GasBandit
Staff member
Don't listen to the philistine, brother. They just jelly.
Atheism
- Thread starter Jay
- Start date
- Status
It was not a religious war, but the Atheist Utopia was just thinning the herd across the board. They did not care if you were a true believer (fellow traveler) or not.
I get a little upset that Internet Atheists act as though no Atheist in history ever harmed a hair on another person's head.
Using those atheistic beliefs as justification, though? I don't think anyone is claiming that atheists cannot be bad people.
Yeah, except for exactly what I stated earlier. Explain to me in full detail how evolution works, please. I want genetic systems all the way to ecosystems. If you haven't critically questioned the validity for evolution why are you a proponent of it? Really if you can't explain it to me you're just as big a sheep as the people who believe in Adam and Eve. The essence of truth to me is understanding and questioning ideas behind it, and rationalizing it to what I've constructed as a representation of what it should be based on what I've learned. That's why I do what I do.
Atheists that go "lolreligion" without understanding the details of the science and scientific proof they're supporting are pretty much putting their "faith" in people that are "smarter" than they are.
Shego's example is pretty much what Jay was talking about though. While there are plenty of exceptions, as an example, a Jewish person is less likely to catch flack from an atheist than a Christian person, even if both were mentioning their faith in a calm, non-judgmental manner. Atheists say they don't believe all religions/gods/etc, but many are really just anti-Christian, and that's more about cultural history, at which point, they sacrifice their ideals. It's a lot like Christians who never put Christ to practice. It comes down to atheism vs Christianity rather than atheism vs religion. Which I suppose is better than having science vs religion, because in both cases there's a fervency to have faith, which is what Chaz is trying to point out--in general, people accept or reject what they hear without critically thinking about it/investigating it for themselves.
I think Dostoevsky had the right idea in "Demons" when he suggested that it's easier to convert an atheist than an agnostic, because they're already religious in their own way.
Though Dostoevsky also suggested that if what the Bible says happened to Christ were to happen again as with Chibi's example (miracles, preaching, et cetera) the status quo would kill him again.
I think Dostoevsky had the right idea in "Demons" when he suggested that it's easier to convert an atheist than an agnostic, because they're already religious in their own way.
Though Dostoevsky also suggested that if what the Bible says happened to Christ were to happen again as with Chibi's example (miracles, preaching, et cetera) the status quo would kill him again.
C
Chibibar
I know this wasn't toward me.
I don't anyone can Mathias (which is probably your point) but I believe in time, scientist may figure out someday. I believe that evolution is a stronger theory than Adam & Eve because scientist have made some observation over several generation of different species and human from evidence in the past. While currently scientist can't link it all the way to the beginning (i.e. I call it Soup theory) or origin of life, but at least a tie between ape and man (of course we are still missing the "missing link") but there are some evidence of early man and today man from skeletal structure (which show evolution of man from 10,000 years ago to today - note I think there are much older skeletons but I am too lazy to look it all up right now)
Now of course all this is easier to believe evolution with what we have today vs a "magic waving of the hand" suddenly two people were created. A man and a woman which propagate the earth (which btw, there are some Biblical theory on that as in "super gene" and possible more than 1 couple but talk about incest)
fade
Staff member
While I agree that understanding and questioning are good things, I don't need to do this because we have people who do this for us. That doesn't make me a sheep, it makes me a customer. I can understand and question science, and trust you to do the work for me that needs to be done. We could get all philosophical and question science itself as a belief, because what is it that says that repeatability and testability are inherently any better?
Fade, everyone has to either individually replicate all the important research up until this point in history or at least read the original sources. But really, only sheep read the articles.
Added at: 17:02
Snark aside, Mathias is correct to a point, in that we should always hold onto a grain of skepticism. It is a healthy approach to the things that we believe in and which could be utterly, completely wrong, despite our fervent beliefs.
I think Mathias's point was that we have hold faith in scientists because science has become so exacting, it's almost impossible for a layman to understand all of it. I have to trust that biologists have done the research and have come to the right conclusions because I don't have the resources available to figure it out myself. I could, given the opportunity, but the barriers to entry for modern science are so high that we're really counting on 'those in the know' to communicate those findings out to us, explain what they mean, and we hold in public trust the fact that they are telling us the truth.
Yeah, science literacy IS pretty terrible in our country (and yours too, I imagine). Oh, wait, that wasn't your intended point.
Up here in Canada, we can't even decide which language to speak, let alone science-ific...things.
At least you have the metric system.
The metric system is pretty standard in scientific communities but in day to day use, pounds and miles are still common. Very rare to hear someone refer to their weight in kg for example.At least you have the metric system.
C
Chibibar
There are two issues here.
Science - Hypothesis -> test - results/compare -> retest -> results/compare and other people can do the same thing.
We are creature who depend on our senses. Science explains these things to us and can be proven (to a point)
Faith - this is just is. you believe or you don't. There is no test or retest. Each person's faith differ from another. It is not like Science where two scientist can do the same test and get same result. Testing two people' faith may get different results. It is just are.
It is comparing two different thing that could be the same thing (IMO) Science cover - see, hear, touch, taste, smell while Faith cover what you feel and believe.
Science - Hypothesis -> test - results/compare -> retest -> results/compare and other people can do the same thing.
We are creature who depend on our senses. Science explains these things to us and can be proven (to a point)
Faith - this is just is. you believe or you don't. There is no test or retest. Each person's faith differ from another. It is not like Science where two scientist can do the same test and get same result. Testing two people' faith may get different results. It is just are.
It is comparing two different thing that could be the same thing (IMO) Science cover - see, hear, touch, taste, smell while Faith cover what you feel and believe.
Oh you silly canuckistans. The US doesn't have that problem because we don't have any national language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_United_States
When I lived in Australia they used the metric system pretty casually. Also, I've driven in Canada and your road signs are in km!
"Legally" we've adopted the metric system. Everything official (driver's licenses, speed limits, etc.) lists our weights, heights, speeds, etc in metric, but day to day, everyone talks in standard... Although since most people my age started driving with km, that is one thing that's more and more only-metric now, however my parents still talk about mph and how many miles away something is.
Is that supposed to be a pun, or are you just digging for geology jokes?
Hate to resurrect a week-old discussion, but I just saw it...
Put simply, science and religion answer two different questions about origins. Science attempts to answer "How?", and relgion, in its nature a philosophy, attempts to answer "Why?" Conflict tends to arise when one side attempts to answer the other's question. In themselves, however, science and religion don't really conflict each other.
Aggressive atheists annoy because they think to even bother asking "Why?" is a pointless and fruitless endeavor. Aggressive theists annoy because they think to even bother asking "How?" is a pointless and fruitless endeavor.
Put simply, science and religion answer two different questions about origins. Science attempts to answer "How?", and relgion, in its nature a philosophy, attempts to answer "Why?" Conflict tends to arise when one side attempts to answer the other's question. In themselves, however, science and religion don't really conflict each other.
Aggressive atheists annoy because they think to even bother asking "Why?" is a pointless and fruitless endeavor. Aggressive theists annoy because they think to even bother asking "How?" is a pointless and fruitless endeavor.
Good post but you jumped the track a bit at the end. An atheist doesn't worship science, so it isn't only about the how? for them. They do often answer the question why? and it is usually with the answer "random chance". Additionally, I think many atheists get aggressive because theists attempt to answer how? in a religious manner.
True, but random chance (or insignificant factors) is still rather dismissive of the why? discussion as a whole.
I agree that aggression also tends to incite aggression (and thus much pointless bickering and pointed fighting), which maybe I didn't emphasize enough in my initial post.
I also don't want to come off as dismissive of either "side" (if there are in fact definable sides) of this debate, as all have value to offer.
I wish I could remember his name, but I heard a speech on NPR by a scientist at NASA and he said that he feels no conflict between his faith and his work, that in his view (paraphrased, I can't remember the exact wording) "science is merely revealing God's creation to us". I love that concept and as a Christian it helps bolster why I don't feel threatened by things like the theory of evolution, etc.
I was summarizing the point of view, but I didn't intend to sound dismissive and I don't think it is a dismissive stance. It is a valid answer to the Why question. I think it should be accepted as a real possibility that the answer to Why is, "It was an accident."
- Status