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.
The major difference between science and religion is that science does not claim to be the source of any kind of moral code. Religion, however, DOES ... so when a religious belief system violates the same moral code it propagates, and does so repeatedly, again and again and again ... well, that's why you're right. Religion has no excuse and science doesn't need one.
in terms of creating a moral code, scientist should be as responsible as any other citizen. Pissin off responsibility in the name of "science" is weak at best. science and religion are not people and its stupid to talk like they are.
Actually, I consider THIS part of the forum no one's "home." This is the Anything Goes forum where everyone is allowed to chime in with their two cents. This isn't the 'home' of the religious and damn, man, do NOT encourage the fundamentalists by saying this IS their home.
Why?
Because I've read at least two or three dozen posts from fundamentalists who think we atheists shouldn't even be here. We should huddle in our own little forum and preach to the choir so that they can proselytize and brainwash people on THIS forum without we "meddling kids" interfering.
Every major religion has their own separate forum -- as well as atheists. Why should religion be given ownership of THIS forum, as well?
Where's the big all-inclusive "Secularism and Science" forum for we atheists to call home? Yeah, there isn't one.
Atheism and non-religiosity is simply the opposite side of the coin from spirituality and religion -- those who oppose religion SHOULD have a voice in a general "religion" forum like this one. If you admit that this is THEIR home, we'll start getting eye-fulls of whiny posts about, "Why are you even in this forum? This forum is for religion!!"
Uh no. I know you mean well, 303Guy, but you know what they say: Give a mouse a cookie and he'll ask for a glass of milk.
As for showing consideration for their religions, I'll put it to you like this:
Religion, for the last 10,000 years, has claimed unearned respect and deference; we non-believers should tip-toe around their beliefs and not rock the boat. And ... at the end of the day, should a controversy arise, it is we, the non-believers, who are expected to back down and allow religious beliefs to remain the most vocal and profuse opinion within any medium.
Some atheists like myself are just plain tired of that paradigm and simply won't "tread lightly" anymore. This unearned respect and deference expected from ALL people regardless of how strongly we might oppose it has gone on long enough. Therefore, I have no qualms whatsoever about calling an idea "stupid" or "nonsensical" or any other negative descriptor that fits the bill. Of course I will ALWAYS explain precisely why I think a belief is "stupid" -- often times at length.
As mordant, I believe, pointed out a long time ago: The complacency of automatic and unquestioning respect for religion has to be shaken up and people like me do just that. We all have our different styles of debate ... I tend to be the "shock jock" of the "Religion and Spirituality" forum even to the point of getting an infraction or ban from time to time. I'm sure I give the mods a work-out.
But I will never intentionally insult an actual author of a post. Unfortunately, when it comes to religion, far too many people internalize their beliefs so much that an attack on their faith is synonymous with a personal, ad hominem attack on the individual person making a religious claim. As far as that's concerned, that's on them, not me.
Thanks for reading.
Plus, I'm Agnostic Empiricist Etc (considered atheistic by most Religionists) and consider myself Spiritual and would be happy to belong to the Right and Good Religion if it developed itself or was found.
Also, one wouldn't want the Automobile forum to be an Ivory Tower for Automobile enthusiasts instead of the hub of all Automobile information both pro and con.
I'm fairly certain the average reading level for Americans is at the 8th grade level -- BUT -- I wouldn't be at all surprised if it has dropped to the 5th grade level in recent years.
Sorry, I think the 5th grade reading level came from the level suggested for writing an Informed Consent when informing possible Study Participants. It's also supposed to be a 12-Font Page or less, if possible.
However, I still think that an 'attack' automatically elicits a defensive response which is counter productive.
What's an "'attack'"? Something like writing anything that initially disagrees with their positions, or views their positions as wrong and detrimental?
There isn't much to say about Atheism or Agnosticism, they are very narrow philosophical and metaphysical views. Their major structure is that all others (or each other) are wrong, inane, needlessly extravagant, etc.
I have notice the misuse of that, then and than. For example, your sentence would get written as "It used to be then reading was a privilege ... " or "It used to be than reading was a privilege ... "
Those just seem like typos and unedited submissions to me, not necessarily real examples of grammatical beliefs.
They just go blindly forward without caring. Science! Full steam ahead! Who cares if it can kill people?
So a scientist forced to help the Nazis: he was forced, don't blame him.
A religious person forced to help the Nazis: religion is evil.
First I am talking about experimentation, not weapons. But even there, we see how "glorious enlightened" men of science can turn to pure evil very quickly. Fritz Haber, for example, jumper at the opportunity to create chemical warfare and kill using science.
And as the critics of religion always say, science has no codes or moral principals. Nothing is there to make a "man of science" second guess what he is doing, unlike religion which often has more "don't kills" then "do kills" in their texts.
Quite apart from Science (as Shirna says) being about facts, not morality, both religion and science can produce bad examples. Arguably US religion has produced a war criminal who still escapes impeachment. But Haber is an arguable case. In many ways the poison gas moral question is like the one about the Bomb (Einstein and Eisenhower - two God believers, so we are told) There was a war on and the poison Gas was seen as a way of winning. Flame throwers were used on the Allied side. We don't hear so much about those. More recently Chemical weapons, biological weapons, anti - personnel weapons. Blame science or blame the people who want to use them to defeat the enemy, with God's approval of whatever method you use?
In any case, I don't see any mileage in the great atrocity debate. The debate is really about which is facts and which is fantasy.
What's an "'attack'"? Something like writing anything that initially disagrees with their positions, or views their positions as wrong and detrimental?
An 'attack' (in inverted comma's) should be self explanatory and in context, would be that which invokes a defensive reaction, thus losing the intended impact.
There isn't much to say about Atheism or Agnosticism, they are very narrow philosophical and metaphysical views. Their major structure is that all others (or each other) are wrong, inane, needlessly extravagant, etc.
I'd like some specific examples from you.
Mmmm ... There are a few examples from both sides of the 'debate'. Read back a few pages and they are there, quite glaring. Also apparent are the responses invoked by those 'attacks' (in inverted comma's) which illustrate what I am trying to say. It's those responses that are my point.
Please don't misunderstand me, I have no desire to pussyfoot around religious or atheist bigots but 'attacking' either side achieves no gains and lets' face it, both sides have been 'attacking' the other. Y'all have heard that saying? Never argue with an idiot - he will beat you down to his level and win the argument with experience. Don't be that idiot and don't argue with the idiot.
Now if anyone would like specific examples of how it should be done - that I can provide.
Actually, I consider THIS part of the forum no one's "home." This is the Anything Goes forum where everyone is allowed to chime in with their two cents. This isn't the 'home' of the religious and damn, man, do NOT encourage the fundamentalists by saying this IS their home.
Why?
Because I've read at least two or three dozen posts from fundamentalists who think we atheists shouldn't even be here. We should huddle in our own little forum and preach to the choir so that they can proselytize and brainwash people on THIS forum without we "meddling kids" interfering.
Every major religion has their own separate forum -- as well as atheists. Why should religion be given ownership of THIS forum, as well?
Where's the big all-inclusive "Secularism and Science" forum for we atheists to call home? Yeah, there isn't one.
Atheism and non-religiosity is simply the opposite side of the coin from spirituality and religion -- those who oppose religion SHOULD have a voice in a general "religion" forum like this one. If you admit that this is THEIR home, we'll start getting eye-fulls of whiny posts about, "Why are you even in this forum? This forum is for religion!!"
Uh no. I know you mean well, 303Guy, but you know what they say: Give a mouse a cookie and he'll ask for a glass of milk.
As for showing consideration for their religions, I'll put it to you like this:
Religion, for the last 10,000 years, has claimed unearned respect and deference; we non-believers should tip-toe around their beliefs and not rock the boat. And ... at the end of the day, should a controversy arise, it is we, the non-believers, who are expected to back down and allow religious beliefs to remain the most vocal and profuse opinion within any medium.
Some atheists like myself are just plain tired of that paradigm and simply won't "tread lightly" anymore. This unearned respect and deference expected from ALL people regardless of how strongly we might oppose it has gone on long enough. Therefore, I have no qualms whatsoever about calling an idea "stupid" or "nonsensical" or any other negative descriptor that fits the bill. Of course I will ALWAYS explain precisely why I think a belief is "stupid" -- often times at length.
As mordant, I believe, pointed out a long time ago: The complacency of automatic and unquestioning respect for religion has to be shaken up and people like me do just that. We all have our different styles of debate ... I tend to be the "shock jock" of the "Religion and Spirituality" forum even to the point of getting an infraction or ban from time to time. I'm sure I give the mods a work-out.
But I will never intentionally insult an actual author of a post. Unfortunately, when it comes to religion, far too many people internalize their beliefs so much that an attack on their faith is synonymous with a personal, ad hominem attack on the individual person making a religious claim. As far as that's concerned, that's on them, not me.
Thanks for reading.
Yes...this board is the "melting pot".
If all purviews and credos are not represented...then it is diminished and compromised.
You need the Pedigree Atheists, the Hardcore Religious, and everything in between. Lose any of them...and it would be a shadow of what it is. The more there is...the better, IMO.
Please don't misunderstand me, I have no desire to pussyfoot around religious or atheist bigots but 'attacking' either side achieves no gains and lets' face it, both sides have been 'attacking' the other. Y'all have heard that saying? Never argue with an idiot - he will beat you down to his level and win the argument with experience. Don't be that idiot and don't argue with the idiot.
Now if anyone would like specific examples of how it should be done - that I can provide.
Good points.
Since I know my limitations, there are debates I won't join in on and state what I really feel. Denial of Evolution, Noah's Ark as a literally accurate story, and people coming back to mortal life after being dead several days, among them. I know I would be suspended within a few posts if I did.
It is doing no such thing, nor will it or can it ever do such a thing.
Except yes it is, whether you like it or not. There have been some great moves towards understanding why we enjoy art and why it affects us the way it does. There have even been proposed "laws of artistic experience" and the underpinnings of each of them are remarkably strong and well substantiated. Your denialism is simply not going to help you here.
Though it is fun to find you here discussing science when in another thread you moaned that people presume to speak outside their area of expertise and that "The difference is I don't argue with people about science and math and instead stick to my area of expertise." and yet here you are very much arguing the science of it here with me.
Now this is a relatively new area of scientific inquiry but it is happening which proves your "It is doing no such thing" claim to be entirely false. It is doing it. As for "Nor will it or can it" nonsense, that is your fantasy only. I however choose to comment on what we are doing today and not pretend to know the future like you do, yet neither of us do.
TODAY we are inquiring into the biological and neurological underpinnings of art and we are making actual head way there despite your denialism. How far we will get with that, and what answers we will, or will not, find lies in the future and I do not pretend to know the future. Nor should you. Especially, as you keep moaning and whinging, it is outside your area of expertise. By far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
As best I can tell from his nonsense, his point is that all of this might just be an illusion in your head
Which, as I pointed out, does not invalidate anything I have said. Because the methodology I describe is merely one of evaluation of the data set that comes before you. Whether the data set be real or illusory is irrelevant, as the process of evaluating it remains the same regardless. So despite the users nonsense claim, we do not have to have "faith" that any of this actually exists as the processes I describe remain unchanged either way.
In other words, the data set can be wrong at any time, but the methodology of science is one of saying "IF the data set I have before me is correct THEN what can I infer or conclude from it"? And as the data set changes, so too do those inferences and conclusions.
And that is why there is no.... and why the user can find no.... faith in science. And this is why the user dodged replying to my last 2 responses and has ignored it ever since.
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.
