If you could take a moment... [#1616]

[SentnotPosted]

Because, as I stated in my original message, I do not want to argue, I'll change what I said, to say "the RESULTS of scientific investigation change.  Therefore, people who believe ANYTHING science tells them will change their mind also."

The results of scientific investigation will improve....

You agree with me, at least it looks that way.  I changed what I said, you win, congratulations.
I changed my terms to match yours, and I am ending this because you seem to want to do nothing except argue with me.

... The basic methodology of science remains constant ... the methodology remains the same.
... with science, the methodology remains constant.
... Scientific methodology has obviously changed over time....

You just contradicted yourself.
However, I understand where you are coming from.
True, the output of religion changes, but, with the religions I've studies (only includes those which come from history) what is in the "bibles" of such religions is always the same (although altered through translations etc.) and it is those who interpret it who actually change it, but whatever the original meaning was, it is still the same, if we could find an original copy of any religion's "bible".  Even with specific and exact versus, there are many different interpretations of them today, to provide a modern-day example.
I guess what I am trying to say is today, religion is distorted, but is the idea of religion actually all that bad?

[Hermes]

I would like to point out that all in science swore the earth was flat, and it turned out to be round.  It swore the center of the universe was earth, then the sun, and both were wrong.  It swore an atom was the smallest particle, then it disproved that.

That's what's great about looking as opposed to guessing.  For a long time we did not know, and did not look carefully.  Then some did.  They showed others, who looked, and then eventually everyone who was humble and curious could learn from the investigation.

Now that the big thing is the "Big Bang", but who's to say it isn't true?  I'm not saying how it was created, I'm just saying it's still just a theory, and therefore not proven true.

First off, like the round Earth and a solar system, we know facts that are consistent with BB cosmology because we gained them through investigation (looking).  A scientific theory explains facts in a consistent manner.  If it turns out that a fact is found that does not fit in BB cosmology, the theory (like any theory) has to be ammended or discarded depending on the nature of the fact that was discovered in the act of investigating (looking).

Just as few disagreed with those theories, there are few scientists today that believe in "creation-evolution" (the term varies) and many who fight strongly on both sides.

If the creationists have looked and found that there are gaps in modern Biology, they can present those facts.  If they have a better description of biological reality than the one in modern Biology, they can present that theory in a coherent manner.  When they do not, and ignore Biologists that could benefit from the facts or coherent theory that they may claim to have, that's not the fault of non-Creationists.

In short; if they do the work, and show the results like everyone else, they will win by force of their facts and theory.  If they decide to go with reprogramming society with none of the facts or coherent theory to base that on, I can only assert that they are not doing science they are doing politics and promoting ignorance.  While ignorance may be bliss, it is not a strength except by chance circumstance, or if it is the basis for an authoritarian and closed society.  Personally, prefer reality no matter what it happens to be, not conclusions by blunt instruments.

[HAL]

I changed my terms to match yours, and I am ending this because you seem to want to do nothing except argue with me.

What did you expect? If you don't use terms precisely and accurately, then you'll be challenged. It sounds like you just changed terms to stop me from responding, rather than for a specific reason you held important. That is a very silly and childish way to converse with members here.

[Hermes]

I would like to point out that all in science swore the earth was flat, and it turned out to be round.  It swore the center of the universe was earth, then the sun, and both were wrong.  It swore an atom was the smallest particle, then it disproved that.  Now that the big thing is the "Big Bang", but who's to say it isn't true?  I'm not saying how it was created, I'm just saying it's still just a theory, and therefore not proven true.

Do you see what happens? Science is self-correcting. The truth will always come out in the end. This is not the case with religion, because it despises critical thinking.

Isn't that grand?   

Plug: A thread on the issue of theology being stagnant and bound to sectarian dogmas;

Theology: Innovative, Knowledgeable, or Dead?
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=2750

[SentnotPosted]

@Hermes:

Thanks for the welcome.
I understand, it's a generic response.  

Maybe you see it that way, but to me it seems more an explaination NOT to advocate Christianity, not necessarilly why to advocate atheism.  ie, that could also be a speech to convert people to hindism.

I'll say that most religions, besides select few, aren't actually that bad to the world, are they?

Lol, I only got that quote-mess fixed after like six edits,

[SentnotPosted]

I changed my terms to match yours, and I am ending this because you seem to want to do nothing except argue with me.

What did you expect? If you don't use terms precisely and accurately, then you'll be challenged. It sounds like you just changed terms to stop me from responding, rather than for a specific reason you held important. That is a very silly and childish way to converse with members here.

On the contrary, I DID want a response.
I am not a scientist.  Clearly you are.  Also evident is your unwillingness to accept a conversation with someone who isn't a scientist.  Because I do not use your terminology, instead of trying to further inform me, you criticized me on my misunderstanding.  That is NOT why I posted the question, my original intention was to learn.  If people here are going to accuse me of things like this (you are the only one) then I might as well leave...
However, it IS only you, and everyone else has been quite sensible and understanding in my willingness to learn instead of becoming hostile towards me. 

[SentnotPosted]

That's what's great about looking as opposed to guessing.  For a long time we did not know, and did not look carefully.  Then some did.  They showed others, who looked, and then eventually everyone who was humble and curious could learn from the investigation.

First off, like the round Earth and a solar system, we know facts that are consistent with BB cosmology because we gained them through investigation (looking).  A scientific theory explains facts in a consistent manner.  If it turns out that a fact is found that does not fit in BB cosmology, the theory (like any theory) has to be ammended or discarded depending on the nature of the fact that was discovered in the act of investigating (looking).

That is exactly what I don't understand.  Why do people fight so vehemently for these things if they know they could be disproven?
ie someone carbon dates a video to four billion years old, and it shows god farting and creating the universe... then wouldn't that change everything?  Yes, I know that is impossible, but it is just a wild example.

[HAL]

On the contrary, I DID want a response.
I am not a scientist.  Clearly you are. 

No, incorrect.

Also evident is your unwillingness to accept a conversation with someone who isn't a scientist...

Oh for crying out loud. OK, I'll leave you alone and let's see how you fare with the other responders.

[Dragnet]

I would like to point out that all in science swore the earth was flat, and it turned out to be round.  It swore the center of the universe was earth, then the sun, and both were wrong.  It swore an atom was the smallest particle, then it disproved that.  Now that the big thing is the "Big Bang", but who's to say it isn't true?  I'm not saying how it was created, I'm just saying it's still just a theory, and therefore not proven true.
No, I am not saying all scientests believed these things, but it was the generally accepted theories at their respective times, and that is what I am baseing this post off of.
Just as few disagreed with those theories, there are few scientists today that believe in "creation-evolution" (the term varies) and many who fight strongly on both sides.

<Nit Pick>

Actually the ancient science prior to the worlds mst popular religions (Judaism, Christianity ad Islam) had figured out that the earth was a sphere.
It was the Religious fundamentals reading the "holy" texts that squashed science and made heretics of them.

It took science over 1000 years to begin to recover.

</Nit Pick>

Welcome to the asylum, glad to have you here.

[jazzman]

Hello SentnotPosted:

You asked: "If you could take a moment, could you please tell me, in your own words, what is the TOP reason you are advocating atheism?"

I'm not a theist, but I don't advocate atheism.  That is to say, I don't try to get people to become atheists.  Neither do I try to draw people away from theism.

I'm not a theist because I'm not compelled to think that we humans know anything about gods.  I'm happy to accept that one god, or many, exists, but I see no reason to accept one theology over others.  They all have serious flaws, and, regarding the attributes of deities, all religions engage in speculation.  The plethora of gods that have "existed" in human history is stunningly large.  Surely, with literally thousands of gods on the books, we all should understand that humans are hopelessly divided on what gods exist, if any, and what they do, if anything.  I prefer to not live my life according to the speculative nature of theology.

It makes much more sense to me to accept that we don't know whether there's a god and to live our lives as if there isn't.  If we don't base our values, morals and actions on what we think this god or that wants us to, we're forced to live our lives according to what's best for the communities and countries in which we live.  That's where it counts.

Jazzman

[Hermes]

Maybe you see it that way, but to me it seems more an explaination NOT to advocate Christianity, not necessarilly why to advocate atheism.  

Yet, it is, even if the subtlety of the letter does not carry a rude force to it.

I suggest reading it again carefully as if you were a Christian, and see how it would challenge a Christian and in what way.

ie, that could also be a speech to convert people to hindism.

I don't worry about Hindus, though they have their own thugs and purveyors of ignorance.

I'll say that most religions, besides select few, aren't actually that bad to the world, are they?

All promote dogmas on some level, or they would not be religions.  Some are seeped in dogma to the point of solipsism (Christian Presuppositionalists for example).  Some are more destructive, some are less.  All have positive aspects.  Yet, as the Theology: Innovative, Knowledgeable, or Dead? thread I mentioned draws out, none seem to provide actual knowledge.  They seem to be more like the superstitious pigeons well documented in psychology who happen to get food and then attribute it to some specific set of actions.

An excellent talk that discusses part of this aspect of religion that I was just introduced to can be found here;

Prof. Robert Sapolsky on religion
http://blip.tv/file/2204956

(Thanks once again to Graybeard.)

Lol, I only got that quote-mess fixed after like six edits,

I think I can help some.  Check your forum mail box ("My Messages" link at top) in a few minutes.

[Hermes]

That's what's great about looking as opposed to guessing.  For a long time we did not know, and did not look carefully.  Then some did.  They showed others, who looked, and then eventually everyone who was humble and curious could learn from the investigation.

First off, like the round Earth and a solar system, we know facts that are consistent with BB cosmology because we gained them through investigation (looking).  A scientific theory explains facts in a consistent manner.  If it turns out that a fact is found that does not fit in BB cosmology, the theory (like any theory) has to be ammended or discarded depending on the nature of the fact that was discovered in the act of investigating (looking).

That is exactly what I don't understand.  Why do people fight so vehemently for these things if they know they could be disproven?

Because the alternatives often proposed often are proposed based on biases, not hard work based in observation of reality.  It is a grand thing to learn that you were wrong, because in the next instant you not only know more but are corrected.  Learning can't be done by mere assertion, though.

Holding something as tentatively true is a sane and honest way of dealing with the world.  It does not mean that being gullible is even better.  Far from it.

ie someone carbon dates a video to four billion years old, and it shows god farting and creating the universe... then wouldn't that change everything?  Yes, I know that is impossible, but it is just a wild example.

Details matter.  Context matters.  For example, nobody would carbon date a video, and if they did carbon date it they would not find it or anything else to be 4 billion years old.  That might seem to be a humorless response if you already knew those details, yet if you browse some of the more insane parts of the web -- some with many advocates -- it is not hard to see why a dry and clear response is often what separates the dogmatic from those who while not credulous are actually interested in reality as it is.

To get a flavor of what I'm saying, look up any discussion on this board on Noah's Ark or Noah's flood, or just read the first page from this link;

http://www.fstdt.net/Top100.aspx

[Hermes]

Lol, I only got that quote-mess fixed after like six edits,

I think I can help some.  Check your forum mail box ("My Messages" link at top) in a few minutes.

Bah!  I got distracted and forgot.  Check your mail box now.  Mea culpa.

[3D]

Thank you for actually answering the question.
I would like to point out that all in science swore the earth was flat, and it turned out to be round.  It swore the center of the universe was earth, then the sun, and both were wrong.  It swore an atom was the smallest particle, then it disproved that.  Now that the big thing is the "Big Bang", but who's to say it isn't true?  I'm not saying how it was created, I'm just saying it's still just a theory, and therefore not proven true.
No, I am not saying all scientests believed these things, but it was the generally accepted theories at their respective times, and that is what I am baseing this post off of.
Just as few disagreed with those theories, there are few scientists today that believe in "creation-evolution" (the term varies) and many who fight strongly on both sides.

Let me address one point here: Science did not "swear the earth was flat."  The idea that the earth was flat actually came about because it says so in the bible.

Greek and Egyptian scientists knew the earth was a spheroid object, many years before the bible.  Pretty much every scientist who studied the subject in human history could figure out with simple experiments that the world was round.  The only reason it has ever been thought to be flat was because of religious suppression of science.

[William]

Growth in atheism will have positive consequences for morals.  Just a few examples of what I mean:

• Religious wars will cease.
• "Ethnic" cleansing will diminish.
• Women will be given the respect they deserve.
• Animal rights and conservation will improve.
• Human population will be managed for sustainability.
• Anti-science propaganda will diminish.
• Persecution of homosexuals will be relegated to history.
• Suicide bombings will fall off a cliff.
• Charities will focus on real good works instead of proselytizing and maintaining that there is a purpose for suffering.

As far as I know, not all religions are inherently responsible for any of that stuff, but rather have fallen into it like so much of the world today.  However, there are still religions out there which still try to better the world out there.  Again, as far as I know.  However, I doubt there is anyone out there who can disprove this, as it would be virtually impossible to become such an expert on EVERY religion....

Hi SentnotPosted, I think you missed the point of my reply to you.  Here it is again:

In my opinion the "TOP reason" to advocate atheism is to enable the people of the world to have proper morality.

The problem is religious morality.  To eradicate religion we need to get at the root - irrational belief in deities.

The examples I gave are merely examples to illustrate the main point.  They are all problems that are directly attributable to one or more religion through either the attitudes/morality they promote, or by their religiously justified inaction.  Most atheists I've met hold strong positions on these issues, drawing on secular ethics, humanism, science and rational thought for their morality.  But the problems I listed persist around the world because of various religions.  Religions are poor sources of morality.

[SentnotPosted]

Let me address one point here: Science did not "swear the earth was flat."  The idea that the earth was flat actually came about because it says so in the bible.

Greek and Egyptian scientists knew the earth was a spheroid object, many years before the bible.  Pretty much every scientist who studied the subject in human history could figure out with simple experiments that the world was round.  The only reason it has ever been thought to be flat was because of religious suppression of science.

Could you please tell me, where in the bible, does it say the earth was flat?
Yes, I know, but the time in history when science "believed" (better word?) the earth was flat is what I am refering to.

[SentnotPosted]

Hi SentnotPosted, I think you missed the point of my reply to you.  Here it is again:

In my opinion the "TOP reason" to advocate atheism is to enable the people of the world to have proper morality.

The problem is religious morality.  To eradicate religion we need to get at the root - irrational belief in deities.

The examples I gave are merely examples to illustrate the main point.  They are all problems that are directly attributable to one or more religion through either the attitudes/morality they promote, or by their religiously justified inaction.  Most atheists I've met hold strong positions on these issues, drawing on secular ethics, humanism, science and rational thought for their morality.  But the problems I listed persist around the world because of various religions.  Religions are poor sources of morality.

Okay, but what about Budhism?  (sp?)  What about budhism is immoral?


@Hermes:  Thank you for your help and patience...

@jazzman:  What you posted is similar to what I am feeling right now....
My only problem is this:  What if that is wrong?  We all go to "hell".  If it is right, we can live our lives on the EDGE of [insert religion here], still getting into "heaven" but still being an all around good person.
Right?

[William]

Okay, but what about Budhism?  (sp?)  What about budhism is immoral?

I don't have any moral objections to Buddhism.  But I won't be investing any of my time contemplating souls and reincarnation.

[Azdgari]

Buddhism does not employ the faulty Divine Command Theory in its moral structure.  In fact, it doesn't state what is objectively "good" or "bad" - it makes assertions about what is "good" or "bad" only with respect to the goal of reducing suffering.  Its morality is not, in fact, all that religious.

[Hermes]

@Hermes:  Thank you for your help and patience...

[ tips hat ]

[3D]

Let me address one point here: Science did not "swear the earth was flat."  The idea that the earth was flat actually came about because it says so in the bible.

Greek and Egyptian scientists knew the earth was a spheroid object, many years before the bible.  Pretty much every scientist who studied the subject in human history could figure out with simple experiments that the world was round.  The only reason it has ever been thought to be flat was because of religious suppression of science.

Could you please tell me, where in the bible, does it say the earth was flat?

Sure.  Here's a good rundown of a lot of the biblical references to the earth being flat: http://www.goatstar.org/the-bibles-flat-earthsolid-sky-dome-universe/#flat%20earth

My favorite is "(Mat 4:8 NRSV) Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor".

Every reference to the shape of the earth in the bible assumes it to be a two-dimensional, round disk.

[Codswallop]

I would like to point out that all in science swore the earth was flat, and it turned out to be round.  It swore the center of the universe was earth, then the sun, and both were wrong.  It swore an atom was the smallest particle, then it disproved that.  Now that the big thing is the "Big Bang", but who's to say it isn't true?  I'm not saying how it was created, I'm just saying it's still just a theory, and therefore not proven true.
No, I am not saying all scientests believed these things, but it was the generally accepted theories at their respective times, and that is what I am baseing this post off of.
Just as few disagreed with those theories, there are few scientists today that believe in "creation-evolution" (the term varies) and many who fight strongly on both sides.

This is a thoughtful response.

However, it is not a well-informed response. I think that a very slight adjustment will bring you to a much better understanding of science, non-theism and reality-based world views.

You use the time-worn phrase "just a theory," as though theory were synonymous with "guess." Scientifically speaking, a theory is a general explanation for a range of observed facts. A good theory has a huge mass of quality data behind it, from as wide as possible a range of disciplines. Evolution, being supported by data from biology, physics, chemistry, cosmology, geology, embryology, epidemiology and a host of other disciplines, is a very strong theory, so strong that it is regarded as fact. Science is about what you can demonstrate. Guesswork is expressly excluded.

This brings me to the scientific idea of knowledge. All knowledge is provisional and subject to revision as we develop better methodology, understanding and data. Scientists do not "swear" to anything. They do not "believe in" anything--at least not in their scientific discipline. Our knowledge is tentative, not absolute. Old ideas are reexamined in light of new data and methods. New ideas are routinely savaged by the larger scientific community to see if they stand up. That's how science actually works. It is not faith-based. That is why old ideas get revised or discarded. And in science, the absolute coolest thing you can do, that will guarantee you a shining place in the history of scientific inquiry, is to disprove a cherished old idea. There is no orthodoxy in science.

A few factual points:

No scientist ever said the Earth was flat. Observers (I won't call them scientists, since the label did not exist then) have known for thousands of years that the Earth was a sphere.

It was the Church who claimed the Earth was the center of the Universe. That was a faith claim, supported by incomplete and inaccurate observation. (No one has ever claimed the Sun was the center of the Universe. I have no idea where this notion came from.)

The Big Bang is already being revised. So much has changed since I learned about this model (not theory) that I can't speak accurately about the current state of scientific thought on the subject, except to say that scientists continue to debate and the model continues to change.

Scientists do not "believe" their ideas, the way you believe in your religion. If a scientist were to express "perfect faith" in some scientific idea, he would be laughed at by the scientific community.

No serious scientist is a creationist--at least, no scientist working in any field related to biology or evolutionary science. That would be like a chemist advocating alchemy, or an astronomer doing basic research in astrology.

[velkyn]

Let me address one point here: Science did not "swear the earth was flat."  The idea that the earth was flat actually came about because it says so in the bible.

Greek and Egyptian scientists knew the earth was a spheroid object, many years before the bible.  Pretty much every scientist who studied the subject in human history could figure out with simple experiments that the world was round.  The only reason it has ever been thought to be flat was because of religious suppression of science.

Could you please tell me, where in the bible, does it say the earth was flat?

Sure.  Here's a good rundown of a lot of the biblical references to the earth being flat: http://www.goatstar.org/the-bibles-flat-earthsolid-sky-dome-universe/#flat%20earth

My favorite is "(Mat 4:8 NRSV) Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor".

Every reference to the shape of the earth in the bible assumes it to be a two-dimensional, round disk.

indeed, I even had to draw this out for one believer who wouldn't understand (a pdf image).  He never returned.

http://tinyurl.com/moutainearth

[screwtape]

I don't worry about Hindus, though they have their own thugs and purveyors of ignorance.

Awseome.  The cult of Thugee

[screwtape]

This is a thoughtful response.

However, it is not a well-informed response. I think that a very slight adjustment will bring you to a much better understanding of science, non-theism and reality-based world views.
...

great post Cod.  So nice to have you back.

[Hermes]

I don't worry about Hindus, though they have their own thugs and purveyors of ignorance.

Awseome.  The cult of Thugee

Wow.  I'll have to remember that.

[screwtape]

I don't worry about Hindus, though they have their own thugs and purveyors of ignorance.

Awseome.  The cult of Thugee

Wow.  I'll have to remember that.

It's easy.  The bad guys in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom were Thugees.

[jazzman]

@jazzman:  What you posted is similar to what I am feeling right now....
My only problem is this:  What if that is wrong?  We all go to "hell".  If it is right, we can live our lives on the EDGE of [insert religion here], still getting into "heaven" but still being an all around good person.
Right?

We could all be wrong about every theological point ever advanced. 
Think about this:
How many different religions are there?  Possibly thousands throughout human history.
Do they all agree on the nature of God?  No.
Can any one person from any one religion present any facts to confirm for us what god or gods exist?  No.
Can we know even one specific thing about any particular god?  No.
Can we know that any particular god cares about us and truly wants us to live in some sort of paradise with this god?  No.

We can believe all manner of things about gods, but we can know nothing about gods, as gods -- if they exist -- appear to exist in realms to which we have no access.  We can't study deities.  We can only study what people believe about deities.

Because we don't know anything about deities, I must assume we're all wrong in what we might believe the nature of deities to be, if deities exist.  What we think we know is speculation. 

If I'm wrong, and if the Christian view of God is correct, then I'm headed for hell after I die, as are all people who aren't true Christians.  If I'm wrong, and the Muslim view of God is correct, then I'm headed for hell after I die, and so is everyone else who isn't a true Muslim, and that includes Christians.  If I'm wrong, and the ancient Egyptian view of death is correct, then anyone who hasn't been provided what we call the Egyptian Book of the Dead is doomed, and that includes Christians and Muslims whose tombs don't include a copy of the Book of the Dead to allow them to negotiate the underworld.

Do you see where I'm going?  I can't live my life as if one or another religious tradition is the one to follow on pain of eternal torture.  There's no way to know which religious tradition is the right one to follow.  If there is a god who knows what's in my heart, then that god knows I accept that god's existence as long as I don't have to do it on speculation. 

If a god needs my praise, then that god has it, if that god created our universe.  What a magnificent and mysterious place, our universe.  And what a magnificent act of creation it is to have made it possible for planets to form and life to emerge and diversify, all by seemingly natural forces.  I can do nothing but praise a god with that kind of power and apparent foresight.  But does that mean that god has prepared a place of eternal paradise for me and anyone else who simply believes in that god, or a place of torture for those who don't -- based on the theological precepts generated by a small group of very culture-conscious people who lived on our atom-sized planet a few thousand years before I was born?  It seems to me a vanishingly trivial thing that such a Creator would need our praise and belief in him/her and would punish us for not believing he/she exists based on the ideas of what can only be described as an obscure group of humans on an obscure planet in an obscure galaxy in a universe so vast as to defy imagination.

The question "what if we're wrong" has no answer, because no matter how we address the question, we can't know the answer.  The question plays on our fears because we've been exposed to the idea of heaven and hell, and eternal torture scares us.  We'd rather be in heaven, if descriptions of hell are accurate.  But why should the ancient Jewish and Christian ideas of eternal paradise or torture mean anything to us?  They're just some of many ideas about what awaits us humans after we die.  But no one knows what awaits us, if anything at all.  It's unreasonable to live our lives trying to answer the question "what if we're wrong?", because we're probably all wrong no matter what we think.

Jazzman

[Codswallop]

I don't worry about Hindus, though they have their own thugs and purveyors of ignorance.

Awseome.  The cult of Thugee

Wow.  I'll have to remember that.

Gunga Din is a great movie!