The War on Religion

[cstarace]

What is "logical" about arguments from science? Do you not understand that correlation does not imply causation?

There are no "arguments" from science. There are facts presented by science. And every single discernible fact that science has presented us with completely contradicts the presence of an omnipotent being.

 

[Sola_Fide]

No it is not. Not even remotely close. Science is fact.

"science is a fact". Wow. Where do you begin with a statement like that. Okay, here's my first question: How do you know?

 

[Ender]

No it is not. Not even remotely close. Science is fact.

Science is NOT fact- it is conjecture- read my post above.

 

[Sola_Fide]

There are no "arguments" from science. There are facts presented by science. And every single discernible fact that science has presented us with completely contradicts the presence of an omnipotent being.

Could you give me an example of a "fact" of science? Because I'm going to show you that there is no such thing as a scientific fact.

 

[Ender]

There are no "arguments" from science. There are facts presented by science. And every single discernible fact that science has presented us with completely contradicts the presence of an omnipotent being.

Not in Quantum Physics.

 

[cstarace]

"science is a fact". Wow. Where do you begin with a statement like that. Okay, here's my first question: How do you know?

I've studied it and experimented with it and found it to be grounded in reality. Science is based upon empirical evidence, and faith is the exact opposite of that. Do you deny that atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, and the like exist? That the Earth is round, and that it revolves around the sun and not the opposite? Otherwise, you have an irrational disdain for science and an incredibly dense dogma and this discussion will not be productive whatsoever.

 

[Ender]

I've studied it and experimented with it and found it to be grounded in reality. Science is based upon empirical evidence, and faith is the exact opposite of that. Do you deny that atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, and the like exist? That the Earth is round, and that it revolves around the sun and not the opposite? Otherwise, you have an irrational disdain for science and an incredibly dense dogma and this discussion will not be productive whatsoever.

I would suggest you read The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav, and then we can carry on with this discussion.

 

[tttppp]

Disagree-

In the 20th Century science became its own religion and was taught in schools as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth- even though the truth kept changing. (No brontosaurus today- no Pluto tomorrow.) I used to kow a minister that was also a physicist; he said he loved his job because "Truth" changed every seven years.

Still, Religion was held as a medieval relic by the majority of the scientific world, until.....

Quantum Physics become popular. Almost every quantum physicist says that "something" is going on that can't be explained- something spiritual.

I agree that's how its taught, but it still doesn't explain much. They worship a bunch of little details they have discovered, but they don't do much to explain everything as a whole.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I've studied it and experimented with it and found it to be grounded in reality. Science is based upon empirical evidence, and faith is the exact opposite of that.

You're trying to make a statement of universal truth based on your subjective experiences. This is committing the fallacy of induction. All inductive arguments are fallacious. Statements of universal truth can't be derived from individual sensations or experiences or experiments.

When you argue that assumed hypotheses are "true" because they are confirmed by favorable experimentation, you commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent. Correlation does not imply causation. The result of an experiment can never bring down the conclusion that something is universally true.

I mean....I thought you were trying to be all logical and stuff? You're an atheist right? You're all about logic right? Why did you just committ two fallacies that I called you out on?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Morgan Freeman has a good take on it.

 

[PierzStyx]

I've studied it and experimented with it and found it to be grounded in reality. Science is based upon empirical evidence, and faith is the exact opposite of that. Do you deny that atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, and the like exist? That the Earth is round, and that it revolves around the sun and not the opposite? Otherwise, you have an irrational disdain for science and an incredibly dense dogma and this discussion will not be productive whatsoever.

Prove to me quarks exist. Give me just one I can see, touch, taste, hear moving, or feel in my hand. I think you'll you find this hard to do since quarks are so small they don't refract photons. This means they are also to impossible to taste, hear, smell, or feel. The only "proof" there exists of them are some mathematics equations that assert they SHOULD exist in our current cosmological model (and that can be trusted because math models have neeeeever been wrong) and energy fields we assert come form quarks.

To make my point. If you believe in quarks you believe in something that has just as much solid evidence for its existence as God. Except, well, I have literally the written testimony of thousands of eyewitnesses to God's personal existence. No such thing exists for quarks.

In fact the same could be said for any sub-atomic particle. If you believe in them you are taking a leap of faith just as big as someone who believes in guardian angels, which also cannot be seen, touched, tasted, felt, heard, or smelled.

Your definition of science is lacking. Science is the pursuit of knowledge based around assumptions people feel comfortable making because they have made a test from which they could draw reasonable conclusions. But none of those conclusions are really made as absolute fact. Not by scientists anyway. Any scientist who takes scientific experiments and draws conclusions based upon those experiments as absolute fact has crossed the line form the pursuit of knowledge to the claim of absolute knowledge, making a leap of faith that their assertion is correct at all times. AT this point it stops being "science" and becomes a faith.

EDIT: I also like how your profession of faith begins with a personal testimony, a claim based on subjective experience that is unique to your life. A religious person could do no better or worse in claiming they know God is real because they have "experienced" Him in their life. For someone so grounded in "empirical" evidence it is fascinating that this post is essentially a confession of faith.

 

[PierzStyx]

Bullshit. I haven't been manipulated by anything other than logic, reason, and science, thank you very much.

That you think that just shows how well the manipulators are doing their jobs. They are especially good at using terms like "logic", "reason", and "science" to convince you to believe them, hold their opinions as truth, and obey. But just like Orwell's "the Party" in 1984 they use those words while simultaneously training you to think and act in a way absolutely against the meaning of those terms. They get you to accept their assumptions and assertions and from there its only a matter of time before you accept their conclusions as well.

An example. Many atheists argue against prayer in schools, saying it violates the separation of church and state. They argue that in order to enforce this separation the federal government should come in and use force to limit what you can and can't say (God for example) and how you can or cannot say it (as a petition or in a believing manner for example). Atheists argue they are discriminated against by this language because they do not believe in God and those who do should be forced to shut up about it in school. This seems "logical" and "reasonable" to many. But the fact is is that it is illogical and completely unreasonable in every moral way. Only when you start with the State's assumption that it has the power to regulate speech, what people can believe, and how/where they can express that belief, is it "logical" or "reasonable".

But when you look at it from a liberty perspective it is incredibly illogical and unreasonable to believe the state can assert any control over your freedom of speech or what you believe and how you express that belief. Such a truth was even expressed in The Constitution with the First Amendment saying "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; OR abridging the freedom of speech. That means the state has no authority in any way manner or form to regulate any type of speech anywhere or in anyway or preventing the free exercise of religion in any form. Therefore it is not logical or reasonable (or might I add lawful or moral) that the state regulate prayer in school in any form.

That many atheists accept the state's assertion that it can regulate what you say, believe, or express that belief should terrify you. It means they accept the basic assumption that the federal government knows what you should think, and believe and how you should act upon that belief and that it has the power to punish you if you do not believe and act upon that belief in the way it tells you to do. And right now it is using that power against the religious. But it will not be to long before it turns that power against you as well.

 

[DamianTV]

Wow. This whole argument has degenerated to the point of saying that the Universe as a single consciousness would dismiss the very idea that Planets exist.

 

[KingNothing]

Ah ha! Take that you church/state separationists.

Why does he say that the Constitution is replete with references to God? Paul is demagoging here.... kinda lame of him.

 

[KingNothing]

Same here. Christmas is a Pagan holiday originally, so the article lacked a solid foundation other than what, to me, is a meaningless erosion of the meaning of a meaningless Pagan holiday, but rest assured, the points about religion are still good and there are way more examples to back that up than just Christmas.

Many pieces of Christianity have their roots in pagan rituals, myths and beliefs.

 

[Tankbot85]

Christmas = pagan Festival of Lights/holiday of Saturnalia and was hijacked by christians.

Easter = Pagan religions in the Mediterranean area had a major seasonal day of religious celebration at or following the Spring Equinox. Cybele, the Phrygian fertility goddess, had a consort, Attis, who was believed to have been born via a virgin birth. Attis was believed to have died and been resurrected each year during the period MAR-22 to MAR-25. - Also hijacked by christians.

I think people confuse this war on religion with not always getting what they want.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Then let's replace the Constitution with Biblical law. After all it's the word of God, are you in favor of that? Morality cannot be prescribed, we must as free agents use our moral imagination. I don't need to have a dogmatic objective morality to know what is right. By the way, I believe you have better morals than your God of the Bible.

"Moral imagination..." I like that. Jeffrey Dahmer had a moral imagination. It's really funny that you say morality cannot be prescribed when, by the very definition of it, morality is prescriptive. It is telling you how you should live. It wouldn't be very helpful if it was telling you how you or someone else (i.e. "society") lived. Morality cannot be dependent on one's own arbitrary definition or else it loses all meaning. Murderers and rapists could come up with reasons why, in their moral imagination, murder and rape were completely acceptable, and who would you be to tell them that they are wrong and you are right, just because you think your morality is superior? After all, this talk of a "moral imagination" kind of contradicts that.

The point of my post was that it doesn't matter what you think of my moral effectiveness in the world because my morality tells me how to live in accordance with others, and it just so happens that I found that morality in the Bible. Where did you find yours and why should everyone accept it? If nobody has to accept it, then how can we punish people for doing things that are immoral? Do we completely rid the world of any laws?

Also, one point: the Constitution has already borrowed heavily from Biblical law. The court system? Jury of your peers? That was in the Bible. If you don't have an objective morality (you decided to tack the word "dogmatic" on there), then how can you expect anyone to adhere to your moral principles? According to you, I should be able to, as my own free agent, imagine a morality in which I can shoot you and it would be totally fine.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

That's the problem of science. It should be meant to explain everything, or at the very least, explain a lot more than what we currently know. Science too often focuses on the smallest of increases in knowledge, insuring our view of the world will always stay the same. Einstein attempted to learn way more about the universe than was known, and we still follow most of his work. Since then, there haven't been any major discoveries. Just incremental discoveries that don't change anything.

The reason for this problem is largely religion, which doesn't want any discoveries that can invalidate it. They want slow pointless discoveries, that way they can slowly change their story to match accepted science.

I think you're missing the point. Science cannot possibly answer life's bigger questions. Science, in its practical form, is strictly limited to what we can observe, test, and repeat in the natural world. We can't know where we came from with science, and we cannot know if there is a God by using science. Science simply cannot answer those questions because they are beyond what we can know for certain by using our 5 senses.

I don't think religion is the problem. Sure, a lot of religious people are quite dogmatic, but so are the atheists, who don't think they have a religion when they do. To suggest that we should abandon religion is to suggest that we all become agnostics and never even try to approach the bigger questions. Also, the Bible doesn't need to change to fit science. Science already agrees with the Bible in so many ways, although I am aware I will get flamed for this opinion without consideration of the fact that the flaming sure to follow is a programmed response that they are blindly obeying.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Then let's replace the Constitution with Biblical law. After all it's the word of God, are you in favor of that? Morality cannot be prescribed, we must as free agents use our moral imagination. I don't need to have a dogmatic objective morality to know what is right. By the way, I believe you have better morals than your God of the Bible.

To address your last sentence, you must have an objective morality to compare my morality to in order to say my morality is "better" than anything. If you think morality is subjective, then you can't possibly say how good one morality is over another, unless you are using your own personal morality as an objective standard, in which case, you have an objective morality. It just so happens that that objective morality in that case would also be completely arbitrary.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Bullshit. I haven't been manipulated by anything other than logic, reason, and science, thank you very much.

You've been successfully manipulated into giving that programmed response without even realizing that "logic, reason, and science" is just pure dogma. In fact, the atheist view is neither logical, reasonable, nor is it scientific. It has nothing to do with science, and being an atheist is not reasonable because it eliminates objective morality, and it is not logical because it dismisses the idea of the supernatural out of hand without even examining what kind of question it is.

Logic, reason, and science is the dogma of the day. It is the toast of the town for all the atheists trying to put themselves on the high ground above all of those with "faith" because it inherently dismisses their worldview as even being plausible.