So, do you use condoms?
The god delusion... Religious debate
- Thread starter rexehuk
- Start date
So, do you use condoms?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 1,110
Nothing wrong with religion. A minority of people are insecure with their life and for thousands of years religion has made them feel better. Stop criticising it.
We have science and education for a small percentage of the world, the rest have to believe in unicorns, jesus and valhalla.
People need a crutch let them have religion.
We have science and education for a small percentage of the world, the rest have to believe in unicorns, jesus and valhalla.
People need a crutch let them have religion.
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive unless you put unwarranted faith in either of them.
"unwarranted faith in either of them"
faith is for the ignorant. I put no faith in science, if there is any scientific discovery that doesn't make sense I will not put my entire belief system in it. Science is not the all encompassing belief sytem in this world, it does however have the best chance of getting to the truth.
If you had 2 systems, one that said the rules are 100% intact and you cannot change them or another that said let's keep using our heads until we get the right answer, which would you want to believe?
Science doesn't deal in truth, science deals in predication. In order for it to deal in truth, the assumptions taken a priori would have to be verfiably accurate.
That depends, you're not really talking about science with the second example. Science says 'let's keep using our heads until we get a useful answer', it does not care about the 'right' answer, unless right is defined as useful.
But we are all ignorant, we will never know the answers to most questions until it's too late.
Are you saying you're somehow enlightened beyond ignorance?
True story, for the most part. My housemate did a paper on how science is as much a belief structure as any religion, at least so far as to say its answers explain everything within its own context. The truths of science are proven by scientific method. One of the major differences she drew was to say that whereas religions offer truth, infallible and absolute, science offers lies. This isn't as negative as it sounds - it merely serves to highlight the drive behind science, namely to prove itself wrong. The greatest leaps in modern science have come about by disproving established theories.
"verfiably accurate" isn't that the main purpose of science, science deals far more in verfiably accurate truth than any religion.
"it does not care about the 'right' answer, unless right is defined as useful"
in the context of this thread, I define "right" as in the most sensible to the vast majority. You are trying to overcomplicate something that isn't complicated, I am concerned at your reasoning.
Predictively accurate is the only purpose of science, anything else is just a consequence of this aim, and comes with caveats. And I was talking about the assumptions made in the scientific method lacking verifiable accuracy (a recursive definition does not count), rather than the results of application of that method. For a simple example, prove, objectively and non-recursively, that the simplest mechanism is always the correct one.
This is a philosophical discussion, science as a philosophy gets no extra credit for predictive accuracy compared to alternative philosophies, nor does it get a pass on the heavy use of unverifiable assumptions due to its predictive accuracy.
Let's put it at it's most simplest form...have you or any of your friends benefited from life after death or food being magicaly produced from nowhere? or have you or your friends benifited from, healthcare, modern farming, the internet, the computer, modern housing, flight, etc?
The above has no bearing on the issue though. No-one is denying that science is useful, nor has anyone implied that religion has some sort of functional equivalence to science in these terms.
The key point here is that science could be just as useful in a world with God as a world without it, it is fundamentally agnostic to the whole idea.
I'm not asking you to put faith in a god as being the truth, why are you asking me to put faith in science to be the same?
I'm not asking anyone to put "faith" in science, as humans through evolution we have brains that for whatever reason are allowed to debate these issues. The fact remains the majority of religious believers DO want us to put faith in god being true, not ONE science "believer expects the same".
God is simply a manifestation of the human mind, more particularly some philosopher bloke that lived 2009 years ago that happened to have the sheer fortune of being more famous than Micheal Jackson....or depending on what religion you believe a thousand other blokes.
"God" has less place in this modern world than science, any ambivolence such as yours is fine.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 11,114
.....a post that has been sadly overlooked by all but one member of the forum so far.
This is exactly the stance I take. I'm a staunch Atheist - I'm convinced there is no God. End of.
HOWEVER, should I die and end up at the feet of some almighty Lord I assume mercy will be given to me considering I have lived as a kind and good person regardless of what I believe.
It's just a pity that most hardcore Christians treat Atheism as synonymous with Anarchism - like some kind of spiritual Dorian Gray. Truth is, the fact that I live the life of a respectful person despite not believing in any spiritual obligation must certainly count for more than the pious who do so (and in turn, commit the sin of Pride in their actions).
I'm not really sure where i stand on this.
Do I believe in God, quite honestly, I don't know. In my opinion it is entirely possible that such a force or being exists, or maybe even more than one....
I have no faith in the accuracy or any truth in the dogma of organised religions, I believe they've become too perverted over so long of being used as tools, or soapboxes for political benifits.
It's not that I think all organised relgions are bad, just that those that preach the absolute and undeniable truth, should be taken with a large cartfull of salt.
Do I believe in God, quite honestly, I don't know. In my opinion it is entirely possible that such a force or being exists, or maybe even more than one....
I have no faith in the accuracy or any truth in the dogma of organised religions, I believe they've become too perverted over so long of being used as tools, or soapboxes for political benifits.
It's not that I think all organised relgions are bad, just that those that preach the absolute and undeniable truth, should be taken with a large cartfull of salt.
Despite you not understanding science and saying religion is crazy and yes many people who believe in science try to make us put faith in science. You are doing it know and many people have done so like darwkins.
Dawkins doesn't ask anyone to put faith in science, he merely asks people not to treat religion as if it's a no-go area in debates and look at the evidence for and against as you would with any other topic. It's not a science V religion argument, there's plenty of religious scientists around after all. Dawkins is simply asking people to think about it rather than blindly accepting a religion they generally were brought up in without considering if there was a basis for it. Many adults have never questioned their religion as it's so fundamental to them.
Yes, let them also have their Nuclear Weapons, Machine Guns, Aeroplanes and Bombs.
I used to be of that stance "it helps them, so why take it away from them" - and now? Religion is dangerous with the power it now wields, the ability to eradicate all life on this planet so to speak. That is a dangerous thing for anyone to have, let alone someone following a religion which praises them for murdering innocents.
yes he does.
And there are plenty of people who have discovered religion later in life and many many more who have questioned it.
what, no religion praises them to kill.
Also people are corrupted by power they do not need religion. Many of the people who hold the power are not religious and just as dangerous, Just look at Russias past.
They do.
The most sophisticated nuclear arsenal in the world has belonged to strongly religious people for a while.