U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-31-2013, 01:23 AM
 
6,342 posts, read 8,743,548 times
Reputation: 3449

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post

What I suspect is going on here is that since science tends to utterly invalidate a number of the assertions of religions, you are grasping for some means to discredit science. However, "I don't like it, it is boring" is not a relevant assault.
Here we go again....

I do not believe God is necessarily a literal being. God may just be a metaphor for the deeper parts of our own psyche, but we will never know for sure. I do not believe any Myths to be literally true, but see them as timeless truths of the human condition told in allegory, because human language is too limited to really convey those ideas save for in the form of metaphor. I believe that applying the teachings of Myth to day to day life and creating a holistic system of ethics/ritual around said Myths is a great tool for living a fulfilling life. That system is called a religion.

In short: I do not believe God is necessarily a literal being and don't take any of my religon's Myths literally.

Please explain how anything I said can be "invalidated by science." You can say the same old tired lines of "well, urh, why have a religion at all?" but that would be based on something besides science.

How can science "invalidate" a religion that does not take it's myth's literally without the said "science" no longer being science? Science is about facts: when you remove the facts from religion and have only teachings and ideas, what can science say about religion then?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-31-2013, 07:46 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
40,877 posts, read 18,557,746 times
Reputation: 18653
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post

How can science "invalidate" a religion that does not take it's myth's literally without the said "science" no longer being science? Science is about facts: when you remove the facts from religion and have only teachings and ideas, what can science say about religion then?
You may not take them literally, but millions do. Your example has an application only for you and the like minded.

Further, whether you wish to admit it or not, scientific discoveries have reframed the debate for philosophers. The mindset with which a 1st Century philosopher attempted to sort out the riddles of the cosmos was a product of the limited knowledge which they had concerning the operations of the universe. Most ancient philosophy erred because it relied on an earth-centric approach, the assumption that our planet was at the center of all things. Science has revealed to us just how tiny an inconsequential the earth actually is in relation to the immensity of the universe...and that has altered the starting points for philosophical speculations. Without science, philosophy alone is inadequate.

You have informed us that you dislike science because you find it boring and that your preference is for the good old days of endless irresolution.

So, go forth and be irresolute.

Last edited by Grandstander; 03-31-2013 at 08:11 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2013, 12:12 AM
 
6,342 posts, read 8,743,548 times
Reputation: 3449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
You may not take them literally, but millions do. Your example has an application only for you and the like minded.
Fallacy alert:
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Quote:
Further, whether you wish to admit it or not, scientific discoveries have reframed the debate for philosophers. The mindset with which a 1st Century philosopher attempted to sort out the riddles of the cosmos was a product of the limited knowledge which they had concerning the operations of the universe. Most ancient philosophy erred because it relied on an earth-centric approach, the assumption that our planet was at the center of all things.
Actually, there have always been people who haven't taken the Myths literally. Origen way back in the 1st century said that the only way to understand the Bible is to take it as allegory and not literally. Even the Bible itself doesn't take the Bible literally: the old testament prophet Hosea said that the struggle of Jacob with an angel was a metaphor for a struggle in prayer.

The whole "religious Myths are poor antiquated attempts to explain the universe" line is old and tired.

Quote:
Science has revealed to us just how tiny an inconsequential the earth actually is in relation to the immensity of the universe...and that has altered the starting points for philosophical speculations. Without science, philosophy alone is inadequate.
Yes, and Buddhism, Gnosticism and a bunch of other belief systems also state that we are insignificant. And science has only been around for a hundred years of so...philosophy has been here since the dawn of time.

Quote:
You have informed us that you dislike science because you find it boring and that your preference is for the good old days of endless irresolution.

So, go forth and be irresolute.



I NEVER said I dislike science! I only said that science is boring for me to study. You can find a subject boring without hating it...I find accounting boring, does that mean I hate accounting?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2013, 07:14 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
40,877 posts, read 18,557,746 times
Reputation: 18653
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post



Actually, there have always been people who haven't taken the Myths literally.
Most did. Throughout the middle ages Christianity was as absolute and literal a religion as fundamentalist Islam is today.

As for your distinction between liking science and being bored by it.....more information about your emotional reactions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2013, 04:36 PM
 
6,342 posts, read 8,743,548 times
Reputation: 3449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Most did. Throughout the middle ages Christianity was as absolute and literal a religion as fundamentalist Islam is today.
Completely untrue. As I just pointed out allegorical interpretation has been around since the beginning. Literalism is a modern heresy.

Oh, and even if that was true...so? That was a long time ago. Once upon a time scientists practiced human experimentation too, does that mean science is evil?

Quote:
As for your distinction between liking science and being bored by it.....more information about your emotional reactions.
Huh? "Like" as in what?

Science is useful for modern life...the computer I'm using, electricity etc. I admit that. Now, do I find the study of science interesting? Absolutely not.

I find accounting useful too, and I use H&R Block. Does that mean I find accounting interesting? No.

I would much rather read the profound and deep meanings behind this:
The Hero with a Thousand Faces (The Collected Works of Joseph Campbell): Joseph Campbell: 9781577315933: Amazon.com: Books
Then have to sit down and force myself to read this:
Cell Structure and Function: A Laboratory Manual: FOX DONNA M, CHARLES R MADDEN: 9780757588426: Amazon.com: Books
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2013, 04:10 PM
 
Location: Chicago
3,569 posts, read 6,018,025 times
Reputation: 2577
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post
Translation: Lane Craig PWNED that guy and I have nothing to say to refute what he said.
Science = Real
Religion = Fake

Philosophy = Questioning things we have no answer to.

You want old school philosophy to be re-instituted even though we figured out the answers.

Moderator cut: delete

Last edited by Miss Blue; 04-05-2013 at 03:21 PM.. Reason: calling someone a troll is a personal attack
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2013, 03:52 PM
 
6,342 posts, read 8,743,548 times
Reputation: 3449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alacran View Post
Science = Real
Can science prove the existence of the world outside the mind of person performing scientific research? Can science prove math? Can science prove its own value?

The answer to these questions: no. Hence, science is a poor tool for understanding everything. It is only good for answering certain "flat fact" questions within a certain margin of error.

Quote:
Religion = Fake
Fake? So, there is no suffering in life? (core concept or Buddhism) we are not born from the natural world (core concept of most neo-paganism) and we do not have higher thought processes which could be understood metaphorically through an archetype, God being its ultimate example?

Quote:
Philosophy = Questioning things we have no answer to.
Oh really? So we should not question what is good and evil? We shouldn't question the value of how we obtain information? So, you go to the old "appeal to ignorance" while decrying the "ignorance" of religious people?

Quote:
You want old school philosophy to be re-instituted even though we figured out the answers.
I thought you just said philosophy is questioning things we have no answer to?

And 3,000 years later and no one has been able to prove the existence of the external world. Good and evil are still undefined. We all use philosophy, only some of us refuse to admit it because they don't understand philosophy. It's the same as a child slamming his math book down and screaming "I don't need to know this stupid algebra crap!" which simply the child being unable to admit that it is over his or her head.
Moderator cut: delete

Last edited by Miss Blue; 04-05-2013 at 03:22 PM.. Reason: quote about troll has been deleted
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2013, 11:49 PM
 
Location: Chicago
3,569 posts, read 6,018,025 times
Reputation: 2577
Quote:
Can science prove the existence of the world outside the mind of person performing scientific research? Can science prove math? Can science prove its own value?

The answer to these questions: no. Hence, science is a poor tool for understanding everything. It is only good for answering certain "flat fact" questions within a certain margin of error.
Yes science can prove the existence of the world outside the mind. If I punch you in the face, I can observe, document, repeat, and show it to others to be reviewed and accepted.
Science is a great tool to see what happens, how it happens, why, etc.
You're making yourself look ignorant.



Quote:
Fake? So, there is no suffering in life? (core concept or Buddhism) we are not born from the natural world (core concept of most neo-paganism) and we do not have higher thought processes which could be understood metaphorically through an archetype, God being its ultimate example?
What does suffering in life have to do with religion? Makes no sense. Again. You make yourself seem silly.
Not born from the natural world? What the hell? What am I born from then? The flintstones universe? Lol.


Quote:
Oh really? So we should not question what is good and evil? We shouldn't question the value of how we obtain information? So, you go to the old "appeal to ignorance" while decrying the "ignorance" of religious people?
Huh? Science IS questioning. So how in the hell am I opposing it? Stop putting words in my mouth.


Quote:
I thought you just said philosophy is questioning things we have no answer to?
Yes. I did. Most of those being opinions rather then facts. But those questions that where used as placeholders for ignorance are what you seem to love and miss.

Quote:
And 3,000 years later and no one has been able to prove the existence of the external world. Good and evil are still undefined. We all use philosophy, only some of us refuse to admit it because they don't understand philosophy. It's the same as a child slamming his math book down and screaming "I don't need to know this stupid algebra crap!" which simply the child being unable to admit that it is over his or her head.
External world? There's only one world. Universe. Existence. Realm. Good and evil are defined depending on what society makes it out to be.
You make it seem like philosophy solves all problems when all it does is question.


Quote:
Which is usually applied to people who make points that are not easy to refute. Classic fallacy:
Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule
No.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2013, 06:01 AM
 
3,637 posts, read 2,696,059 times
Reputation: 4300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne View Post
I don't really want to talk about atheism, or defending atheism with science - all I really want to talk about is the science.
And the claims of theism often give us the chance to do just that.

For example when creationists come out and assert that certain biological mechanisms are "iireducuble" and could not be formed through evolution - this spurs many scintists on to look at the issue - study it - compile the data - and make the proofs.

When some people - those who do not just believe in a symbolic / spritual modification - think their brand of wafer-biscuit turns into the body of a long dead jewish carpenter if you say latin at it - we can perform double blind controlled experiments on before and after versions of these pieces of flattened bread and show there is no apperant difference.

When people claim that epilesy or disease is caused by demonic possession we can look into the issue and discover faults in the brain - Germ Theory of Disease - the effects of Malnutrition and much much more.

Quite often it is the ridiculous nonsense claims of theism that spur some scientists on to apply science to the issue and find the real answers to the issues at hand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2013, 01:58 PM
 
6,342 posts, read 8,743,548 times
Reputation: 3449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alacran View Post
Yes science can prove the existence of the world outside the mind. If I punch you in the face, I can observe, document, repeat, and show it to others to be reviewed and accepted.
Science is a great tool to see what happens, how it happens, why, etc.
You're making yourself look ignorant.
If I am punched in the face, I feel something...and yet when I was on a medication I felt like spiders were crawling all over me, but they were not. I have felt pain in dreams as many have. Can science prove that you are not dreaming right now? Can science prove that the world exists and that we are not just stuck in a computer simulation? 3,000 years later and the questions of solipsism have yet to be answered.



Quote:
What does suffering in life have to do with religion? Makes no sense.


Quote:
Suffering comes in many forms. Three obvious kinds of suffering correspond to the first three sights the Buddha saw on his first journey outside his palace: old age, sickness and death.
But according to the Buddha, the problem of suffering goes much deeper. Life is not ideal: it frequently fails to live up to our expectations.

BBC - Religions - Buddhism: The Four Noble Truths


So, if religion is based on lies, then that means that Buddhism is lying about life containing suffering. Buddhism is a religion and hence, it too must be lying and therefore life must contain no suffering.



Quote:
Again. You make yourself seem silly.
Not born from the natural world? What the hell? What am I born from then? The flintstones universe? Lol.
One of the primary tenets of the religion of Wicca is that we should worship/revere the natural world because we were born from it. For Wicca to be "lying" would mean we are not born from the natural world.


Quote:
Huh? Science IS questioning. So how in the hell am I opposing it? Stop putting words in my mouth.
Science presupposes positivism, and to question positivism is to question science itself. Science never questions its methods, but only its results.

Quote:
Yes. I did. Most of those being opinions rather then facts. But those questions that where used as placeholders for ignorance are what you seem to love and miss.
Please see above and tell me who is "ignorant"

Quote:
External world? There's only one world. Universe. Existence. Realm. Good and evil are defined depending on what society makes it out to be.
You make it seem like philosophy solves all problems when all it does is question.
No one can explain if the external world exist or not. No one has ever proven that the world is real and not just a dream. And philosophy provides answers, but they are different answers. An existentialist approaches things differently than a positivist. Science is based on a philosophical school of thought (positivism) and hence science is philosophy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top