Look guys, you can use the same old tired arguments to maintain a belief, but lets be honest here. They are pretty weak. At best, they are designed to give a believer a shred of something emotional to hang on to when their beliefs are assailed by logic, evidence, and proof.

ljgriffin, evidence that is repeatable and proven. The bible makes the claim that prayer works. It doesn't. The bible is the foundation of religion, but it cannot stand up to scrutiny. That right there tells us how reliable religion and belief in the god within it is. Where is the physical evidence of a world flood? And its not just the bible, its the Koran, the Torah, or any other religious book. No religion provides v...

Look guys, you can use the same old tired arguments to maintain a belief, but lets be honest here. They are pretty weak. At best, they are designed to give a believer a shred of something emotional to hang on to when their beliefs are assailed by logic, evidence, and proof.

ljgriffin, evidence that is repeatable and proven. The bible makes the claim that prayer works. It doesn't. The bible is the foundation of religion, but it cannot stand up to scrutiny. That right there tells us how reliable religion and belief in the god within it is. Where is the physical evidence of a world flood? And its not just the bible, its the Koran, the Torah, or any other religious book. No religion provides verifiable evidence or survives scrutiny. The only people that believe them are people that have been indoctrinated to believe them or are afraid NOT to believe them. If you have something that can be proven, please, educate me.

kelvin, you can't prove I have a pink unicorn hidden in my closet, so the argument of disproving a claim is pretty weak as well. It is up to the claimant to prove their claim. Religion spends its time insisting the claim is true with no proof.

Science CAN disprove claims of god. When a claim is made then a testable statement is made. They can't help it, they have to use bait to lure believers (until enough generations are indoctrinated to make it automatic to believe). Prayer does not heal, sheep wool patterns are not effected by striped sticks, pi is not 3, people do not survive 3 days in the belly of whales, and you can't fill a boat with the dimensions of the ark with 2 or 7 of each kind, let alone maintain their feeding by a single family.

No one can stop you from believing something if you really want to believe it no matter what - but that still doesn't make what you want to believe true.

Oort, I'm not trying to prove that God exists. I'm only arguing that belief in God is as legitimate a choice as atheism. You point to "pink unicorns in your closet," which I assume are related to "faeries in the garden" or "dragons in the garage" and a million other such examples of things which are alleged to exist but have no demonstrable effect on their environment. The problem is that even logical positivists don't argue that such things can't exist; they simply declare that such things, even if they were to exist, don't matter.

And, given that the subject of this clip is whether religion is a threat to science and reason, I must point out that a person's belief in a particular unicorn,...

Oort, I'm not trying to prove that God exists. I'm only arguing that belief in God is as legitimate a choice as atheism. You point to "pink unicorns in your closet," which I assume are related to "faeries in the garden" or "dragons in the garage" and a million other such examples of things which are alleged to exist but have no demonstrable effect on their environment. The problem is that even logical positivists don't argue that such things can't exist; they simply declare that such things, even if they were to exist, don't matter.

And, given that the subject of this clip is whether religion is a threat to science and reason, I must point out that a person's belief in a particular unicorn, faerie, or dragon is completely harmless unless the person insists that others believe in it and that nobody is allowed to disagree. Only at that point does it become a threat to science and reason.

Furthermore, your proofs that God can't possibly exist prove no such thing. You've done a great job of proving that a lot of claims made in the Bible are categorically false. However, it's always possible that there is a God but that every word of the Bible is not literally His and that the Bible isn't literally true. In fact, there are religious denominations that don't subscribe to Biblical literalism. Therefore, disproving these propositions doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.

In the same vein, it's true that people who believe that pi must equal 3 because the Bible says so, or that the Earth is only 6,000+ years old and was created in six days are, in fact, a threat to science and reason. However, such people are not the only kind of religious people on the planet. After all, the person who discovered the principle of genetic inheritance was a monk. There's such a long tradition of religious, even devoutly religious, people advancing reason and even science, that it's preposterous to say that religion is automatically a threat to science or reason.

@kelvin273

There's such a long tradition of religious, even devoutly religious, people advancing reason and even science, that it's preposterous to say that religion is automatically a threat to science or reason.

Try this honestly.

Suppose that a god exists. Now answer this question: Why is it important to believe that a god exists?

And now, ...

Suppose that a god doesn't exist:
Why is it important to believe that a god exists?

If you're honest about your feelings, you can sense a slight shift in how this question is answered. In reality though, that is objectively, it shouldn't matter at all. Either answer should be independent of the th...

@kelvin273

There's such a long tradition of religious, even devoutly religious, people advancing reason and even science, that it's preposterous to say that religion is automatically a threat to science or reason.

Try this honestly.

Suppose that a god exists. Now answer this question: Why is it important to believe that a god exists?

And now, ...

Suppose that a god doesn't exist:
Why is it important to believe that a god exists?

If you're honest about your feelings, you can sense a slight shift in how this question is answered. In reality though, that is objectively, it shouldn't matter at all. Either answer should be independent of the the belief that presupposes it.

It's that certain nuance which makes hostile the attitude of certain religions towards science and reason. That shift, that undergirding of the question from the "does exist" camp, is dependent on science being wrong!

When science proves certain religious information false, it strongly implies that the "divinely inspired information" isn't divine at all, but based on the ignorance of the authors.

Divine information or knowledge is supposed to be (practically by definition) TRUE. Otherwise, by what measure is it divine?


It is therefore imperative that certain religions, in order to maintain its power over the masses, subvert scientific knowledge or lose its power in shameful exposure.

Hostility towards science by religion is none other than self preservation of a meme fighting for its own survival.

The less the host (human) knows, the greater the power and survivability of the meme as well as those who use it to control others, thereby enhancing their own survivability too.

I must point out that a person's belief in a particular unicorn, faerie, or dragon is completely harmless

Really? Do I need to point out the obvious aftermath of 9/11? By their belief, the terrorists that performed that attack did so because they believed they were acting in the interest of their faith and would be rewarded for them.

How about Madeline Neumann? Wasn't it a belief in god and prayer that ended her life? How can you say that a belief in fantasy is not dangerous?

Perhaps if [url=http://journals.aol.com/kingbing1/FortiFi/entries/2006/11/09/woman-dies-after-snakebite-at-church/2218]Linda Long[...

I must point out that a person's belief in a particular unicorn, faerie, or dragon is completely harmless

Really? Do I need to point out the obvious aftermath of 9/11? By their belief, the terrorists that performed that attack did so because they believed they were acting in the interest of their faith and would be rewarded for them.

How about Madeline Neumann? Wasn't it a belief in god and prayer that ended her life? How can you say that a belief in fantasy is not dangerous?

Perhaps if Linda Long hadn't been indoctrinated with mythological beliefs her life wouldn't have ended as she performed the rituals of her religion?

How much more advanced would society be today if not for the bigoted views held by religion and their fear of discoveries that contradict their scripture? Galileo was forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Inquisition.

Furthermore, your proofs that God can't possibly exist prove no such thing.

Absolutely correct. But I'm not advocating it fact that god does not exist. I'm saying that no human has presented anything to suggest they know anything about such a possible creator. But what science, evidence, and rational does PROVE is that the current religions of the world today are total human fantasy.

These gods are all fabricated by mankind. That religions today proscribe to the idea that parts of the bible are not right or shouldn't be accepted as literal only show how desperate religion is to maintain its belief. Accepting such indicates that all believers of the past were ignorant and wrong because they did take it literally. Why does mankind have to keep redefining what god and his word is?

There's such a long tradition of religious, even devoutly religious, people advancing reason and even science,

But don't you see, religion had nothing to do with these advanced - PEOPLE did. There is nothing that humanity has discovered, created, or achieved by religion that it could not have discovered, created, or achieved without it.

If religion isn't an automatic threat seeking to expunge, bury, or ban science that contradicts it then it is extraneous to anything that is discovered. It's like adding an extra middle-man to a transaction. It adds to the overall cost with little return benefit.

People only find solace in religion because they've been indoctrinated to do so...

There's such a long tradition of religious, even devoutly religious, people advancing reason and even science,

But don't you see, religion had nothing to do with these advanced - PEOPLE did. There is nothing that humanity has discovered, created, or achieved by religion that it could not have discovered, created, or achieved without it.

If religion isn't an automatic threat seeking to expunge, bury, or ban science that contradicts it then it is extraneous to anything that is discovered. It's like adding an extra middle-man to a transaction. It adds to the overall cost with little return benefit.

People only find solace in religion because they've been indoctrinated to do so. In fact, its quite scary how many people abandon sense and rational in favor of allowing things to occur according to how some fictional character would have them flow.

Read the website "Rapture Ready" sometime to see how these people abandon jobs, marriages, lives, and family because they believe its all secondary to the imminent arrival of christ. These are the scary people that WANT global war and annihilation to happen to usher in the second coming.

Show me one scientists who wants to nuke the earth or kill off the population or destroy the environment in order to advance their knowledge. In fact, show me one war or murder that was done in the name science.

Aces: It doesn't sound like we really disagree that much. Your post points out that there's a subset of religious adherents who are hostile to science, which is completely true. I just don't think the existence of this particular subset makes religion per se a threat to science.


Oortcloud: You apparently didn't read my entire sentence about the harmlessness of faeries/dragons/etc.: "I must point out that a person's belief in a particular unicorn, faerie, or dragon is completely harmless <b>unless the person insists that others believe in it and that nobody is allowed to disagree.</b> Obviously, the 9/11 hijackers took that additional step. While your other examples don't fit that standard,...

Aces: It doesn't sound like we really disagree that much. Your post points out that there's a subset of religious adherents who are hostile to science, which is completely true. I just don't think the existence of this particular subset makes religion per se a threat to science.


Oortcloud: You apparently didn't read my entire sentence about the harmlessness of faeries/dragons/etc.: "I must point out that a person's belief in a particular unicorn, faerie, or dragon is completely harmless <b>unless the person insists that others believe in it and that nobody is allowed to disagree.</b> Obviously, the 9/11 hijackers took that additional step. While your other examples don't fit that standard, they have obviously taken extra steps beyond merely believing in God. Believing in the existence of a god doesn't automatically make you handle snakes or stop using modern medicine.

Your reference to Galileo is interesting. That was actually one dark spot in the history of an institution (the Catholic Church) that has mostly been relatively friendly toward science. In fact, Pope John Paul II, a conservative pope, decreed the legitimacy of evolution as an explanation for the development of human beings' physical forms. Now, I'm not a Catholic, and I'm not here to tout Catholicism as superior to Protestantism, so I must point out that not all Protestant churches are full of fundamentalist nutjobs, either. While they might have schisms about various gay rights issues, you don't really hear of Methodists and Episcopalians leading the charge for creationism, either.

And while I'm sure science has a lot less blood on its hands than Christianity at this point (given that science has never totally controlled a society the way some religions have), scientists have supported ideas like eugenics that supply a justification for genocide. Wanting to destroy the environment is hardly a uniquely Christian idea, and religious people who want to destroy the earth are a psychotic minority.

kelvin

You are assuming that people of other religions want to teach others or accept others into their religion. Not all religions take the Jehovah Witness approach. On the other hand, those that do want to spread their faith are not always caring if you accept them or not. They are just as happy to force people to live under their beliefs regardless if other people accept it.

I'm not going to go into a heavy research of Catholicism to find you more examples, but rest assured that Galileo is not the only example of Catholics suppressing knowledge that contradicted their beliefs.

and religious people who want to destroy the earth are a psychotic minority.

I think you are ve...

kelvin

You are assuming that people of other religions want to teach others or accept others into their religion. Not all religions take the Jehovah Witness approach. On the other hand, those that do want to spread their faith are not always caring if you accept them or not. They are just as happy to force people to live under their beliefs regardless if other people accept it.

I'm not going to go into a heavy research of Catholicism to find you more examples, but rest assured that Galileo is not the only example of Catholics suppressing knowledge that contradicted their beliefs.

and religious people who want to destroy the earth are a psychotic minority.

I think you are very wrong about this. Just ask people. I have. I've phrased the question as "If you could usher in the second coming of Jesus Christ and bring peace to all of earth and all of mankind by initiating a Third World War involving nuclear weapons would you do so?" The answer I get is a majority "yes" in believers. It's been my experience that easily 30% of the people would support a war of nukes. Look at 911 and how many people were eager to see us use nukes in Iraq.

Religious people scare the crap out of me.

religious people who want to destroy the earth are a psychotic minority.

This bears another visit. I just read this article and it reminded me of your comment :

Christians United for Isreal. This quote out of the article should be enough to turn your stomach :

But CUFI has an ulterior agenda: its support for Israel derives from the belief of Hagee and his flock that Jesus will return to Jerusalem after the battle of Armageddon and cleanse the earth of evil. In the end, all the non-believers - Jews, Muslims, Hindus, mainline Christians, etc. - must convert or suffer the tortur...

read more»

religious people who want to destroy the earth are a psychotic minority.

This bears another visit. I just read this article and it reminded me of your comment :

Christians United for Isreal. This quote out of the article should be enough to turn your stomach :

But CUFI has an ulterior agenda: its support for Israel derives from the belief of Hagee and his flock that Jesus will return to Jerusalem after the battle of Armageddon and cleanse the earth of evil. In the end, all the non-believers - Jews, Muslims, Hindus, mainline Christians, etc. - must convert or suffer the torture of eternal damnation. Over a dozen CUFI members eagerly revealed to me their excitement at the prospect of Armageddon occurring tomorrow.

Among the rapture ready was Republican Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. None of this seemed to matter to Lieberman, who delivered a long sermon hailing Hagee as nothing less than a modern-day Moses. Lieberman went on to describe Hagee's flock as "even greater than the multitude Moses commanded."

By god, if the rapture doesn't come on its own there are those eager to make it happen ...

What Armageddon Will Accomplish

Armageddon will remove the last vestige of Satan’s earthly organization. Moreover, the Devil and his demons will be abyssed. (Revelation 20:1-3) What blessings will then flow to Jehovah’s people, the joyful survivors of his great war of Armageddon! They will happily proceed with reconstruction that will transform the entire earth into a paradise, free from pollution, pain, mourning, tears, and death. (Revelation 11:15, 18; 21:3, 4) And you can be there if you take to heart the psalmist’s words: “Hope in Jehovah and keep his way, and he will exalt you to take possession of the earth. When the wicked ones are cut off, you will see it.” (Psalm 37:34) Indeed, y...

What Armageddon Will Accomplish

Armageddon will remove the last vestige of Satan’s earthly organization. Moreover, the Devil and his demons will be abyssed. (Revelation 20:1-3) What blessings will then flow to Jehovah’s people, the joyful survivors of his great war of Armageddon! They will happily proceed with reconstruction that will transform the entire earth into a paradise, free from pollution, pain, mourning, tears, and death. (Revelation 11:15, 18; 21:3, 4) And you can be there if you take to heart the psalmist’s words: “Hope in Jehovah and keep his way, and he will exalt you to take possession of the earth. When the wicked ones are cut off, you will see it.” (Psalm 37:34) Indeed, you may live to see the war of the great day of God the Almighty and become a happy survivor when Armageddon strikes!

“Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, awaiting and keeping close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah.”—2 Peter 3:11, 12