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.
I'm thinking that the average Christian probably does a great deal more to help those in need than the average person in the street. That makes those of faith a greater part of the solution than some smug pseudointellectual who takes potshots at the supposed motivations of others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by giggling-rflmn
Are you pre-supposing that the majority of us atheists are smug pseudo-intellectuals simply because we see and comment on the ongoing biases and past (oh, and current as well...) criminal activities within the various Christian churchly organizations? Because dear friend, Christianity has launched some zinger do-bad types, all on record.
Meantime, atheism, not being an established, well, anything, much less a specific religion, has no such crutch to hide behind or to utilize as the "driver" of some behavioral model. Nope.
Rather, it's quite simply a lack of belief in any etherial mystical God(s) from 4000 years ago, all invented by a band of later-day but functionally and scientifically illiterate minstrels "ginning up" a real good story with an even more creative imagination, back when no-one, and I mean no-one, knew why the sun rose, or why the tides came, or how lightning happened or how Evolution so obviously works in aid of species diversity.
Instead, and esp. in aid of power-mogering which still goes on today, it was conveniently all attributed to a Sky Monkey-Man with abnormal powers. The bigger interest is how, in light of the education and informational basis here in the beginning of the 21st century, we still have supposedly educated an intelligent people buying into it full on.
I now surmise it's that latent quaking and a'quivering fear-induced need for a post-death salvation optoin being run by that guy from behind that curtain! "Pay no attention to..." etc. etc.
No such guy. Nope, sorry!
1) Given that being of service to others is a core part of Christ's teachings, it should be evident that this motivation is central to the actions of Christians. In fact, if one recites the Baptismal Creed of the Episcopal Church, you resolve to support the dignity and worth of every human being. The terrible actions of the Catholic church in the 1500s and the words of a few 19th Century ministers in the pockets of slaveholders does not change that one whit. In fact, it's important to realize that churches over the years have continually challenged themselves to live up to those ideals. Some have had reform forced on them by their own congregations while others have adopted leadership on issues of their own accord.
In fact, I'll even take issue with your insinuation that Fundamentalists are inherently bad people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn
How about the oft-claimed Christian insinuation that us atheists, live with an apparent lack of any social or cultural mores, or the ability that only Christians have to detect right from wrong?? Hmmm?
To that errant point I have enjoyed a very generous lifestyle (my generosity I mean), a happy and fulfilling family life, a strong moral sense of fairness, duty (time in the Army defending one's country withut ever wanting to convert in a foxhole. That line, btw, is full-on BS, I can confirm direct from the battlefield!) and continuing community volunteer service. Hardly the corrupted or non-existent virtues that ardent Christians wish to paint all of us atheists with.
In other words I'm an an individual who has been properly and morally raised (in my case, not by religious parents, but rather good and thoughtful parents with an excellent work ethic and continued efforts within their community)
I'm not a fan of Fundamentalism, but Fundamentalists as a whole try to work in the world in undeniably positive ways. I help one homeless shelter predominantly run by Southern Baptists that helps more than 2,000 individuals a year find housing, clothing, food, education and jobs. I know another one that has drilled literally dozens of wells in remote African and Latin American villages. And the list goes on and on.
So if you're going to be intellectually honest and critique religions for the past wrongs Christians have committed, then you have to be fair and devote equal thought to the extensive good they have performed and continue to do and big ways and small. To do otherwise is to be petty, ignoring truth in order to grind one's personal axe.
But nonetheless, sadly it's all tainted by the continued efforts to insert just a tiny little a bit of Christian propaganda. Seems they just can't help themselves! Atheist efforts at community volunteerism lack this propaganda element, choosing instead to just get the volunteer job done. After all, what propaganda would we have to spout, not being an org-religion, with no mandates nor pre-determined (and 4000 yr old..) diatribes to convince people of.:
And so on. There are literally too many of these atheist orgs listed on the 'net to list again here. Too bad for the virulent and jealous Christian chant-a-message, huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223
Sigh. You seriously take Hitler at face value? A few speeches where he invoked Christ is not evidence of anything. The man was a politician first, and a pretty good one at that. In fact, the quotes you pulled are all either from when he wrote Mein Kampf, his early political screed, or when he was running for Chancellor. What? Do you think for a moment that he would have denounced Christianity from the stump in Catholic and Lutheran Germany? When he planned to conquer Europe, do you think for a moment he would make an open enemy of the Catholic Church? That's mighty potent crack you're smoking there.
If anything, Hitler's spiritual cues were taken from Nietzsche, not Christ. You know, the guy who wrote, "God is dead"? The guy who spawned the belief systems that informed Hitler's beliefs? As an example, Hitler denounced Christianity as a religion "fit for slaves," an evocation of Nietzsche's Master Morality/Slave Morality duality. In fact, in his plans for the Germanization of Eastern Europe, he had plans to not allow any churches in the region at all. Both Bormann and Goering in their private writings noted Hitler's intention to reduce or even eliminate the influence of Christianity after the successful prosecution of the war. This is borne out during the war by the systematic persecution of theologians such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Example after example exist in memoirs of Nazis regarding Hitler's contempt for Christians and Christianity. The fact that it was a useful tool in his rise to power has little to do with anything.
Oh. And another thing. I don't listen to conservative talk shows. Hate them really, both the philosophy and the hosts. Of course, given that you just argued that Hitler was a faithful member of the Christian faith speaks to a penchant for such lazy arguments.
SeekerSA and BU, one can be an adherent to religion AND science (but not politically-slanted science obviously). Scientists can (and do) adhere to religion. Religion doesn't exist to make strides in science, just like the bible isn't a science textbook, so what is the point of the graph? Comparing the two in this fashion proves nothing except one wants to slight those who adhere to a religious perspective. What's new?
...one can be an adherent to religion AND science...
Absolutely. I think most reasonable believers and nonbelievers alike realize this. I fully blieve most believers, at least in the "First World" (for lack of a better term) are intelligent, kind, rational people whose faith isn't shaken by coming to awareness of the fact that evolution actually happens. Or by embracing other scientific discoveries.
Quote:
Scientists can (and do) adhere to religion. Religion doesn't exist to make strides in science, just like the bible isn't a science textbook...
True.
Quote:
...so what is the point of the graph? Comparing the two in this fashion proves nothing except one wants to slight those who adhere to a religious perspective.
Well, I think it is aimed more at the wackadoo fundamentalist, literalist believers. Those (even some posters right here) wo say things like "Fossils were put here by Satan to fool humans" or "Scientists are trying to disprove God" or "Nonbelievers are god-haters" or "Morals can't exist without God" or "A frog never turned into a cow, therefore evolution is bunk" etc., etc. and other such assorted nonsense and infantile BS.
People who believe The Bible, for instance, is 100% literally true and historically accurate, which is demonstrably a lie.
There are different Arts , both in science and in religion , where as generally all of the advances in religion are omitted because of the liberal stance in the page of the op ..............For example in Christianity , there was the decline in the disobedient churches , which was a good thing and Lord Jesus is growing in the churches were believers are obedient and keep Jesus command, which Jesus is refining His church ........ then there is growth in to the image of God , which God has released healing for the illness of cancer, aids , diabetes , blindness, deafness and lameness, , and has open doors for His salvations in China, Russia, Nations in Africa, and India, and has underground salvation in Muslim dominated nations were Christianity is band, Jesus is taking converts into eternal life even if they are killed as martyrs .....Ten years ago there was a major awakening of Christ in some nations in South America where masses of people were converted ...............See the advances in Christianity are there for the eyes of the world , but hidden by the liberal dominated media
The view that science is a "replacement" for Religion, or renders Religion unnecessary, is a common fallacy in the New Atheism. However, it is based upon an outdated idea called "Verificationism" - the philosophy that knowledge is only meaningful if it can be verified by physical evidence. Verificationism collapsed so spectacularly in the 1960s that it is now regarded among academics to be synonymous with ignorance or general ineptitude, though it is still prominent among the New Atheism.
1. Scientific beliefs do not replace or compete with philosophical and theological beliefs, in an epistemic sense, because they operate at fundamentally different levels. They answer different questions, using different methods of inquiry, using different theories of knowledge and apply them to different levels of the experience of reality.
2. Those areas in which science and religion seem to conflict (for example in the discourse on the origins of life), ultimately regress to a discord between two unfalsifiable metaphysical positions. The scientific method of inquiry is essentially metaphysically neutral as to the truth of theism or atheism, hence the preponderance of prominent theistic scientists throughout history.
3. The scientific method itself appeals to a system of first principles; a set of metaphysical laws regarding reality and the nature of knowledge. This, by definition, cannot be established by science, but can only be provided by philosophy and theology. If you do away with this metaphysical framework, by inference, you do away with science.
4. The epistemic foundations (the theories of knowledge, standards of critical reasoning) necessary for science arose from an historical basis of theistic realism. The fathers of Rationalism, such as Kant, Descartes, Leibniz et al., were not only theists, but regarded theism to be both an epistemic necessity and a logical conclusion of reasonable thought.
5. The logistics/infrastructure for what we now call science arose, historically, in large part due to massive investments of manpower, financing, facilities, instruments, training, political support by religious institutions. This is discussed by James Hannam below:
The Verification argument has some mileage as many subjects become vague or are vague, such as history, which often depends on limited and even doubtful sources. There is also the question of applying verification to human contructs such as art, music and moral codes.
So the question of verification has to include probabilities, but even those have to use the corpus of verified data or there is no way to make the judgement.
The advantage it has over metaphysics is that metaphysics is speculative unless it has some verified basis to work on. It is not valid to propose that it can do a better job than science in providing a reliable corpus of verified data and it can do no more than provide interesting and useful speculative suggestions which nevertheless require science to verify it or it remains hypothetical.
The relevance of that OP chart can be queried, but it is a useful reminder that religion is not free of criticism and science has provided the huge bulk of what we now use and rely on.
The Verification argument has some mileage as many subjects become vague or are vague, such as history, which often depends on limited and even doubtful sources. There is also the question of applying verification to human contructs such as art, music and moral codes.
So the question of verification has to include probabilities, but even those have to use the corpus of verified data or there is no way to make the judgement.
The advantage it has over metaphysics is that metaphysics is speculative unless it has some verified basis to work on. It is not valid to propose that it can do a better job than science in providing a reliable corpus of verified data and it can do no more than provide interesting and useful speculative suggestions which nevertheless require science to verify it or it remains hypothetical.
The relevance of that OP chart can be queried, but it is a useful reminder that religion is not free of criticism and science has provided the huge bulk of what we now use and rely on.
You first need to know what Verificationism is if you intend to defend it:
1. It is a Criterion of Meaning, not an "argument".
2. The Verifiability Criterion does not "help" with knowledge that has "limited/doubtful sources". You are confusing it with an "appeal to verifiable sources" - something completely different.
3. The Verifiability Criterion does not apply to aesthetics, musical taste or moral truths. According to Verificationism, all these things are "meaningless".
4. According to Verificationism, your own arguments in defense of Verificationism and against Metaphysics are "meaningless". Your comments don't even have the dignity to be false, but are the propositional equivalent of stating nothing at all.
One of the great ironies of early 20th century secular analytic philosophy is that the naturalised epistemologies (chiefly among them, Verificationism and Logical Positivism) turned out to be fundamentally destructive of the principles of scientific inquiry and reason. The history behind the rise, catastrophic demise and legacy of Verificationism, is amply covered by Oswald Hanfling in his book "Logical Positivism". I suggest you read it.
Did I say I was going to defend verificationism? I am pointing out (quit apart from any labelled pigeoholes that philosophic convention might want to assign to a lot of rather diffuse concepts) that metaphysics seems to offer no better way of providing reliable factual data. If you hold that it does or can, feel free to demonstrate how.
Did I say I was going to defend verificationism? I am pointing out (quit apart from any labelled pigeoholes that philosophic convention might want to assign to a lot of rather diffuse concepts) that metaphysics seems to offer no better way of providing reliable factual data. If you hold that it does or can, feel free to demonstrate how.
We've already covered this. Among many other things, metaphysics formalises the foundational framework for scientific inquiry, without which science would be meaningless or impossible.
Among these are ideas such as:
1. The principle of causality; the way causal events are interrelated.
2. The ontology of being vs non-being; can 'something' come from 'nothing'?
3. "Realism"; belief that there is a real world beyond our sensory perceptions.
4. The philosophy of time; how past, present and future are interrelated.
5. The idea that there are minds other than our own.
6. The idea that the very nature of reality is constant and uniform.
7. The various ideas regarding dualism or monism of mind and brain.
None of these are trivial or truistic assumptions, though that may appear to be the case from a position of philosophical illiteracy. They require rigorous and precise epistemic analysis.
None of these ideas can be 'proven' using science, given that science assumes these metaphysical ideas as first principles. To attempt to prove these ideas using science thus commits to circular reasoning.
You notice alot of the scientific advances seem to be vaguely phallic in nature? This or that shuttle explores some area, all looking like... nvm.
Also, if not for some of these advances, we would not have many of the human and civil rights we have today. They are battles hard fought with the status quo (notice the backlash in some areas). But this is also what the scientific community has to do to add new ideas (electric cars have actually been around longer than you'd think, but getting them to be accepted even somewhat over gas... took some doing).
Also, I don't see a single advance of science in the field of human rights. At most, we have health benefits. But without affordable healthcare, this is worthless. Meaning, we'd have many of these advances only because of blacks or women, who would have been marginalized/rejected without the influence of religion.
1. Scientific beliefs do not replace or compete with philosophical and theological beliefs, in an epistemic sense, because they operate at fundamentally different levels. They answer different questions, using different methods of inquiry, using different theories of knowledge and apply them to different levels of the experience of reality.
2. Those areas in which science and religion seem to conflict (for example in the discourse on the origins of life), ultimately regress to a discord between two unfalsifiable metaphysical positions. The scientific method of inquiry is essentially metaphysically neutral as to the truth of theism or atheism, hence the preponderance of prominent theistic scientists throughout history.
3. The scientific method itself appeals to a system of first principles; a set of metaphysical laws regarding reality and the nature of knowledge. This, by definition, cannot be established by science, but can only be provided by philosophy and theology. If you do away with this metaphysical framework, by inference, you do away with science.
4. The epistemic foundations (the theories of knowledge, standards of critical reasoning) necessary for science arose from an historical basis of theistic realism. The fathers of Rationalism, such as Kant, Descartes, Leibniz et al., were not only theists, but regarded theism to be both an epistemic necessity and a logical conclusion of reasonable thought.
5. The logistics/infrastructure for what we now call science arose, historically, in large part due to massive investments of manpower, financing, facilities, instruments, training, political support by religious institutions. This is discussed by James Hannam below:
Or to put it in laymen's terms: Science deals in observed phenomena, religion deals in ethics and interpersonal relationships. Science deals in how, religion deals in why. If you try to get scientists to put forward a belief system, they won't be acting scientific, but under a faith system. If you try to get religious types to scientifically explain how stuff is, they'll probably use the same science as you do, since religion doesn't have its own science (Christian Science is just a name, they're actually Gnostics). Science is neither atheism nor theism, and atheism falls in every parameter that matters into what could be defined as faith.
Without science, we are stuck naked in a cold cave without fire, but we're likely to be extremely friendly to each other, huddling for warmth and telling stories. Without religion (of any sort, including atheist morality), we are in a nice tech mansion, but your neighbor will kill you for it because it's too nice.
Last edited by bulmabriefs144; 06-22-2013 at 01:59 PM..
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.
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.
