a hair away from religion. Philosophy you consider scientific, and all thus all the philosophy in religion as well. The defining difference between the two is superhuman agencies, which can still be done in a scientific perspective. There's no compatibility issues.

Uh... no.  It wasn't.  Simple logic dictates that something would've had to create this superhuman agent... and where would it end?

Chicken and the egg? What? I'm looking at the intelligent design definition. It only outlines one level of creator/creations.

Sorry, this is just very misleading terminology.  You're conflating and confusing genetic engineering and intelligent design.  They are not the same thing at all.

Really? Damn, I wish I could find that article again. Do wee need an intelligent design topic or something?

Look:
"certain features ... of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection". This applies to those genetically modified tomatoes from the 80's. The only other leading creation theory, selective spontaneous occurrences, doesn't explain them.

But what makes you think being insulting to that person will work any better?

What made dreiche and every other internet Atheist I've encountered think the most insultingly blunt approach would work at all?

I'm sorry, this is personally offensive to me (and those at my school, the majority of whom are atheist).  I don't see how you can be emphasizing a tiny but vocal minority one moment and then start making sweeping statements about the majority of another group.

Or better yet "The majority of all atheists I have ever met online".

Already addressed that.

Creationism is, by definition, incompatible with evolution.  Intelligent design is not incompatible, however.

What was that you just said about "guided evolution" that I said I haven't heard since someone who takes creationism and evolution together?

Neither fits this:...

OK, I'll take it right form the dictionary if you like. "Intelligent Design was the hypothesis that superhuman agencies artificially created certain aspects of life."

Well, I can kind of see where you're coming from, but I guess that's partially a result of atheists being more dominant on the internet.

I think it's from most internet atheists being a bunch of self-taught philosopher teenagers with an internet connection, angst, and too much spare time.

Well, see, me personally, I'm a scientist. I'm afraid arguing for science is part of my job.

I'm afraid arguing isn't a part of the scientific process. The scientist only needs to go as far as publish his results.

[Ampersand]

I was going to get angry at this thread, but then I went and read Axe Cop and realized that none of it matters.

[Idiom]

I was going to get angry at this thread, but then I went and read Axe Cop and realized that none of it matters.

High five! That's more of the kind of people we need on the internet.

[Diablous]

I was going to get angry at this thread, but then I went and read Axe Cop and realized that none of it matters.

High five! That's more of the kind of people we need on the internet.

People who don't bother to argue with you? I could not care less about whatever you guys are going on about. It is interesting to read, but I don't really care.

[Dwarf]

Do you guys think it would be better to close the topic?

[dreiche2]

"Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe  and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Guiding evolution? I haven't heard that since someone who believed in both creationism and evolution. I suppose that could be a subset of intelligent design, but the idea behind intelligent design isn't that specific.

I'm also of the opinion that intelligent design is more specific. You make it sound like it it is about any influence on life by any intelligent entities, including humans. To quote the rest of the wikipedia passage you used there:

It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.

But what makes you think being insulting to that person will work any better?

What made dreiche and every other internet Atheist I've encountered think the most insultingly blunt approach would work at all?

I was insultingly blunt where?

[Leafsnail]

I was trying to make the point regardless.

It's still jarring.  If I were to say "So you agree that killing babies is wrong?" then that would appear as something of an accusation.

A significant proportion of cult members, while cults themselves are not a significant proportion. If you want to dismantle dangerous cults, go right ahead.

But again, this has drifted from the original point that "not all atheist converters are bastards".

OK, religion = Philosophy + superhuman agencies agreed upon by multiple people. Whether or not your personal religion would be recognized by the state as an official "religion" religion, probably not, but it would be a religion in personal regards.

an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"

Basically, a key element of religion is the organized belief of something.  If you don't have a structure in it, it's not a religion, just a philosophy or creed.  And, if religion were to disappear somehow, science would certainly not become a "religion".

Guiding evolution?

Note that intelligent design is incompatible with natural selection rather than evolution.

I haven't heard that since someone who believed in both creationism and evolution.

If they do, they've got one of the definitions wrong.

I suppose that could be a subset of intelligent design, but the idea behind intelligent design isn't that specific.

It'd be the biggest subset, really.  I suppose you get physical "intelligent design" believers, but the biological ones are far more common.

Gah, look. Philosophy is just a hair away from religion.

Yes and no.  I believe the unchecked hierarchy in a religion is part of what can make it dangerous (think the Pope and condoms... ugh).  I feel that religions organized in this way can be dangerous in the same way that dictatorships can be dangerous.

Philosophy you consider scientific

I do not, as it is not a science.

The defining difference between the two is superhuman agencies, which can still be done in a scientific perspective. There's no compatibility issues.

No.  The defining difference is the way by which answers are found.  A religion looks back to old dogmas and its elders for guidance, while science (by definition - not always in practise, but by definition, anyway) is the process of empirical testing and observation.  Religions have not come about their conclusions by testing or observations, and even if they have, they do not seek to verify or disprove previous claims.

Chicken and the egg? What? I'm looking at the intelligent design definition. It only outlines one level of creator/creations.

In which case it remains as flawed as it was before we invented genetic engineering.

"certain features ... of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection".

Yeah, but that's a piece of evidence they use, not a definition.  In the same way that "We see different creatures in different layers of rock" is evidence for, but not a definition of, evolution.

This applies to those genetically modified tomatoes from the 80's.

Uh... no.  They were genetically modified because we messed around with their gene coding.  I suppose you could say it was intelligent intervention, but that'd just be a piece of pedantry based on a poorly worded definition.

The only other leading creation theory, selective spontaneous occurrences, doesn't explain them.

We don't need a theory to explain us changing something's genetic code.  You don't need to create a new erosion theory to explain a house.

What was that you just said about "guided evolution" that I said I haven't heard since someone who takes creationism and evolution together?

Yes.  That is exactly what I just said.  "Guided evolution" would be a form of intelligent design, and would be compatible with evolution (but not natural selection).  Creationism, on the other hand, is LITERAL belief in the biblical creation story.  It is therefore totally incompatible with evolution.

I'm afraid arguing isn't a part of the scientific process. The scientist only needs to go as far as publish his results.

It is.  The peer review process (not unique to science, incidentally - some humanities subjects, such as history, have it too) will often involve healthy debate.  Note two different definitions of the word "argument".  It doesn't have to involve yelling or getting angry.

[Andir]

There is no retreat. There is no "victory" over "religion". Religion isn't a thing. It's a set of ideas on a TOPIC. It's the TOPIC concerning the nature and purpose of the universe, generally involving creationism. When "Science" triumphs over "religion", that bit of science that did WILL BE religion. What you said makes as much sense as "Winning the war on health". I know I'm not the only one here that's said this.

There is no resolve between atheists and theists when atheists are a bunch of stuck up "conquerors" of religion.

Sure there is.  Religion has been a moving target since it's onset.  First the Gods were on mountains, then the sky, now they are in another plane of existence and/or outside than the universe itself.  The more science finds, the more religious belief pushes their belief out.  Usually just outside the reach of man.  I'm sure that's not the type of retreat you are saying, but look at the history of every religion... it has it's time, another one replaces it and the world moves on.  Now that we encompass the globe, those changes happen at a slower pace because of locality restraints, etc.  The Internet amazingly is bringing that big world back into check.  If you account for the different religions in the world (Ancient Greek, Inca/Myan, Egyptian, etc.) they are all replaced or revised over time to make them seem more relevant, but I'd argue that none of them still held the same "truth" they were started with at their end.  All religious followings have been manipulated by man to be irrelevant.  It's almost as if your creator didn't want them to exist... 

[Idiom]

To quote the rest of the wikipedia passage  you used there:

"avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer." It's not specific at all. And other than that, we're getting off topic with the intelligent design thing.

I was insultingly blunt where?

In my memory of B12 atheists from times past.

It's still jarring.

I brought up a point that was part of my premise. You did not disagree. End of story.

But again, this has drifted from the original point that "not all atheist converters are bastards".

I got your original point. I was pointing out that the dangerous cults aren't all that significantly large, as I mentioned in my earlier outline.

Sure there is.  Religion has been a moving target since it's onset.  First the Gods were on mountains, then the sky, now they are in another plane of existence and/or outside than the universe itself.  The more science finds, the more religious belief pushes their belief out.  Usually just outside the reach of man.  I'm sure that's not the type of retreat you are saying, but look at the history of every religion... it has it's time, another one replaces it and the world moves on.  Now that we encompass the globe, those changes happen at a slower pace because of locality restraints, etc.  The Internet amazingly is bringing that big world back into check.  If you account for the different religions in the world (Ancient Greek, Inca/Myan, Egyptian, etc.) they are all replaced or revised over time to make them seem more relevant, but I'd argue that none of them still held the same "truth" they were started with at their end.  All religious followings have been manipulated by man to be irrelevant.  It's almost as if your creator didn't want them to exist... 

The Gods only moved with our understanding. To destroy religion, science would have to destroy the entire topic of superhuman agencies in creation. That topic has been in space-faring science fiction and space novels as long as I've been able to read.

[Idiom]

OK since LeafSnail and dreiche2 kept dragging me offtopic with intelligent design, and now that they seem done knitpicking about my modest proposal to internet atheists, let's completely re-rail this to the topic of atheism with a clean re-rail:
The negative proof fallacy swings both ways.

[dreiche2]

To quote the rest of the wikipedia passage  you used there:

"avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer." It's not specific at all. And other than that, we're getting off topic with the intelligent design thing.

It's part of their strategy to avoid the identity officially, but again you ignore the rest of the paragraph. But anyway.

I was insultingly blunt where?

In my memory of B12 atheists from times past.

Haha what? So much about generalizations, again.

The Gods only moved with our understanding. To destroy religion, science would have to destroy the entire topic of superhuman agencies in creation. That topic has been in space-faring science fiction and space novels as long as I've been able to read.

But the gods are in the process of moving so far away that they barely have any role to play in our world anymore. With anything but an extreme minimalist definition of religion, religion only makes sense if the gods play a tangible role in the workings of the world.

The negative proof fallacy swings both ways.

Hu? Anyway, I'm afraid I have to go to bed. Good night!

[Idiom]

It's part of their strategy to avoid the identity officially, but again you ignore the rest of the paragraph. But anyway.

The identity of the people who proposed and promote it are a bunch of creationists. I know that. That doesn't automatically invalidate what they've proposed. What they've proposed has been in my science fiction for as long as I can remember, and it's finally been proven scientifically feasible with advancements in artificial lifeforms.

Haha what? So much about generalizations, again.

Haha indeed. Not just you either. Anywhere on the internet you can find an aggressive or passive aggressive atheist who's more than willing to derail you with your use of "could" in a sentence rather than address his double-sided negative fallacy sword.

But the gods are in the process of moving so far away that they barely have any role to play in our world anymore. With anything but an extreme minimalist definition of religion, religion only makes sense if the gods play a tangible role in the workings of the world.

Barely have any role in our world anymore? Extremely minimalist definition of religion? Only makes sense if they're tangible? They've only become more tangible as science has cleared up the fog. Take intelligent design and creationism for example, since we were so willingly picking at it before. It was creationism, a fable. Now, it's a working explanation of the origins of artificial lifeforms which are becoming a reality with advancing technology. What was "God" then is now integrating with us technologically now.

Hu? Anyway, I'm afraid I have to go to bed. Good night!

Riiiiiiiight. Just think about it for me.