NationStates Jolt Archive

Religious Fools

Socrates: Father of non-religious ethics, invented the Socratic method. Had unorthodox, but unclear faith in the Greek Gods. Ignorant.

Plato: Socrates' student. Founded Neoplatonism, which dramatically influenced Christianity and much of the world and also founded Republicanism. Had abstract beliefs of God, making a metaphorical reference to the sun, believing God is "The Form of the Good" (the epitome of all morality, but not necessarily a physical being). Moron.

Aristotle: Founder of Biology, wrote the first book on logic. Believed in God, because he was the only possible "first cause." Illogical.

Epicurus: Invented Hedonism, contributed to Atheist philosophy. Believed in Gods, but believed they didn't intervene in human affairs. Founded the idea of inalienable rights (life, liberty, and safety). Traitor.

St. Thomas Aquinas: Christian philosopher that taught conscience is an intellectual determination, not given by God. Imbecile.

Al-Khwarizmi: Muslim that invented Algebra. Retarded.

Thales: Invented Geometry, and is considered "Father of Science." First one to propose Gods have no influence on reality, but believed in the abstract concept, "All things are full of God." Idiotic.

René Descartes: Invented modern Geometry, significantly contributed to mathematics. Believed in God. Jackass.

Thomas Thobbes: Contributed to political philosophy (influenced founding fathers of America). Wrote a book on it, called "Leviathan" (the Biblical dragon). Believed in God. Nincompoop.

Blaise Pascal: Invented Probability. Originally, focused on mathematics, but found himself going through a spiritual crisis. Despite being engulfed with the compassionate logic and reason that successfully and adequately answers all of life's fundamental, existential questions, he found himself unhappy, his life meaningless and without purpose. Became religious. Halfwit.

John Locke: Significantly contributed to political science, the major influence on the Founding Fathers ("Life, Liberty, and Property"). Supported the Church of England, believe a national church could create social harmony. Simpleton.

Friedrich Nietzsche: Famous philosopher who attacked Christianity with "God is dead" (meaning, God has no influence on our lives, but had an extremely high opinion of Jesus, though he questioned if he existed. Never advocated either God's existence or atheism, though atheists quote him as if he did. Kook.

Baruch Spinoza: Jewish philosopher who was labeled as being an atheist, at his time. But his beliefs are akin to Buddhism and eastern philosophy (as well as even the Jewish Kabbala). While he doesn't believe God is a conscious arbitor in our lives, he doesn't deny God's existence. But rather, sees God as being reason itself (with a similar idea in Greek philosophy, known as "logos", which was later adopted by Christianity). Nitwit.

George Berkeley: Christian philosopher. Proposed the idea that science is biased, significantly advanced the science of options (based on theories of relative perception). Mongoloid.

Auguste Comte: Founder of Sociology. Proposed the idea of a "New Christianity" based upon brotherly-love, with abstract (but not atheist) religious beliefs. Pinhead.

Albert Einstein: Originally outright claimed to be an atheist, but later wrote, "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." Dimwit.

Stephen Hawking: Modern genius who has substantially contributed to science (basically inventing modern Cosmology). Not Christian, but not necessarily Atheist either, suggesting that religious beliefs are good, but should coincide with sound reason. Dunce.

Founding Fathers of the United States: They were not mostly Christian or mostly non-Christian, but it depends on how you look at it. Defining "Founding Fathers" very broadly, most were Christian. But with a more narrow definition, about half were Deists and unorthodox Christians. But virtually none were atheists. Thomas Paine comes close, but not quite, as he believed in God yet was skeptical, and was mostly considered atheist because of how he belligerently attacked Christianity. As a result of the Founding Fathers believing in God, they said repeatedly, "Christianity is the established religion", and made various references to God in the law, on government buildings, and later on paper money. Incompetent.

And I'm just too lazy to write anymore.. But more than likely, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Francis Bacon, and many, many others who invented the scientific method, were religious as well.

Thanks for posting the often ignored religious rationalists. I am one (Christian Rationalist), and so are many others; it is good to see this in a time when far too many people are nothing more than dogmatic computers, spitting out little more than the thoughts programmed in to them by often bigoted or ignorant preachers.

We need people like this today to unite and bring religion back to its noble roots, as evidenced by those you listed.

Who gives a crap? Every person, great or insignificant, beleives in something without any rational basis for that beleif. Doesn't matter if that beleif is god or the superiority of communism.

Yeah it's interesting how many great scientific minds believed in God. Even just this morning on NPR there was a story about the intelligent design debate and they were interviewing scientists from both sides of the fence. It was really cool to hear their arguments for and against intelligent design. I love to see great minds duking it out.

Thanks for posting the often ignored religious rationalists. I am one (Christian Rationalist), and so are many others; it is good to see this in a time when far too many people are nothing more than dogmatic computers, spitting out little more than the thoughts programmed in to them by often bigoted or ignorant preachers.

We need people like this today to unite and bring religion back to its noble roots, as evidenced by those you listed.
I just wanted to point out, that atheists claim they're more "scientific" and logical", but:
#1. 99% of the founders of science and logic were religious.
#2. 99% of modern scientists aren't atheists.

Yeah it's interesting how many great scientific minds believed in God. Even just this morning on NPR there was a story about the intelligent design debate and they were interviewing scientists from both sides of the fence. It was really cool to hear their arguments for and against intelligent design. I love to see great minds duking it out.
Intelligent-design is bullshit. That's just creationism packaged differently.

What do you seek to achieve by this? Is it to vent some of your rage upon the general forum, as you will clearly not convince anyone. I really wouldnt bother with thes sorts of threads in future and they are utterly pointless.

I just wanted to point out, that atheists claim they're more "scientific" and logical", but:
#1. 99% of the founders of science and logic were religious.
#2. 99% of modern scientists aren't atheists.

Those are statistics, not proof of anything in and of itself. Atheism has a lot more to do with philosophy than it does science; I dont think anyone is retarded enough to believe that science specifically refutes the idea of a divine power. The real issue here is not radical atheists attacking religion, but religious fundamentalists attacking science. Science has been cast as atheist not by scientists or atheists, but by fanatics seeking to roll back scientific progress for social and ideological puproses. Science furthers human progress and should be held above our petty culture wars and open to both those of faith and doubters.

Intelligent-design is bullshit. That's just creationism packaged differently.


As I am not all-knowing I couldn't say what is true one way or the other regarding this but there are different flavors of Intelligent design that have nothig to do with religious creationist views.

I just wanted to point out, that atheists claim they're more "scientific" and logical", but:
#1. 99% of the founders of science and logic were religious.
#2. 99% of modern scientists aren't atheists.

Only a very small percentage of atehists I've met have claimed that atheism is more scientific than religion. In fact, the intellectually honest atheists will admit that there is no science involved one way or the other. "Logical" on the other hand, gets subjective. I have seen atheists who said it seemed more logical to them. I've seen theists do the same. In the end, it comes down to a question of which axiom you choose.

As I am not all-knowing I couldn't say what is true one way or the other regarding this but there are different flavors of Intelligent design that have nothig to do with religious creationist views.
All versions of Intelligent design are inherently unscentific. They all rely on an untestable supernatural source. Science has to be testable in some way and science can't use a supernatural agent to alter how nature works in order for a theory to function.

you just have to find the one thing in life, that one thing is different for every person. all of you go watcht the film "city slickers"

Intelligent-design is bullshit. That's just creationism packaged differently.

It is. Why is it so difficult to believe that God created evolution and the laws of nature, let it developed on its own, and when he found a species capable of comprehending his creation, he created the soul and gave it to them? He did the same on all planets with intelligent life, and will do so when new species arise. That seems far more glorious that a one-shot creation on one planet that God devoted his entire time to.

It is. Why is it so difficult to believe that God created evolution and the laws of nature, let it developed on its own, and when he found a species capable of comprehending his creation, he created the soul and gave it to them? He did the same on all planets with intelligent life, and will do so when new species arise. That seems far more glorious that a one-shot creation on one planet that God devoted his entire time to.

And, positing an omniscient God, God would have known all of the input variables into this system, and thus would have known exactly where and when species with the capabilities would develop. =)

It is. Why is it so difficult to believe that God created evolution and the laws of nature, let it developed on its own, and when he found a species capable of comprehending his creation, he created the soul and gave it to them? He did the same on all planets with intelligent life, and will do so when new species arise. That seems far more glorious that a one-shot creation on one planet that God devoted his entire time to.

It's not that it's difficult to believe in this monotheistic deity, it's just that it is unnecessary, as there is no reason for it.

you just have to find the one thing in life, that one thing is different for every person. all of you go watcht the film "city slickers"
I've found it! My DNA is different from everybody else's. What do I win?

It's not that it's difficult to believe in this monotheistic deity, it's just that it is unnecessary.

Unnecessary to any scientific theory - yes.

Unnecessary to some people - yes.

Unnecessary to all? Nope.

I enjoyed reading this for the first half of the post. Then it got really repetative, a little predictable.....and I liked it even more.

May I borrow?

Unnecessary to all? Nope.

Doesn't make it a valid belief in any way. It is no better than believing in fairies or trolls or gnomes.

All versions of Intelligent design are inherently unscentific. They all rely on an untestable supernatural source. Science has to be testable in some way and science can't use a supernatural agent to alter how nature works in order for a theory to function.

If only it were that easy to put the debate to rest.

Had you heard the NPR story you would have heard that many anti-creationist scientists refused to get into public debates about it because the scientific creationists were making them look bad. I know this is probably hard for you to believe but that came straight from the mouth of an anti-creationist scientist who was set to debate a scientific creationist. He said after reviewing other debates he got scared and dropped everythign for a month to prepare for his debate.

Another scientist said that debates don't settle anything and that the largely ignorant public would not be able to grasp the points made by the anti-creationist scientists in a debate that lasts an hour or two.

I don't mean to try to pursuade you to keep an open mind or anything though. You can think whatever you want. In the words of a great man I have talked to a couple times "Who gives a shit" what you think? :D

Doesn't make it a valid belief in any way. It is no better than believing in fairies or trolls or gnomes.

If you had personal experience of faries or trolls or gnomes, you would certainly believe in them, would you not?

If only it were that easy to put the debate to rest.

Yes, if only people would either learn the science or shut the hell up. If someone didn't learn the very basics of science taught in grade and high school, should we really bother with what they have to say?

Had you heard the NPR story you would have heard that many anti-creationist scientists refused to get into public debates about it because the scientific creationists were making them look bad. I know this is probably hard for you to believe but that came straight from the mouth of an anti-creationist scientist who was set to debate a scientific creationist. He said after reviewing other debates he got scared and dropped everythign for a month to prepare for his debate.

Well, the problem is that lay people don't know the difference. Creation "scientists" use the same big words that real scientists use, so the layperson thinks it sounds technical and feasible. On top if it, they can just yell, "You're just an ignorant atheist (despite the fact that the scientist is statistically most likely to be a theist) who hates religion!"

Another scientist said that debates don't settle anything and that the largely ignorant public would not be able to grasp the points made by the anti-creationist scientists in a debate that lasts an hour or two.

And this is also true.

If you had personal experience of faries or trolls or gnomes, you would certainly believe in them, would you not?

Having a "personal experience" of fairies or trolls or gnomes was not that unusual an occurrence not too long ago (people even ha "personal experiences" of witches, and we all know where that ended up). Didn't make believing in them any less insipid or pointless. It is intellectually dishonest to paint religious superstition to be anything but superstition.

Doesn't make it a valid belief in any way. It is no better than believing in fairies or trolls or gnomes.

But what if I have first hand knowledge of fairies and trolls? Why shouldn't I believe in them then?

Same with God - if a scientist believes that he/she has first hand experience with "God", then why shouldnt that scientist examine the possibility that God is the designer?

But what if I have first hand knowledge of fairies and trolls? Why shouldn't I believe in them then?

Because there is no reason to have it. Or are you going to claim that gnomes exist? Present one, then.

Same with God - if a scientist believes that he/she has first hand experience with "God", then why shouldnt that scientist examine the possibility that God is the designer?

Because it is without reason.

I just wanted to point out, that atheists claim they're more "scientific" and logical", but:
#1. 99% of the founders of science and logic were religious.
#2. 99% of modern scientists aren't atheists.

So your point is combined fallacious appeal to popularity (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/pop.php) and fallacious appeal to authority (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.php) based on phony numbers you made up?

Holy fallacious use of fallacies, Fellatio!

Because it is without reason.


It's unreasonable to believe something that you have seen exists? And in speaking of God... if a scientist is tryign to figure out our origins and has this first-hand experience with God, then why is is unreasonable to try putting God into the equation? Just saying it is unreasonable isn't an answer.

Doesn't make it a valid belief in any way. It is no better than believing in fairies or trolls or gnomes.
What is a "valid" belief, as opposed to an "invalid" one?

It's unreasonable to believe something that you have seen exists? And in speaking of God... if a scientist is tryign to figure out our origins and has this first-hand experience with God, then why is is unreasonable to try putting God into the equation?

Because a good scientist does not resort to the supernatural to describe the world.

Just saying it is unreasonable isn't an answer.

Yes, it is. When I was a child, I had "personal experiences" of monsters living under my bed. Doesn't make it any less unreasonable of me to try to explain disappearances of children with these monsters having eaten them.

What is a "valid" belief, as opposed to an "invalid" one?

One that you have reason for.

Had you heard the NPR story you would have heard that many anti-creationist scientists refused to get into public debates about it because the scientific creationists were making them look bad. I know this is probably hard for you to believe but that came straight from the mouth of an anti-creationist scientist who was set to debate a scientific creationist. He said after reviewing other debates he got scared and dropped everythign for a month to prepare for his debate.
The reason scientists cannot participate is that they cannot give any credence to Creationism, whatsoever. It would be like saying, "Okay, you've got something there. Let's debate it." Trouble is, Creationism doesn't "have something there." There is nothing to debate.

One that you have reason for.
And experience of something isn't reason for believing in it? You seem to be saying, "because I don't believe in it, and find no reason to, and it's pointless to me, no one else should believe, either."

If only it were that easy to put the debate to rest.

Had you heard the NPR story you would have heard that many anti-creationist scientists refused to get into public debates about it because the scientific creationists were making them look bad. I know this is probably hard for you to believe but that came straight from the mouth of an anti-creationist scientist who was set to debate a scientific creationist. He said after reviewing other debates he got scared and dropped everythign for a month to prepare for his debate.

Another scientist said that debates don't settle anything and that the largely ignorant public would not be able to grasp the points made by the anti-creationist scientists in a debate that lasts an hour or two.

I don't mean to try to pursuade you to keep an open mind or anything though. You can think whatever you want. In the words of a great man I have talked to a couple times "Who gives a shit" what you think? :D
The debates between ID and real scientists aren't fair. Usually they take the form of the ID guy asking a short question laced with a few scientific terms and the real scientist replying with a complex answer that confuses the non-scientific audience. This makes ID look good and real science look like a bunch of confusing mumbo jumbo. Also when the scientist calls into question the scientific validity of a "theory" that appeals to an untestable supernatural force it looks like he's picking on religion.

I wouldn't want to participate in a debate structured that way either.

Religious Fools

Your "point" is rather bizarre.

Obviously, the Greeks, pagans, Muslims, and various denominations of Christianity aren't all correct in their religious beliefs.

On the other hand, you'd be hard pressed to find someone that defended your strawman that anyone that has any religious belief whatsoever is a fool, ignorant, etc.

Founding Fathers of the United States: They were not mostly Christian or mostly non-Christian, but it depends on how you look at it. Defining "Founding Fathers" very broadly, most were Christian. But with a more narrow definition, about half were Deists and unorthodox Christians. But virtually none were atheists. Thomas Paine comes close, but not quite, as he believed in God yet was skeptical, and was mostly considered atheist because of how he belligerently attacked Christianity. As a result of the Founding Fathers believing in God, they said repeatedly, "Christianity is the established religion", and made various references to God in the law, on government buildings, and later on paper money. Incompetent.

Um, I don't want to get into a side debate about the Founding Fathers, but you make several untrue and/or misleading statements here -- particularly in the next to the last sentence.

The reason scientists cannot participate is that they cannot give any credence to Creationism, whatsoever. It would be like saying, "Okay, you've got something there. Let's debate it." Trouble is, Creationism doesn't "have something there." There is nothing to debate.


No I was paraphrasing what actual scientists said on a story about this exact thing not voicing my opinion. You on the other hand are voicing your opinion which is fine but dosnt match up to the actual reasons stated.

No I was paraphrasing what actual scientists said on a story about this exact thing not voicing my opinion. You on the other hand are voicing your opinion which is fine but dosnt match up to the actual reasons stated.
Fair enough.

The debates between ID and real scientists aren't fair. Usually they take the form of the ID guy asking a short question laced with a few scientific terms and the real scientist replying with a complex answer that confuses the non-scientific audience. This makes ID look good and real science look like a bunch of confusing mumbo jumbo. Also when the scientist calls into question the scientific validity of a "theory" that appeals to an untestable supernatural force it looks like he's picking on religion.

I wouldn't want to participate in a debate structured that way either.


I already mentioned the view that scientists don't believe the audience is sophisticated enough to understand their side.

It's unreasonable to believe something that you have seen exists? And in speaking of God... if a scientist is tryign to figure out our origins and has this first-hand experience with God, then why is is unreasonable to try putting God into the equation? Just saying it is unreasonable isn't an answer.

A scientist who believes in God cannot claim that said belief is scientific - it doesn't meet the requirements.

As such, a scientist who believes in God cannot bring God into scientific work. In truth, by definition, God is outside the realm of science - as God as a creator is outside the rules that govern the universe - and thus cannot be measured or disproven.

While one may have personal experience of God, that experience is outside the realm of science as it cannot be measured or repeated by others. As such, a belief in the existence or non-existence of God is a completely unfalsifiable premise - which cannot be included in science.

I already mentioned the view that scientists don't believe the audience is sophisticated enough to understand their side.

It has nothing to do with sophistication - it has to do with education. Laymen simply don't have the background necessary to truly understand a scientific theory unless they go through the classes necessary - something most don't have the time or interest for. Laymen are also unaccustomed to thinking in the way required under the scientific method.

A scientist who believes in God cannot claim that said belief is scientific - it doesn't meet the requirements.

As such, a scientist who believes in God cannot bring God into scientific work. In truth, by definition, God is outside the realm of science - as God as a creator is outside the rules that govern the universe - and thus cannot be measured or disproven.

While one may have personal experience of God, that experience is outside the realm of science as it cannot be measured or repeated by others. As such, a belief in the existence or non-existence of God is a completely unfalsifiable premise - which cannot be included in science.


It seems many scientists are doing just that though.

It has nothing to do with sophistication - it has to do with education. Laymen simply don't have the background necessary to truly understand a scientific theory unless they go through the classes necessary - something most don't have the time or interest for. Laymen are also unaccustomed to thinking in the way required under the scientific method.


My wording is off but I see you get my gist.

Obviously, the Greeks, pagans, Muslims, and various denominations of Christianity aren't all correct in their religious beliefs.

That depends on how you look at it. On the particular parts of their beliefs that contradict each other, they can't all be right, unless they are describing different aspects of the same being or beings. On the other hand, those things on which they do agree may very well all be correct.

On the other hand, you'd be hard pressed to find someone that defended your strawman that anyone that has any religious belief whatsoever is a fool, ignorant, etc.

You mean like Fass - the person already attempting to do so?

It seems many scientists are doing just that though.

And in that capacity, they are not acting as scientists.

Once you step outside of the scientific method, or attempt to explain something outside the realm of science, you can use the word all you want - but it isn't science.

A scientist who believes in God cannot claim that said belief is scientific - it doesn't meet the requirements.

As such, a scientist who believes in God cannot bring God into scientific work. In truth, by definition, God is outside the realm of science - as God as a creator is outside the rules that govern the universe - and thus cannot be measured or disproven.

While one may have personal experience of God, that experience is outside the realm of science as it cannot be measured or repeated by others. As such, a belief in the existence or non-existence of God is a completely unfalsifiable premise - which cannot be included in science.
But it can be, and is, included alongside science. Right.

But it can be, and is, included alongside science. Right.

Certainly. There is no reason that science is or should be the only way to search for explanation.

And in that capacity, they are not acting as scientists.

Once you step outside of the scientific method, or attempt to explain something outside the realm of science, you can use the word all you want - but it isn't science.

the current view of science so perfect that there is no way that other factors (not currently seen as "true science") can ever be considered? I don't see any problem with attempting to look at things in new ways.

the current view of science so perfect that there is no way that other factors (not currently seen as "true science") can ever be considered? I don't see any problem with attempting to look at things in new ways.
Science is a has a well defined jurisdiction. It only deals with the natural world. God is by most definitions supernatural. It is not subject to the restrictions placed on everything else by physics. Therefore it's outside the realm of science.

the current view of science so perfect that there is no way that other factors (not currently seen as "true science") can ever be considered? I don't see any problem with attempting to look at things in new ways.

There is no problem with attempting to look at things in new ways.

However, if it goes outside the realm of science, or outside the scientific method, then it is not science. It is a "new way to look at things" outside of science.

That depends on how you look at it. On the particular parts of their beliefs that contradict each other, they can't all be right, unless they are describing different aspects of the same being or beings. On the other hand, those things on which they do agree may very well all be correct.

Um, with parts of that list there may be great agreement.

With the entire list, there will be very little, if anything, they all agree on in terms of religion. Perhaps, perhaps, that there are supernatural beings.

You mean like Fass - the person already attempting to do so?

I don't believe that is precisely what Fass is arguing. Fass is arguing that belief in a monotheistic diety is unecessary and invalid. There is a rather large distinction between that and saying everyone with any religious belief is a fool.

okay God is by most definitions supernatural but there are some where God is considered natural? I personally don't hold any particular view of God as true and wouldn't know where to start if I were to try to define "God". I might define God as natural as well as supernatural but I don't know because I don't want to jump to any conclusions.

The scientific method? Absolutely perfect with no room for improvement? Infallible? Just looking for answers because I am not a scientist and want to know what you (I assume you are scientists because you display a great wealth of knowledge on the subject) think or know about this.

I am not arguing that ID is scientifically provable cuz I don't know that it is and I don't know if its even real. All I am saying is that maybe the science of science itself is possibly not perfected and there is no harm in tryign to expand upon it.

So since God is outside the realm of science in the eyes of scientists then that is the reason why God doesnt belong in science? Whose definition of God are you/they using?

Intelligent-design is bullshit. That's just creationism packaged differently.

Actually, ID does not = "Creationism" even under a different package.... "Creationism" has become the almost exclusive domain of YEC's (Young-Earth Creationists).... ID is a point which exists primarily with Theistic Evolutionists, and some Progressives.... (Who are not considered "Creationists" by "Creationists")....

okay God is by most definitions supernatural but there are some where God is considered natural? I personally don't hold any particular view of God as true and wouldn't know where to start if I were to try to define "God". I might define God as natural as well as supernatural but I don't know because I don't want to jump to any conclusions.

If God is defined as natural, then God could not be the creator. One who created the rules cannot be ruled by them, but anything within nature is ruled by the workings of the universe. A "deity" that was governed by the rules of nature would be within the realm of science - as it could possibly be measured and observed.

The scientific method? Absolutely perfect with no room for improvement? Infallible?

Nothing is absolutely perfect or infallible. However, years of reason and logic led to the scientific method - a method which is self-correcting and does away with personal bias as much as possible.

There is certainly room to look at things another way. But that other way is not science. There is nothing inherently wrong with not being scientific. However, saying that you could perform science without the scientific method is like saying you could paint a picture without any paint.

I am not arguing that ID is scientifically provable cuz I don't know that it is and I don't know if its even real.

Nothing is "scientifically provable". The logic of the scientific method cannot be used to prove anything. It can only be used to disprove hypotheses. If a hypothesis is not disproven by the evidence, then it is supported. If there is enough support, it will become the prevailing theory.

All I am saying is that maybe the science of science itself is possibly not perfected and there is no harm in tryign to expand upon it.

There is harm in trying to expand it into the supernatural and unfalsifiable. If we do this, nothing that comes out of science is useful. We would have to give equal credence to the people who believe the world is flat and the people who believe it is not. We would have to give equal credence to the geocentric universe theory and the heliocentric solar system theory. After all, if we open things up to the supernatural, "The world is flat but God made the evidence so that it looks rounded," would be perfectly valid. Or "The entire universe revolves around the Earth, but magic makes it look like the Earth is revolving aroudn the sun," would be perfectly vald in a scientific sense.

So since God is outside the realm of science in the eyes of scientists then that is the reason why God doesnt belong in science? Whose definition of God are you/they using?

God as a creator would, by definition, be outside the creation. God as an omnipotent being - which, by our view, a creator would have to be (as a creator could do all things within the bounds of the universe as well as things outside it), by defintion is outside the rules of the universe and thus, by definition, outside the realm of science.

Actually, ID does not = "Creationism" even under a different package.... "Creationism" has become the almost exclusive domain of YEC's (Young-Earth Creationists).... ID is a point which exists primarily with Theistic Evolutionists, and some Progressives.... (Who are not considered "Creationists" by "Creationists")....

Incorrect. ID has nothing whatsoever to do with theistic evolutionists - as the entire premise of ID is that evolution cannot possibly have caused speciation, so an intelligent designer must have done it instead.

Um, with parts of that list there may be great agreement.

With the entire list, there will be very little, if anything, they all agree on in terms of religion. Perhaps, perhaps, that there are supernatural beings.

The would all agree that there is some sort of deity. They all agree on certain moral principles. They all agree on certain aspects of said deities.

You have to dig a bit to get there, but there are certain things that all theistic religions share - and many more that most of them share. People tend to focus on the differences, but the similarities abound.

I don't believe that is precisely what Fass is arguing. Fass is arguing that belief in a monotheistic diety is unecessary and invalid. There is a rather large distinction between that and saying everyone with any religious belief is a fool.

The "arguments" Fass was using were not specific to a monotheistic deity - but were quite obviously focused at a belief in any deity.

On top of that, comparing any such belief to a child's belief in monsters under the bed is about as close to using the word fool as you can get without using it directly.

The would all agree that there is some sort of deity. They all agree on certain moral principles. They all agree on certain aspects of said deities.

You have to dig a bit to get there, but there are certain things that all theistic religions share - and many more that most of them share. People tend to focus on the differences, but the similarities abound.

OK, this is turning into a silly quibble, but lets look at that list again (minus the Founding Fathers and with some spelling corrections):

Socrates
Plato
Aristotle
Epicurus
St. Thomas Aquinas
Al-Khwarizmi
Thales
René Descartes
Thomas Hobbes
Blaise Pascal
John Locke
Friedrich Nietzsche
Baruch Spinoza
George Berkeley
Auguste Comte
Albert Einstein
Stephen Hawking

Many, if not all, of these individuals have beliefs in common with most modern atheists than Christians.

Several of those I am not sure are theists at all. Many consider Epicurus one of the founders of atheism. Hobbes denied being an atheist (go figure in the 16th-17th Century), but was a strict materialist. Was Nietzche a theist?

"Moral principles" is a pretty broad category. Most of the agreement on moral principles you would find among this group would not be based on common religious beliefs.

What aspects of "said deities" do Socrates, Thales, Aquanis, Al-Khwarizmi, Pascal, Spinoza, and Comte all agree upon?

The "arguments" Fass was using were not specific to a monotheistic deity - but were quite obviously focused at a belief in any deity.

On top of that, comparing any such belief to a child's belief in monsters under the bed is about as close to using the word fool as you can get without using it directly.

His first post (#15) was specific to monotheistic religions.

I do agree that post (#19) was unkind, but it was an analogy.

You are the one now arguing Zeus and Pan are comparable to Xn God.

OK, this is turning into a silly quibble, but lets look at that list again

That wasn't the list I was using.

I was using the list you gave in your own post: Christian, Muslim, pagan, etc.

"Moral principles" is a pretty broad category. Most of the agreement on moral principles you would find among this group would not be based on common religious beliefs.[/quote[

No, but many of the moral principles of most religions do agree. Whether they come from religion, God, evolution of society, etc. is up for debate.

[quote]What aspects of "said deities" do Socrates, Thales, Aquanis, Al-Khwarizmi, Pascal, Spinoza, and Comte all agree upon?

Beats me. I'm not familiar with all of their religious beliefs.

You are the one now arguing Zeus and Pan are comparable to Xn God.

And in some aspects, they are. I don't see how it is illogical or even insulting to point out that the deities of most religions have shared some aspects. In fact, from a religious point of view, they could have all been the same deity or set of deities - simply seen through the eyes of different peoples and societies.

What do you seek to achieve by this? Is it to vent some of your rage upon the general forum, as you will clearly not convince anyone. I really wouldnt bother with thes sorts of threads in future and they are utterly pointless.

I agree with Carops. In fact, I have no idea what you're trying to prove. You say that religion is for unscientific fools, but all the great scientists have had some religious beleifs. Dones't that make YOU the fool?

God is dead.
Nietzsche is dead.
EDIT:
Forgot...
I dissagree!

I love it :P

To make another point, Im not getting involved in this debate any further than the above, because three or four years of NS has taught me that people on the General forum will not have their views changed by any amount of argueing, and that debates of this nature are basicaly 'smash fests', IE: Tests of patience rather than wit. Meaning that whichever side has a shorter attention span or gets frustrated by the 'I find minor inconsistency in ur posts! U R WRONG!' loses.
Now, if you will excuse me, I must go and continue laughing and Shrub calling the greatest geniuses of all time idiots. I find it ironic.

I just wanted to point out, that atheists claim they're more "scientific" and logical", but:
#1. 99% of the founders of science and logic were religious.
#2. 99% of modern scientists aren't atheists.

At times, superior, and alpowerful beings may appear more logical, as we do not have a full vision of the entire universe, however, as we discover more and more of it, truths become apparent and become logically simpler explanations. As no man knew about electrical currents and forces until reletively recently, it was more logical to claim that angered gods threw bolts to the ground then to say that a buildup of electrons in water clouds grew and finally are unbound.

I just wanted to point out, that atheists claim they're more "scientific" and logical", but:
#1. 99% of the founders of science and logic were religious.
#2. 99% of modern scientists aren't atheists.

Few things are as guaranteed to draw me into a discussion as someone posting bogus statistical claims they clearly just pulled out of their hindquarters.

99% of modern scientists aren't atheists eh? I don't suppose you have some kind of poll numbers to back that up?

The only poll that seems to bear on the subject that I've come across while poking around in that area:

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0_fs.html&filetype=pdf

That details the results of a poll of scientists in 1998... One poll of members of the NAS who tend to be not exactly shabby as far as scientists go (those results are in the table) and one poll of the general scientific community. It also compares the results to a couple of similar historical polls of scientists.

Now it would be one thing if those numbers were even remotely in the ballpark of what you posted... but just look at them.

For members of the NAS:

We've got a whopping 7.0% professing belief in a personal deity.
We've got 72.2% professing disbelief and the other 20.8% professing doubt.

For the more general community the rate of those professing disbelief or doubt in the existence of some personal deity was still over 60%.

Now you may want to argue there's some way to adjust those numbers by changing the sampling... or adjusting the question... but they aren't swinging around to the same neighbourhood (or continent for that matter) where you claimed they were.

On top of that, comparing any such belief to a child's belief in monsters under the bed is about as close to using the word fool as you can get without using it directly.

Are you saying it's not the same? A supernatural bogeyman living in the clouds VS many supernatural bogeymen living under my bed?

In the end, I have a feeling that it will be reveled that scientific thinking/reasoning and religion go hand-in-hand. One cannot exist without the other.

I have a feeling that it will be reveled that scientific thinking/reasoning and religion go hand-in-hand. One cannot exist without the other.


....care to explain why science can't exist without mythical bogeymen?

....care to explain why science can't exist without mythical bogeymen?
I'm a bit curious too.

I'm a bit curious too.

I've a feeling the answer's going to be something about god creating science.

I've a feeling the answer's going to be something about god creating science.
Funny. That's what I thought too. I only hope I'm not drinking something when it happens :p

I think that to be scientific without (reasonable) religious beliefs is to close your mind to a strong argument as to how and why the Universe began, why we're here, and other questions within that nature. On the other hand, to be all out religious with no regard to science makes you an idiot.

I think that to be scientific without (reasonable) religious beliefs is to close your mind to a strong argument as to how and why the Universe began, why we're here, and other questions within that nature.

We're here to have kids and die. Same as every other living thing. And I'd hardly call religion a "strong argument". It's a nice idea and I think it'd be great if it was true, believe me, but it just doesn't hold water.

We're here to have kids and die. Same as every other living thing. And I'd hardly call religion a "strong argument". It's a nice idea and I think it'd be great if it was true, believe me, but it just doesn't hold water.

Wow, there is a happy thought. Really there is very little evidence for or against religion(how can the physical prove that which is beyond physicallity?). The simple fact is that nothing is lost from self-delusion under an atheist philosophy because there are no higher forces or powers(some people claim some crap about truth being important but if you are going to die and not exist it does not matter the how and why), so there is no big reason not to believe in God.

Being that there really is no "strong argument" as far as evidence goes, religion is a strong argument relative to any other explanations.

Well, no one knows what is the initial cause. Religion is the only thing that offers a solution and has many satisfactory qualities. No reason not to believe it and there is some reason to believe it(provides good moral foundation).

I think that to be scientific without (reasonable) religious beliefs is to close your mind to a strong argument as to how and why the Universe began, why we're here, and other questions within that nature. On the other hand, to be all out religious with no regard to science makes you an idiot.

You know what? You should look back at Demo's posts. He explained excatly why religion and science doesn't go hand in hand rather well. Please reveiw it.

The short answer to your speculations is: God+science=bonkers.
There's nothing wrong with a scientist being religious. But he's not a scientist if those two things are mixed.

There's a vast difference between a scientific theory and a philosophical argument. God fits well with the latter, but ruins the former. Magic is a no-no if you want to approach something using science.

Being that there really is no "strong argument" as far as evidence goes, religion is a strong argument relative to any other explanations
You could veiw it like this: Since there appears no reason to suspect the divine is, has been or will interfere with anything we can percive, there's no reason to consider god.

I find that argument to be more accurate, because we actually don't know of anything where supernatural or divine things are needed. We don't know there is an afterlife or any other religious concept. We do know a lot about how the universe works, but so far there's not really anything inexplicable about it. Not even the breakdown of the laws of physics as we draw close to the Big Bang is in itself any reason to suspect divine intervention.

The gnomes & trolls analogy from elsewhere in this thread is fairly sound. There's no logical reason to expect god over elves & trolls. And the fact that 5-6 billion people believes in some sort of god or gods, doesn't make it any more credible. It's perfectly plausible they're all dead wrong.

Being that there really is no "strong argument" as far as evidence goes, religion is a strong argument relative to any other explanations.

That's just your brain deceiving you. Creed is feeble argument compared to the Universe being in your face all day, every day.

Some people become religious hypocrites that way, you know. They love thier faith, but reality trumps them.

Well, there is in no way anything in science that can disprove God. I do not see why they can not mesh to a certain extent. After all science only seeks understanding of the physical and it is perfectly possible for a God to exist that does not interfere with the physical(or at least not with common occurance). As well, I do not get Emperate's point. The universe and the idea of something greater than the universe can not clash due to their separation. My argument is pretty much he can not be proven to not exist and the idea of God pleases me and benefits me. I probably should get better moral foundations(my reasons do sound childish and stupid but in a way so is life) but if God were obvious there would not be an argument and faith would not be a necessity.

Wow, there is a happy thought. Really there is very little evidence for or against religion(how can the physical prove that which is beyond physicallity?). The simple fact is that nothing is lost from self-delusion under an atheist philosophy because there are no higher forces or powers(some people claim some crap about truth being important but if you are going to die and not exist it does not matter the how and why), so there is no big reason not to believe in God.

Pascal's Wager is not only fallacious, but has been condemned as sinful.

Religious Fools

Socrates: Father of non-religious ethics, invented the Socratic method. Had unorthodox, but unclear faith in the Greek Gods. Ignorant.

Plato: Socrates' student. Founded Neoplatonism, which dramatically influenced Christianity and much of the world and also founded Republicanism. Had abstract beliefs of God, making a metaphorical reference to the sun, believing God is "The Form of the Good" (the epitome of all morality, but not necessarily a physical being). Moron.

Aristotle: Founder of Biology, wrote the first book on logic. Believed in God, because he was the only possible "first cause." Illogical.

Epicurus: Invented Hedonism, contributed to Atheist philosophy. Believed in Gods, but believed they didn't intervene in human affairs. Founded the idea of inalienable rights (life, liberty, and safety). Traitor.

St. Thomas Aquinas: Christian philosopher that taught conscience is an intellectual determination, not given by God. Imbecile.

Al-Khwarizmi: Muslim that invented Algebra. Retarded.

Thales: Invented Geometry, and is considered "Father of Science." First one to propose Gods have no influence on reality, but believed in the abstract concept, "All things are full of God." Idiotic.

René Descartes: Invented modern Geometry, significantly contributed to mathematics. Believed in God. Jackass.

Thomas Thobbes: Contributed to political philosophy (influenced founding fathers of America). Wrote a book on it, called "Leviathan" (the Biblical dragon). Believed in God. Nincompoop.

Blaise Pascal: Invented Probability. Originally, focused on mathematics, but found himself going through a spiritual crisis. Despite being engulfed with the compassionate logic and reason that successfully and adequately answers all of life's fundamental, existential questions, he found himself unhappy, his life meaningless and without purpose. Became religious. Halfwit.

John Locke: Significantly contributed to political science, the major influence on the Founding Fathers ("Life, Liberty, and Property"). Supported the Church of England, believe a national church could create social harmony. Simpleton.

Friedrich Nietzsche: Famous philosopher who attacked Christianity with "God is dead" (meaning, God has no influence on our lives, but had an extremely high opinion of Jesus, though he questioned if he existed. Never advocated either God's existence or atheism, though atheists quote him as if he did. Kook.

Baruch Spinoza: Jewish philosopher who was labeled as being an atheist, at his time. But his beliefs are akin to Buddhism and eastern philosophy (as well as even the Jewish Kabbala). While he doesn't believe God is a conscious arbitor in our lives, he doesn't deny God's existence. But rather, sees God as being reason itself (with a similar idea in Greek philosophy, known as "logos", which was later adopted by Christianity). Nitwit.

George Berkeley: Christian philosopher. Proposed the idea that science is biased, significantly advanced the science of options (based on theories of relative perception). Mongoloid.

Auguste Comte: Founder of Sociology. Proposed the idea of a "New Christianity" based upon brotherly-love, with abstract (but not atheist) religious beliefs. Pinhead.

Albert Einstein: Originally outright claimed to be an atheist, but later wrote, "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." Dimwit.

Stephen Hawking: Modern genius who has substantially contributed to science (basically inventing modern Cosmology). Not Christian, but not necessarily Atheist either, suggesting that religious beliefs are good, but should coincide with sound reason. Dunce.

Founding Fathers of the United States: They were not mostly Christian or mostly non-Christian, but it depends on how you look at it. Defining "Founding Fathers" very broadly, most were Christian. But with a more narrow definition, about half were Deists and unorthodox Christians. But virtually none were atheists. Thomas Paine comes close, but not quite, as he believed in God yet was skeptical, and was mostly considered atheist because of how he belligerently attacked Christianity. As a result of the Founding Fathers believing in God, they said repeatedly, "Christianity is the established religion", and made various references to God in the law, on government buildings, and later on paper money. Incompetent.

And I'm just too lazy to write anymore.. But more than likely, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Francis Bacon, and many, many others who invented the scientific method, were religious as well.

Fool
President Shrub: Member. Should be ashamed to question the contributions of great men to humanity and call them names.

Religious Fool
German Nightmare: German. Nightmare. Religious Fool. Faithful Student of the Science of Biology and the Language of English. Lutheran Evangelic, Believer, and convinced Evolutionist. Where my Knowledge ends, I start believing with an intrigued Mind - and there is place for a God. -
Don't start calling people Names. If nothing else, at least it's impolite!

Pascal's Wager is not only fallacious, but has been condemned as sinful.

Pascal's wager is only an ends to a means. The idea of believing only for that reason is of course sinful. I am not an idiot. However, to try to believe something will eventually cause a real belief to form. I will admit that I want to believe because there is nothing better to do, there is nothing if I do not believe so I must throw my heart and soul into it. If I go to hell it will be no more than I deserve for my weaknesses in disbelieving my Lord.

The only poll that seems to bear on the subject that I've come across while poking around in that area:

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0_fs.html&filetype=pdf

This poll was using questions on religiosity first posited by Leuba - and long since discarded by sociologists as they do not adequately represent the range of religiosity. In fact, the questions used can't even be applied to Eastern religions. The numbers you get are so skewed it isn't even funny.

For members of the NAS:

We've got a whopping 7.0% professing belief in a personal deity.
We've got 72.2% professing disbelief and the other 20.8% professing doubt.

For the more general community the rate of those professing disbelief or doubt in the existence of some personal deity was still over 60%.

Note that personal deity != deity.

Note that doubt != atheism.

Note that, in this poll, any deist would answer no. Depending on their exact interpretation of "personal deity", many members of mainstream religions would answer no. The vast majority of Eastern religions would just stare at you.

In other words, while people love to use these numbers to talk about atheism, they simply don't even address that issue.

Now, since you most likely got that study off the Wikipedia page, look at the numbers from true religiosity polls. You find that, at most, 8-10% of the entire population is atheist. There is no reason to believe that scientists would be far off from those numbers.

Are you saying it's not the same? A supernatural bogeyman living in the clouds VS many supernatural bogeymen living under my bed?

Who said anything about a "supernatural boogeyman living in the clouds"? I know I didn't.

You know what? You should look back at Demo's posts. SHe explained excatly why religion and science doesn't go hand in hand rather well. Please reveiw it.

=)

You could veiw it like this: Since there appears no reason to suspect the divine is, has been or will interfere with anything we can percive, there's no reason to consider god.

Ah, but to some of us, there appears to be a reason to suspect that the divine is, has been, or will interfere with things we can perceive. We just don't (or at least shouldn't) claim those reasons as scientific - as they can only be personally perceived, and cannot be scientifically repeated or measured by others.

The gnomes & trolls analogy from elsewhere in this thread is fairly sound. There's no logical reason to expect god over elves & trolls.

Unless, of course, you have had personal experience of God, but not of elves or trolls.

Pascal's Wager is not only fallacious, but has been condemned as sinful.

But of course. How can you have true faith if you are forcing yourself to "believe just in case"?

Fuck you, you anti-religious commie bastard.

Fuck you, you anti-religious commie bastard.

And its comments like these that make the rest of us God-fearing people look bad.

Fuck you, you anti-religious commie bastard.

I'm glad you're not an Atheist.

Thomas Aquinas is awesome. I like his First Cause proof of God, even if it isn't definitive proof, so to speak. It's still damn convincing.

As far as saints go, the only one that is more awesome is Joan of Arc.

A scientist who believes in God cannot claim that said belief is scientific - it doesn't meet the requirements.

As such, a scientist who believes in God cannot bring God into scientific work. In truth, by definition, God is outside the realm of science - as God as a creator is outside the rules that govern the universe - and thus cannot be measured or disproven.

While one may have personal experience of God, that experience is outside the realm of science as it cannot be measured or repeated by others. As such, a belief in the existence or non-existence of God is a completely unfalsifiable premise - which cannot be included in science.
But that's the point. Many religious people make claims that their religion is "more true" than science, for example, such as that Jews are superior to all other people, despite the lack of evidence for it.

And then, there are these atheists that claim science "disproves" religion, when that absolutely isn't true for the reason you've explained.

Few things are as guaranteed to draw me into a discussion as someone posting bogus statistical claims they clearly just pulled out of their hindquarters.

99% of modern scientists aren't atheists eh? I don't suppose you have some kind of poll numbers to back that up?

The only poll that seems to bear on the subject that I've come across while poking around in that area:

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0_fs.html&filetype=pdf

That details the results of a poll of scientists in 1998... One poll of members of the NAS who tend to be not exactly shabby as far as scientists go (those results are in the table) and one poll of the general scientific community. It also compares the results to a couple of similar historical polls of scientists.

Now it would be one thing if those numbers were even remotely in the ballpark of what you posted... but just look at them.

For members of the NAS:

We've got a whopping 7.0% professing belief in a personal deity.
We've got 72.2% professing disbelief and the other 20.8% professing doubt.
Notice the question: Belief in a "personal" God. This virtually eliminates all Buddhists, Taoists, and certain other religions. It labels people who believe in a God, but not a personal one, as atheists. Do polls asking how many of them are atheists and how many of them believe atheism is "proven" by science, and they're the idiosyncratic minority.

One major problem with atheism, also, is that the definition has changed within the last century. Atheism used to be merely "non-belief" in God, applying to God, only. "A" is the Latin for "without; lacking" and Theos is Greek word for "God", (I believe that became the Latin "Deus", the Spanish word for God today is "Dios"). So, it's in such words as Theology, Pantheon, Theocracy, and so on.

So, basically, atheism literally means "Without God", originally being defined as people who don't believe in God, including agnostics or people who believed in an abstract form of God, such as:
-That he is a univeral force that permeates everything, but takes no action.
-Knowledge and reason itself
-The original creator of the universe, but does arbitrate anything now, or doesn't currently exist

So, because of that, in the past, people like Thomas Paine, Baruch Spinoza, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Albert Einstein were called atheists. At the time, according to the previous definition, that was true. Atheists use this, however, to interpret that they opposed religion and did not believe in any form of God. Essentially, they're doing the same thing the homophobic Judith Reisman did when writing a report on Alfred Kinsey's sex-research. She read his study, saw that it mentioned "children having orgasms", and accused him of being a child-molester without noting (or even realizing) that the Freudian definition of orgasm is not the same as today. The definition of orgasm, according to Freud, was a sense of self-gratification, not necessarily male or female ejaculation. In both cases, they interpret past definitions in a modern way, to skew the facts. But the overwhelming majority of those who created scientists were religious and were not, according to the modern definition, atheist.

The other thing I'd like to mention is that atheists claim religion is "unscientific", yet science and religion converge in Theology, meaning literally, "The study of God."

Theologians usually study the culture and societal impacts of religion, originally studying the individual impact, until Psychology of Religion became a field. But the fact is, they do have specific sects which study the scientific basis for their religious claims. No, when studying non-cultural aspects of religious beliefs, it isn't empirical research. But, in philosophy, knowledge can be attained through self-reflection (rationalism) or observation (empiricism). It wasn't until the beginning of this century, that empiricism became popular, and it wasn't strictly adhered to until the 70's and 80's. Sigmund Freud's and Carl Jung's research were primarily rationalist, for example, giving intriguing, detailed epistemological and metaphysical theories, but with poor experiments or no observation at all.

Atheists discredit religion, because "It cannot be observed." But, as black-holes prove, something does not need to be observed for it to exist. Before the effects of black-holes existed, proving their existence, would it have been illogical to believe in the possibility of black-holes? Of course not.

Inobservability, no matter how extreme it is, does not preclude falsehood. Certainly, it makes it virtually-impossible to study empirically, but if there is a rational argument for it superior to the rational argument against it, it should be regarded as true but left open to debate, no different than whether or not artificial-intelligence or extraterrestrial life is possible.

In science, there are "soft" sciences based on theory (rationalism) such as Psychology and Sociology, and there are "hard" sciences based on observation (empiricism) such as Physics, Biology, and mathematics. Theology is merely the softest science that exists. And it's our Positivist society which has generated these rabidly prosletyzing, anti-religious atheists claiming all religion is totally false.

Ah, but to some of us, there appears to be a reason to suspect that the divine is, has been, or will interfere with things we can perceive. We just don't (or at least shouldn't) claim those reasons as scientific - as they can only be personally perceived, and cannot be scientifically repeated or measured by others.
<Snipped>
Unless, of course, you have had personal experience of God, but not of elves or trolls.
Well... If you can't back your claims without resorting to the realm of the fantastical, and you can't prove the existence of the fantastical, then my comment stands.
It doesn't mean you can't be convinced there's something more than that. It just means you'll have a tough time demonstrating why it's a credible belief ;)

Please don't take this as a provocation, because it isn't. But if I had personal experiences with gods or gnomes or whatever, I would seek professional help. It wouldn't be credible that I wasn't insane. We can prove insanity (schizophrenia) exists, but god is a wee bit harder to demonstrate. So... I'd believe I'd gone mad. On a side note, if it turns out there is something divine, the first thing I'll do in the after life is to thank him for not making a personal appearance. The next thing will be to kick his teeth (or whatever) out for not doing something about all the horrors of the world... But I'd definitely thank him for not driving me bonkers.

And err... Sorry Dem. I knew you were female. I just forgot.

Fuck you, you anti-religious commie bastard.

If your flame is aimed at Shrub, you failed the reading comprehension part of the thread.

Fuck you, you anti-religious commie bastard.

Stop swearing, God damn it!!!

I posted again, in case anyone missed it. And stop thread hijacking, and flaming, or I'll call the Jehovas and have them baptise you and your entire family, against your will.

I'll do it, I'm not kidding. Don't think I won't, I'm crazy, you know.

Well... If you can't back your claims without resorting to the realm of the fantastical, and you can't prove the existence of the fantastical, then my comment stands.

Well, I haven't resorted to anything fantastical. If it were fantasy, I wouldn't believe in it, any more than I believe in unicorns - although I think they'd be really cool.

It doesn't mean you can't be convinced there's something more than that. It just means you'll have a tough time demonstrating why it's a credible belief ;)

It is a credible belief because it is my belief. Your belief is equally credible, because neither of us can provide evidence to the other that will disprove either belief.

We have chosen opposite sides of an axiom - for varying reasons. We cannot prove the other wrong, because the starting axiom is different.

Difference is, I don't claim someone who disagrees with me must be crazy.


And err... Sorry Dem. I knew you were female. I just forgot.

=) No prob - gender is a bit difficult to track here and I didn't pick a completely feminine name.

I posted again, in case anyone missed it. And stop thread hijacking, and flaming, or I'll call the Jehovas and have them baptise you and your entire family, against your will.

I'll do it, I'm not kidding. Don't think I won't, I'm crazy, you know.
Saw it, read it: good read!

And don't call the Jehovas, please - they won't come here anymore anyway. Not after they have just been here two weeks ago and didn't like me answering the door drunk, with a cigarette and beer bottle in the hand, listening to heavy metal and asking them what the hell they wanted from me at 16:30 in the afternoon on a sunny day! :D Those faces were priceless!!!

Religious Fools

Socrates: Father of non-religious ethics, invented the Socratic method. Had unorthodox, but unclear faith in the Greek Gods. Ignorant.

Plato: Socrates' student. Founded Neoplatonism, which dramatically influenced Christianity and much of the world and also founded Republicanism. Had abstract beliefs of God, making a metaphorical reference to the sun, believing God is "The Form of the Good" (the epitome of all morality, but not necessarily a physical being). Moron.

Aristotle: Founder of Biology, wrote the first book on logic. Believed in God, because he was the only possible "first cause." Illogical.

Epicurus: Invented Hedonism, contributed to Atheist philosophy. Believed in Gods, but believed they didn't intervene in human affairs. Founded the idea of inalienable rights (life, liberty, and safety). Traitor.

St. Thomas Aquinas: Christian philosopher that taught conscience is an intellectual determination, not given by God. Imbecile.

Al-Khwarizmi: Muslim that invented Algebra. Retarded.

Thales: Invented Geometry, and is considered "Father of Science." First one to propose Gods have no influence on reality, but believed in the abstract concept, "All things are full of God." Idiotic.

René Descartes: Invented modern Geometry, significantly contributed to mathematics. Believed in God. Jackass.

Thomas Thobbes: Contributed to political philosophy (influenced founding fathers of America). Wrote a book on it, called "Leviathan" (the Biblical dragon). Believed in God. Nincompoop.

Blaise Pascal: Invented Probability. Originally, focused on mathematics, but found himself going through a spiritual crisis. Despite being engulfed with the compassionate logic and reason that successfully and adequately answers all of life's fundamental, existential questions, he found himself unhappy, his life meaningless and without purpose. Became religious. Halfwit.

John Locke: Significantly contributed to political science, the major influence on the Founding Fathers ("Life, Liberty, and Property"). Supported the Church of England, believe a national church could create social harmony. Simpleton.

Friedrich Nietzsche: Famous philosopher who attacked Christianity with "God is dead" (meaning, God has no influence on our lives, but had an extremely high opinion of Jesus, though he questioned if he existed. Never advocated either God's existence or atheism, though atheists quote him as if he did. Kook.

Baruch Spinoza: Jewish philosopher who was labeled as being an atheist, at his time. But his beliefs are akin to Buddhism and eastern philosophy (as well as even the Jewish Kabbala). While he doesn't believe God is a conscious arbitor in our lives, he doesn't deny God's existence. But rather, sees God as being reason itself (with a similar idea in Greek philosophy, known as "logos", which was later adopted by Christianity). Nitwit.

George Berkeley: Christian philosopher. Proposed the idea that science is biased, significantly advanced the science of options (based on theories of relative perception). Mongoloid.

Auguste Comte: Founder of Sociology. Proposed the idea of a "New Christianity" based upon brotherly-love, with abstract (but not atheist) religious beliefs. Pinhead.

Albert Einstein: Originally outright claimed to be an atheist, but later wrote, "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." Dimwit.

Stephen Hawking: Modern genius who has substantially contributed to science (basically inventing modern Cosmology). Not Christian, but not necessarily Atheist either, suggesting that religious beliefs are good, but should coincide with sound reason. Dunce.

Founding Fathers of the United States: They were not mostly Christian or mostly non-Christian, but it depends on how you look at it. Defining "Founding Fathers" very broadly, most were Christian. But with a more narrow definition, about half were Deists and unorthodox Christians. But virtually none were atheists. Thomas Paine comes close, but not quite, as he believed in God yet was skeptical, and was mostly considered atheist because of how he belligerently attacked Christianity. As a result of the Founding Fathers believing in God, they said repeatedly, "Christianity is the established religion", and made various references to God in the law, on government buildings, and later on paper money. Incompetent.

And I'm just too lazy to write anymore.. But more than likely, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Francis Bacon, and many, many others who invented the scientific method, were religious as well.


You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

Many of the people you cited were skeptics, agnostics, or atheists.

Einstein rejected a personal god, hence his advocating the "god of spinoza" which in effect was merely the immutable natural laws of the universe.

Hawkings questions the very need for a god concept.

PS The fact that one is 'religious" in no way means that their religion had any positive influence or causal role, in their philosophy.

Does it occure to anybody that Rojo Cubana's post was most likely sarcasm, and even if it wasnt, it should be treated as such to frustrate him?

And then, there are these atheists that claim science "disproves" religion, when that absolutely isn't true for the reason you've explained.
Which ones are those? The only one I've seen make that claim is yourself.

Notice the question: Belief in a "personal" God. This virtually eliminates all Buddhists, Taoists, and certain other religions. It labels people who believe in a God, but not a personal one, as atheists. Do polls asking how many of them are atheists and how many of them believe atheism is "proven" by science, and they're the idiosyncratic minority.
Seriously, there's no way in hell your little statistic reflects reality. 70% of all scientists aren't Buddhists etc. It's a laughable notion. Just own up to it. IOf you did, I might concede that there are more belivers than unbelievers amongst their ranks.

One major problem with atheism, also, is that the definition has changed within the last century. Atheism used to be merely "non-belief" in God, applying to God, only.
I'm not sure the difinition has ever changed. But as far as I'm aware, an atheist is someone who does not recognise the existence of any gods. I'm not aware of any specific monotheistic twist.
Likewise, an atheist can believe there is something. Most just don't. That's why there's that other A word.

The other thing I'd like to mention is that atheists claim religion is "unscientific", yet science and religion converge in Theology, meaning literally, "The study of God."
You're either confusing or obscuring facts. Science isn't science if married with supernatural things. That doesn't mean believers can't do science, or that science can't be used to examine certain effects of religion, such as the health of a group of followers over another ect.

Atheists discredit religion, because "It cannot be observed." But, as black-holes prove, something does not need to be observed for it to exist. Before the effects of black-holes existed, proving their existence, would it have been illogical to believe in the possibility of black-holes? Of course not.

Inobservability, no matter how extreme it is, does not preclude falsehood.
You're, as far as I can tell, the only one wo makes that claim. I'm an atheist and so far 1/3 of my posts (ok maybe not, but many) have been me saying god/religion/the divine cannot be disproved. The very nature of it makes it impossible. Did I mention I'm an atheist? Did I STRESS GOD & SCIENCE ARE COMPLETELY UNRELATED?! DID I REMEMBER TO TELL YOU NOONE CAN DISPROVE GOD?!.... Damnit man. You're the one with the absurd claims. Not me.

Well, I haven't resorted to anything fantastical. If it were fantasy, I wouldn't believe in it, any more than I believe in unicorns - although I think they'd be really cool.

Yea! I'd love being reincarnated as a Hippogriff!

It is a credible belief because it is my belief. Your belief is equally credible, because neither of us can provide evidence to the other that will disprove either belief.

We have chosen opposite sides of an axiom - for varying reasons. We cannot prove the other wrong, because the starting axiom is different.

Difference is, I don't claim someone who disagrees with me must be crazy.

We're splitting hairs. I meant: You'll have a tough time presenting a credible argument to others than yourself. Nothing more.

And.. I really didn't mean to imply you're some deranged gibbering fool. Judging by your posts, I'm convinced your mental health is at least on par with my own. You seem very reasonable and deliberate. Really, I was talking about how I'd react. I'd freak out completely.

=) No prob - gender is a bit difficult to track here and I didn't pick a completely feminine name.
Oddly, I have a feeling I did. A couple of people have taken me for a woman for some reason... :confused:

Look, see? Religion and science can CO-EXIST. WOW! NEW IDEA!

Science attempts to explain the natural world. Its workings, causes, purposes, theories, formulae etc.

Religion attempts to provide humans with a spiritual life with specific goals and rules to follow.

They are different areas of knowledge. By saying one "disproves" another you are being unfair, and utterly misinformed or confused.

Well, an allmighty power up in the sky and everything from nothing seem about as credible. After all there has to be a cause but the only cause that can be thought of is religious(unless there is a scientific idea about before the beginning). The credibility exists in the fact that it fulfills human wants, there is nothing lost by believing it, and that it can be used to fill holes in the human understanding. It can not be disproven and there is advantage to believing in it including better marriages(religious people according to some studies stated to exist by people in a book claim that religious people have longer lasting marriages). As well prayer can be used to get peace and contentment(whether placebo or not prayer is an effective way to feel emotionally satisfied in a time of trouble). The credibility comes that there is no better option and many benefits from doing so(both earthly and beyond).

Look, see? Religion and science can CO-EXIST. WOW! NEW IDEA!

Science attempts to explain the natural world. Its workings, causes, purposes, theories, formulae etc.

Religion attempts to provide humans with a spiritual life with specific goals and rules to follow.

They are different areas of knowledge. By saying one "disproves" another you are being unfair, and utterly misinformed or confused.
Exactly. And my disbelief stems from me not being able to see the point of religion. I don't like the idea very much. I can't believe in it anymore than I can believe the world is flat, and just to add insult to injury, I really really disagree with the concept of a god making rules I can't challenge. The latter reason is why people who try to convert me irks me so much. I have no problem with people like Dem who keep their religion to themselves.

I'm not sure the difinition has ever changed. But as far as I'm aware, an atheist is someone who does not recognise the existence of any gods. I'm not aware of any specific monotheistic twist.
Likewise, an atheist can believe there is something. Most just don't. That's why there's that other A word.
Not, monotheistic. Theistic and Fundamentalist. If they believe in abstract Gods, non-physical, they exist, but on a different plane of existence, or as an idea, and so on, they'd be considered atheists. The old definition (what you mentioned just now) makes Buddhists and Taoists atheists too, when they obviously aren't. They don't believe in any God, but that doesn't make them "atheists", because they have strong religious beliefs. Atheism, now, is more properly characterized as "lack of religious belief."


You're either confusing or obscuring facts. Science isn't science if married with supernatural things. That doesn't mean believers can't do science, or that science can't be used to examine certain effects of religion, such as the health of a group of followers over another ect.
There are many fields of science that are "married" to the supernatural:

-Metaphysics (study of supernatural, physical phenomenon)
-Parapsychology (study of psychic ability)
-Ufology (study of UFOs)
-Cryptozoology (study of mythical animals)
-Theology (study of religion)
-Christology (study of Jesus)
-Alternative Medicine (untraditional or unorthodox medicine)

As for atheists that claim science "disproves" religion, look in the other thread on this. They do it.

Exactly. And my disbelief stems from me not being able to see the point of religion. I don't like the idea very much. I can't believe in it anymore than I can believe the world is flat, and just to add insult to injury, I really really disagree with the concept of a god making rules I can't challenge. The latter reason is why people who try to convert me irks me so much. I have no problem with people like Dem who keep their religion to themselves.

Well, religion satisfies human wants and desires, it provides purpose and prayer is very fulfilling. There are no alternatives better than religion because religion provides a boundary between life and death that does not otherwise exist and that is something that humans can not abide by as well religion provides a beginning. The thing is that the way you live your life is not something that many people could understand or abide by and I doubt that you would wish an all-powerful and all-wise God disagreeing with you. But I will say a prayer for you(just kidding I am too much of a selfish bastard to do so :p ). I probably should not have posted this little post thingy anyway but oh well, I am bored and despite going off on a limb and ending up totally wrong this should cure my boredom.

All versions of Intelligent design are inherently unscentific. They all rely on an untestable supernatural source. Science has to be testable in some way and science can't use a supernatural agent to alter how nature works in order for a theory to function.

Empirical testing may not be possible at this time, maybe or maybe not in the future as regarding a supernatural source.This in itself does not preclude the possibility of it's truth nor does it exclude it from the scientific search for knowledge. Many things have been thought impossible and at best improbable to prove in the past. Than in a moment of scientific "eureka" that which was thought as impossible is proven not. To say the search can not and should not include all areas is leaving out the possibility of useful discoveries in those areas. In otherwords be careful of what you discount as useful... you may find you need it later :).

Exactly. And my disbelief stems from me not being able to see the point of religion. I don't like the idea very much. I can't believe in it anymore than I can believe the world is flat, and just to add insult to injury, I really really disagree with the concept of a god making rules I can't challenge. The latter reason is why people who try to convert me irks me so much. I have no problem with people like Dem who keep their religion to themselves.

Up to you. If you won't accept religion, nobody can force you to.

But the human sciences will always be disputed, simply because of its "human" nature. However, because they are disputed, doesn't mean that they are any less credible or useful than the natural sciences. Without the human sciences, life is just a dull, boring drawl.

There are many fields of science that are "married" to the supernatural:

-Metaphysics (study of supernatural, physical phenomenon)
-Parapsychology (study of psychic ability)
-Ufology (study of UFOs)
-Cryptozoology (study of mythical animals)
-Theology (study of religion)
-Christology (study of Jesus)
-Alternative Medicine (untraditional or unorthodox medicine)


None of those are real sciences. They are social studies or insanities(maybe even both in some cases). They can not be observed or experimented on.(very few have seen Jesus and an experiment about him can not be performed). As well Alternative medicine is not necessarily a science because no theory can logically be drawn from their conclusions. I am somewhat religious but I will not have science slandered with being associated with some of that garbage.

Of the fields I mentioned (in case your bring this up), all of them except for Theology, Christology, and Alternative Medicine have been labeled by some as pseudosciences. Even prominent scientists disagree on that, though, depending on the field. In other words, some sciences such as Ufology are pretty much old dominated by crackpots and frauds. But parapsychology, for example, was studied for 20 years by the CIA. Cryptozoology (proving mythical animals really exist) should no longer be regarded as a "pseudoscience", either, because they've had actual results.

They argue that unyielding skepticism, refusing to even investigate such claims is foolish. Myths are quite often based in some kind of fact. Because of investigation, scientists have discovered new species of pre-historic apes, the giant and colossal squids, the mountain gorilla, the platypus, the komodo dragon, and many other animals which were previously considered hoaxes or myths.

Alternative medicine was once considered a pseudoscience, but has since changed because of the massive amount of results they've had. They've proven meditation has mental and physical health benefits, they've found the benefits of certain curative herbs used in foreign cultures, found raw fruits to vegetables to contain healthy things (such as lycopene) not found in processed foods, and just recently, alternative medicine announced a study proving that accupuncture has a health benefit unexplainable by claiming it's merely a placebo. Accupuncture, obviously, is tied to the supernatural, because it's based upon the Buddhist and Hindu concept of "chakras", or "points of energy" within the body. Because of the results of Alternative medicine, it is no longer considered a pseudoscience, and the government spends a substantial amount of money researching it, at NIH.

Also, my psychology professor in college said that parapsychology was fascinating and should be further studied. For example, he noted one study which proved dogs know when their masters come home, without any known sensory perception. Both the U.S. and Soviet Union studied parapsychology during the Cold War. Of the CIA's study (the Stargate Project), the two final, major peer reviews on it contradicted. One scientist said it didn't "prove" psychic ability, but was compelling enough for continued study. The other scientist claimed the studies proved experiments on psychic ability were either poorly done, or well-done and yielded no results.

Check out the list of pseudosciences:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Fields_often_associated_with_pseudoscience

EDIT: I see someone discredited those sciences rather quickly. My intellectual intuition is good. :)

*snip*

Pseudoscience is such a misleading name. It gives the impression that the natural sciences are above all other areas of knowledge - which are not. Natural sciences are only one small bit of the entire realm of knowledge.

Not, monotheistic. Theistic and Fundamentalist. If they believe in abstract Gods, non-physical, they exist, but on a different plane of existence, or as an idea, and so on, they'd be considered atheists. The old definition (what you mentioned just now) makes Buddhists and Taoists atheists too, when they obviously aren't. They don't believe in any God, but that doesn't make them "atheists", because they have strong religious beliefs. Atheism, now, is more properly characterized as "lack of religious belief."
I'll take your word for it. People just forgot to inform me the label changed. No matter, I remain an atheist under your definition, so I haven't been spreading misinformation.
There are many fields of science that are "married" to the supernatural:

-Metaphysics (study of supernatural, physical phenomenon)
-Parapsychology (study of psychic ability)
-Ufology (study of UFOs)
-Cryptozoology (study of mythical animals)
-Theology (study of religion)
-Christology (study of Jesus)
-Alternative Medicine (untraditional or unorthodox medicine)

As for atheists that claim science "disproves" religion, look in the other thread on this. They do it.
In your last post, you made it sound like some people were putting god & science in the same box. The examples you mention here, like the one I mentioned, doesn't do that. However, if data from such studies are used to formulate theories on the divine, we find ourselves outside tyhe realm of science. This is what philosophy is for.
Well, religion satisfies human wants and desires, it provides purpose and prayer is very fulfilling. There are no alternatives better than religion because religion provides a boundary between life and death that does not otherwise exist and that is something that humans can not abide by as well religion provides a beginning. The thing is that the way you live your life is not something that many people could understand or abide by and I doubt that you would wish an all-powerful and all-wise God disagreeing with you.
Let's just agree to disagree. There are plenty of philosophical & pt unfalsifiable scientific theories regarding the birth of the universe as we lnow it. There are also plenty of weird theories on the nature of time, all of which doesn't have anything to do with the divine. And several of them are somewhat credible, because they cooperate with what we know.
The personal stuff... Well, since people in these parts stopped going to confession, a lot of people have started seeing a psychiatrist. Go with whatever makes you happy. Some people meditate instead of praying. I think the bonus is you don't feel silly afterwards, because you don't expect anything extrodinary to happen (j/k).
Like I've said plenty of times elsewhere, if there is a god, he's a mean old git, and I already have a grudge with him. And as someone else said, I will smile as I burn in hell, knowing I'm a much better being than he is. I don't buy it, and short of a god appearing infront of me, in public, demonstrating beyond all doubt that it is a god, I will never believe anything of the sort. I'm skeptic by nature.
Empirical testing may not be possible at this time, maybe or maybe not in the future as regarding a supernatural source.This in itself does not preclude the possibility of it's truth nor does it exclude it from the scientific search for knowledge. Many things have been thought impossible and at best improbable to prove in the past
Science is the wrong discipline for this sort of thing. Claiming it is science is just wrong. It's anti-science. Other than that, there's not much anyone can say about what you claim.
Up to you. If you won't accept religion, nobody can force you to.
Exactly! I can't force you to dump your faiths either. And I'm not trying to. :)
But the human sciences will always be disputed, simply because of its "human" nature. However, because they are disputed, doesn't mean that they are any less credible or useful than the natural sciences. Without the human sciences, life is just a dull, boring drawl.
Science is meant to be disputed. That's the whole point of using it. The more it's disputed, the more reliable it gets ;)


EDIT: I'm very sorry about that TBC. It's late, I fucked up... Wasn't intentional :(

Well right, but I do think that natural sciences are the "real sciences". Despite however interesting these other things may be they have not earned their keep and shown any physical phenomena(ufology) and what mythical animal has been discovered? Alternative medicine is a bit of an exception because it involves physical phenomena but not the study of. It is only medicine that has not been fully developed by western medicine. But I disagree that the pseudosciences should EVER be considered actual sciences. I like science but I do not like all of these pseudosciences daring to try to add legitimacy to themselves by saying that they are a "science" when they are only wackos trying to prove some idiotic conspiracy theory or something. LEAVE ACTUAL SCIENCE ALONE. DO NOT TRY TO CLAIM TO BE A SCIENCE WITHOUT PROOF. It is demeaning to science to be subjected to such.

The Similized world

the last two quotes on your post ... are not by me... don't know how my name got attached to them. Disturbingly strange.

The last two should have been attributed to Dragon's Bay.

Also my point is new sciences can be discovered. Many sciences today were looked on with suspicion at least or considered even witchcraft. All I am saying is be careful of precluding anything completely. That is pretty much it for me for now.... yawn.

Well, I don't think you understand religion, The Similized World. One thing is that only an idiotic religious person would expect some miracle to happen after a prayer(idiots are stupid no matter what). As well, God is better than you are, I will disagree with you and I suppose that you have the right to be an atheist but God is infinitely better than you and if you burn, you will burn with the knowledge that you are infinitely wrong and deserving because it is possible to resist him on earth but your soul would collapse before his power and his awesomeness. But yeah I can not prove he exists and we are of different minds which has been proven on another thread. I simply see God as a source of purpose because there is no other justification for life becausemost things that others suggest are not materialistic and instead focus on something that they think has importance but really only has one if there is some higher morallity or virtue(after all people despite their good qualities are made of the same sub-atomic particles as rocks)

Aristotle: Founder of Biology, wrote the first book on logic. Believed in God, because he was the only possible "first cause." Illogical.

Well no shit, nobody had offered any other solution. This is entirely flawed, all of these people lived in a time when belief in god was unquestioned. The idea of a universe devoid of any god is recent, as it is only recently that most events in the universe have been scientifically explained. Each one of these people accidentally helped to debunk god from a position of being unquestioned.

There's no way to disprove god, but at the same time, there is no proof for god either.

Well, I don't think you understand religion, The Similized World. One thing is that only an idiotic religious person would expect some miracle to happen after a prayer(idiots are stupid no matter what). As well, God is better than you are, I will disagree with you and I suppose that you have the right to be an atheist but God is infinitely better than you and if you burn, you will burn with the knowledge that you are infinitely wrong and deserving because it is possible to resist him on earth but your soul would collapse before his power and his awesomeness. But yeah I can not prove he exists and we are of different minds which has been proven on another thread. I simply see God as a source of purpose because there is no other justification for life becausemost things that others suggest are not materialistic and instead focus on something that they think has importance but really only has one if there is some higher morallity or virtue(after all people despite their good qualities are made of the same sub-atomic particles as rocks)

Now we combined Pascal's wager with Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God (http://www.jonathanedwards.com/sermons/Warnings/sinners.htm).

How special. :rolleyes:

The appeal to consequences (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/conseq.php) is fallacious either way.

And ... atheism != nihilism, sparky. ;)

Well, nihilism is the only philosophy that takes into account the full idea of materialistic lack of higher ideals. Higher ideals are in no way mandated by life, especially considering that under a materialistic view life is not that great of a thing anyway. Ultimately morality assumes a higher thing(purpose, good, any of that). Morality is spiritual, religion is spiritual, religion is described as being spiritual. I see spirituality=religion, not necessarily my religion but it most certainly is not pure atheism which denies spirituallity based on a lack of evidence to support it. Ultimately the moral atheist idea, requires that an atheist makes a few assumptions that are not backed up by anything(such as the importance of others and the importance of self) these ideas are not backed up by any physical thing and to say that instinct is the only reason you do as such is to deny that you have free will to decide for yourself. Ultimately I see morality as spiritual and spirituallity as a form of religion and atheism as the denial of religion/spirituallity.

Well, I don't think you understand religion, The Similized World. One thing is that only an idiotic religious person would expect some miracle to happen after a prayer(idiots are stupid no matter what).
It was just a joke, hence the "(j/k)".

As well, God is better than you are, I will disagree with you and I suppose that you have the right to be an atheist but God is infinitely better than you and if you burn, you will burn with the knowledge that you are infinitely wrong and deserving because it is possible to resist him on earth but your soul would collapse before his power and his awesomeness. But yeah I can not prove he exists and we are of different minds which has been proven on another thread. I simply see God as a source of purpose because there is no other justification for life because most things that others suggest are not materialistic and instead focus on something that they think has importance but really only has one if there is some higher morallity or virtue(after all people despite their good qualities are made of the same sub-atomic particles as rocks)
There is no question about my right to believe or disbelievve anything I want. If you think otherwise, consider me your sworn enemy. Your personal ideas about the world takes no precedence over others. I will gladly give my life in defence of that.
Serious matters aside, it is somewhat offensive to me that you presume to lecture me on my qualities, and what punishment you think I deserve because of them. You don't know me well enough for that. Of course, you just affirmed that god is as evil as can be. Neverending torture, simply for not believing in it? Very nice indeed...
I have no doubt about the strength of your faith. I do not doubt that you have no joy in life other than what you derive from worthship. Neither do I doubt your utter lack of empathy & ethics. I must say, you make a compelling case against the benefits of religion. If all religious people were like you, I would not have any hope for humanity. It sounds dangerous to me, both for your own sanity and for the society you're part of. I hope the display of extremism was for my benefit.

Well, nihilism is the only philosophy that takes into account the full idea of materialistic lack of higher ideals. Higher ideals are in no way mandated by life, especially considering that under a materialistic view life is not that great of a thing anyway. Ultimately morality assumes a higher thing(purpose, good, any of that). Morality is spiritual, religion is spiritual, religion is described as being spiritual. I see spirituality=religion, not necessarily my religion but it most certainly is not pure atheism which denies spirituallity based on a lack of evidence to support it. Ultimately the moral atheist idea, requires that an atheist makes a few assumptions that are not backed up by anything(such as the importance of others and the importance of self) these ideas are not backed up by any physical thing and to say that instinct is the only reason you do as such is to deny that you have free will to decide for yourself. Ultimately I see morality as spiritual and spirituallity as a form of religion and atheism as the denial of religion/spirituallity.

If you define morality as spirituality and atheism as the denial of spirituality, then -- by your frickin' definition -- atheism is the denial of morality.

Did you read Shrub's list at all?

There are several athiests & materialists on that list. And a *shudder* nihilist.

All of your premises are false. For example:

Atheism is not necessarily materialism.

Atheism is not necessarily the denial of higher ideals.

Atheism is not necessarily the denial of morality.

Atheism does not necessarily deny a higher purpose to life.

Morality does not necessarily require a higher purpose to life.

Materialism does not necessarily deny the existence of ideals.

Religion is not necessarily moral.

Morality is not necessarily religious.

Atheism does not necessarily even deny spirituality.

Apparently, we need to start with Philosophy 101:

How do you know/believe you exist?

How do you know/believe anything?

Cat, 2 things:

1: HolyA equates philosophy with religion. Don't ask me why, but he does.

2: Will you marry me? You fucking rule :p

Friedrich Nietzsche: Famous philosopher who attacked Christianity with "God is dead" (meaning, God has no influence on our lives, but had an extremely high opinion of Jesus, though he questioned if he existed. Never advocated either God's existence or atheism, though atheists quote him as if he did. Kook.
hope this hasn't been mentioned, but the actual quote is "God is dead, and you and I have killed him"

Well no shit, nobody had offered any other solution. This is entirely flawed, all of these people lived in a time when belief in god was unquestioned. The idea of a universe devoid of any god is recent, as it is only recently that most events in the universe have been scientifically explained. Each one of these people accidentally helped to debunk god from a position of being unquestioned.

There's no way to disprove god, but at the same time, there is no proof for god either.



Maybe one day, scientists will solve that pesky origin-of-matter question ;)

Apparently, we need to start with Philosophy 101:

How do you know/believe you exist?

How do you know/believe anything?

One thing is that a belief does not have to be proven and therefore I believe because I believe, there is no proof, only assumption. As well, when you say that atheism has spirituallity and such what about Buddhism? Buddhism is a godless religion, it can be regarded as a philosophy but it is seen by many as a religion. If you are regarding Buddhism as atheism and philosophy then of course you have undone the assumption of meaning I was using for my arguments(all meanings are assumed and I considered the argument as religion vs nonreligion). But a few of your assumptions I consider false(such as morality does require higher purpose and order otherwise what is the frickin' point).

Maybe one day, scientists will solve that pesky origin-of-matter question ;)
They have several interesting suggestions already. We just lack the technology to test them ;)

HolyA, i found a link you might want to look at. I'm not sure Cat really wants to write you a 300 page essey on ehtics. I know I don't.

Ethics - By Paul Newall (http://www.galilean-library.org/int11.html)

It was just a joke, hence the "(j/k)".


There is no question about my right to believe or disbelievve anything I want. If you think otherwise, consider me your sworn enemy. Your personal ideas about the world takes no precedence over others. I will gladly give my life in defence of that.
Serious matters aside, it is somewhat offensive to me that you presume to lecture me on my qualities, and what punishment you think I deserve because of them. You don't know me well enough for that. Of course, you just affirmed that god is as evil as can be. Neverending torture, simply for not believing in it? Very nice indeed...
I have no doubt about the strength of your faith. I do not doubt that you have no joy in life other than what you derive from worthship. Neither do I doubt your utter lack of empathy & ethics. I must say, you make a compelling case against the benefits of religion. If all religious people were like you, I would not have any hope for humanity. It sounds dangerous to me, both for your own sanity and for the society you're part of. I hope the display of extremism was for my benefit.
Oops I am sorry for missunderstanding the (j/k), I am not very good at abbreviations and such. I do think I may have gone a little too far, I tend to do that at times. As well I am actually less religious than I seem to be on the internet, just like atheists make fun of religion on the internet despite their tolerance, I get uber-religious and authoritarian. I also have a lack of empathy due to a mild psychological disorder,(I am working on the ethics, I tend to be very lawful). I was actually not trying to say that you would burn in hell, actually you said that first, I believe you said something about burning in hell with a smile because you were better than God(I did take some offense to that arrogance) and of course I tried to explain that hell is much worse than anyone could ever imagine(if it exists of course, one could argue that a supreme lord knows that we are all fools and deserve his mercy). I do think that the world would be better if everyone did believe as I did(I am an authoritarian, that explains the extremism better than the religion) and I believe as I do partially because I am trying to strengthen my own faith and partially because of my high propensity towards authoritarianism. Ultimately you do not agree with authoritarianism, your disagreement with me is because I was a bit overzealous and did not show as much reserve as I should have regarding my political beliefs(which I do believe are beneficial because if everyone does as they should then more can be accomplished). Look, I am sorry for generating such fierce zeal and projecting it on my religion(especially true when I have not read a bible in such a long time or gone to church and I may even be overcompensating for my spiritual flaws)

This poll was using questions on religiosity first posited by Leuba - and long since discarded by sociologists as they do not adequately represent the range of religiosity. In fact, the questions used can't even be applied to Eastern religions. The numbers you get are so skewed it isn't even funny.

As I already said you can argue you can skew the numbers by changing the question but I wouldn't think they were skewed all that very much... were you planning on arguing that of the 70% of NAS members expressing disbelief in a personal diety only about 5% of THEM were atheist so that we can get down even close to President Shrub's numbers?

<sigh>

I'm not teaching philosophy 101 tonight. Please look at the following.

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism)
Ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics)
Why Be a Good Person? (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/92/story_9263_1.html)
An Introduction to Atheism (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html)
ETHICS WITHOUT GODS (http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ethics.html)
Atheists Can Be Moral, Too (http://speakout.com/activism/opinions/4991-1.html)
Morality Requires God ... or Does It? (http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick_17_3.html)
Is there anything good about atheism? (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/positive.html)
The Moral Foundations of Atheism and Christianity (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/mfound.html)
Why Be Moral? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/whymoral.html)
Why Be Moral? (version2) (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_parsons/whymoral.html)

That should satisfy you for a while. ;)

Hi. I've been reading this for the last...oh, I dunno...hour or so. It's really interesting.

I think it may be time for a quick recap. See, there have been so many arguments, counterarguments, misunderstandings, and squabbles over numbers and definitions that I'm having trouble keeping track of it all.

In short, I'd like to present two little things. Hopefully nothing too complex:

1) the links Cat just posted look interesting. As a liberal-ish Catholic who likes his Plato and Berekely with a side of Kant, I've had little exposure to atheist philosophy. Indeed, I was unaware there was a philosophy, or even multiple definitions. Many thanks to you and the rest of the NSers for enlightening me.

2) I've been thinking about the very first post, the one starting this thread. And then thinking about all the ones after. In all honesty, I believe we've had a few red herrings, and I fear the original idea has not yet even been responded to or understood. I'm not entirely sure if the original poster is being sarcastic or serious. I'm trying to understand what the greater meaning is behind that first post.

3) I know I said only 2 things. I'll make this quick: Would you all please do my poor eyes a big favor? Use the enter key to make your posts easier to read, and please use some simpler sentence structures. I feel like I'm reading Thomas Carlyle trying to channel Charles Dickens and Leo Tolstoy all at the same time!

Thank you all once again for a great read. And, as Socrates intended, I hope these debates will end with a mutual gain in enlightenment, rather than a daring clash of "verbal one-upmanship."

Empirical testing may not be possible at this time, maybe or maybe not in the future as regarding a supernatural source.This in itself does not preclude the possibility of it's truth nor does it exclude it from the scientific search for knowledge. Many things have been thought impossible and at best improbable to prove in the past. Than in a moment of scientific "eureka" that which was thought as impossible is proven not. To say the search can not and should not include all areas is leaving out the possibility of useful discoveries in those areas. In otherwords be careful of what you discount as useful... you may find you need it later :).

By the very definition of supernatural, science cannot study it. Anything supernatural is outside the realm of the laws of the universe, and is thus outside of the realm of science.

There are many fields of science that are "married" to the supernatural:

-Metaphysics (study of supernatural, physical phenomenon)
-Parapsychology (study of psychic ability)
-Ufology (study of UFOs)
-Cryptozoology (study of mythical animals)
-Theology (study of religion)
-Christology (study of Jesus)
-Alternative Medicine (untraditional or unorthodox medicine)

None of these are science, except possibly ufology and parapsychology (they could be trying to examine the evidence through the scientific method).

Don't mistake everything that ends in "-ology" as science.

Pseudoscience is such a misleading name. It gives the impression that the natural sciences are above all other areas of knowledge - which are not. Natural sciences are only one small bit of the entire realm of knowledge.

I don' tthink it suggests that at all.

What it suggests is that the natural sciences are true science, while the pseudosciences do not meet the full definition of science, despite attempting to use scientific terms. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are lesser areas of knowledge - simply that they aren't science.

As I already said you can argue you can skew the numbers by changing the question but I wouldn't think they were skewed all that very much... were you planning on arguing that of the 70% of NAS members expressing disbelief in a personal diety only about 5% of THEM were atheist so that we can get down even close to President Shrub's numbers?

Actually, I would argue that the number of actual atheists is probably somewhere between 2 and 10% - same as the general population.

Unfortunately, I have yet to see a study done where proper religiosity questions were used and scientists were compared to the general population. It is my feeling from the field that you would have more agnostics and/or more philosophical religions in the sciences - and you would certainly have less believing in a "personal God", but that is unclear without a better study.

The studies that have been done, however, show that level of education, etc., don't seem to change religiosity much. Thus, there is no real reason to believe that scientists would be far outside the curve of the general population on this.

I think it may be time for a quick recap. See, there have been so many arguments, counterarguments, misunderstandings, and squabbles over numbers and definitions that I'm having trouble keeping track of it all.
Maybe you should write one?

1) the links Cat just posted look interesting. As a liberal-ish Catholic who likes his Plato and Berekely with a side of Kant, I've had little exposure to atheist philosophy. Indeed, I was unaware there was a philosophy, or even multiple definitions. Many thanks to you and the rest of the NSers for enlightening me.
Yea, that Cat kicks ass.
2) I've been thinking about the very first post, the one starting this thread. And then thinking about all the ones after. In all honesty, I believe we've had a few red herrings, and I fear the original idea has not yet even been responded to or understood. I'm not entirely sure if the original poster is being sarcastic or serious. I'm trying to understand what the greater meaning is behind that first post.
I haven't addressed the initial post because I consider it useless flamebait. Shrub is very religious and has a major issue with atheists. Look for the "Why I fear atheists more than death" thread (not the exact name, but you get the idea). The debate turned interesting and fun, so I joined in.
3) I know I said only 2 things. I'll make this quick: Would you all please do my poor eyes a big favor? Use the enter key to make your posts easier to read, and please use some simpler sentence structures. I feel like I'm reading Thomas Carlyle trying to channel Charles Dickens and Leo Tolstoy all at the same time!
Seconded!!! It's a pain in the arse.


HolyA, I'm sorry if I goaded you into that display of indignant religious fury. I'm relieved to hear it was mostly for my benefit. Tip of the day: Just tell me if I piss you off. It makes communication a lot easier. It's hard to judge eachother without any bodylanguage to help.

And!! Ha! I knew you'd define philosophy as religion! Do I win something?

Wow. You guys don't miss a beat! Ok. Here's the recap:

...unfortunately, I don't quite recall all the names, so bear with me!

The first post was made, calling numerous philosophers and thinkers fools for having religious beliefs. The thread got off to slow start, with the usual "I have my belief and that's ok because it's mine. You have your belief and that's ok because it's yours."

Then some people got offended because they perceived that the Atheist side was threatening religion. Meanwhile, the atheist side was just saying "Hey! Science and religion! Oil and water! No mixxy, eh?" But the 'some people's' weren't hearing it.

Then came the Great War of the Numbers: One Dude posted some stats about how few scientists are atheists versus theists or fundamentalists or potato worshippers. (we'll get to the Great War of Definitions in about two paragraphs.)

The War of the Numbers is still going on: with the Other Guy saying "Nah, man! There's a lotta scientists who are atheists" and the One Dude saying "Yeah, well, I counted with my Super Deluxe Calculator of Supreme...eh...Statistic Calculation!"

"My numbers are right!"
"No mine are!"

Eventually, hopefully, both sides realized that no one was trying to convert anybody. Not to atheism. Not to theism. And definitely not to potato worship.

Meanwhile, in another stream of conciousness, the Oil and Water/Science and Religion argument was in full swing, drawing analogies between the belief in/personal experiences of monsters under the bed, elves, and unicorns, and the belief in/personal experiences of God.

And then someone made a city slickers reference. To which I reply: "Come and get me! Come and get me! Come and get me!" And also: "Phil can't come to the phone right now. He's cooking breakfast for his underwear. Oh me? I'm a pair of his socks." Note: those quotations were from the sequel.

Which brings us to a minor component of this thread: nit-picking. Sometimes, Mr. Whatsisname will say "Broccoli are green and should be eaten at dinner." Naturally, Ms. Whatsername will reply: "Ah! But according to your preliminary argument, and according to the rules of extravagant language and overly dramatic speech to which I comply wholeheartedly: you clearly stated that Broccoli was yellow and cheesy!"

To which Mr. Whatsisname's reply was: "That depends on your definition of yellow."

(my mind works in analogies. it's 3AM on the East Coast of North America. That's why I'm talking like a Martian. No offense to the Martians.)

Now then: Basically, this all boiled down to an argument over how to define atheism, clarification over previous statements, and a quick little flaming that may have been sarcasm.

So yeah. Now, keep in mind. Some of us at this point were still in the Great Number War. And the rest of us had just entered the Great Definition War. Semantics was the battleground, deconstructionism and master narratives the weapons of choice. I think. I'm a little rusty on my post-modernism and, well, 20th century philosophy.

Various arguments were put forth, most of them quite similar to each other and some even arguing the same thing (albeit for different sides). Each argument was shot down, as the two superpowers waged a war of: "Hey, your logic is flawed!"
"No your logic is flawed!"
"Well, your logic is flawed times infinity!"
"Your logic is the flawedest in the entire Univerth!"
"Nuh-uhhhhh!"
"Oh yeah? Well...my logic is rubber and you're glue. Whatever you say..."

Ok. Now I'm just being silly.

Oh! I remember an important part! Early on, before the Wars of Definitions and Numbers, there was the whole: "Is Intelligent Design a good idea or not?" discussion. This discussion led to the "Is debate between Creationists and anti-creationists a good idea or not?" discussion.

Both seem to be on the backburner right now, but they crop up every now and then. Usually between shouts of: "But life is meaningless without God!" and counterpoints of "But I can still eat chocolate chip cookies!"

Somewhere in there, there was an effort to make some sense of the original post's Master List. However, all attempts to find common ground among these religious philosophers were either cast down or just plain ignored; I'm not sure which.

And there was this whole hooplah about if you can't experience something, can't measure it empirically, basically, it doesn't exist. It may to you. But not to some other dudes.

And so began an interesting phase in the Definition War. What is an acceptable science? Some posters were saying "Hey! Sociology and psychology and stuff don't use so much empiricism. They go for the rationalism. Maybe Theology can be lumped in there? That way we don't have to provide physical evidence. Yay us!"

And a few other arguments that went like this: "Maybe we should redefine what science is? Is science/scientific method a perfect system for establishing truth."

But the atheists weren't hearin' it: "No way. You guys don't get off the hook that easy! You're still lumpin' spiritual, supernatural stuff in with the natural. And God can only be in the supernatural. Likewise, science can only be in the natural."

Then someone got lazy...that's really the only explanation I can think of...and said: "Oh yeah? Well what about cryptozoology (which has had progress) and parapsychology? And what about all those -ologies that you can see they do on X-files? I mean, if the Sci-fi channel does it, there has to be some science there, right?"

It wasn't that bad an argument. But, see, first they listed UFO-ology as a science (they might as well have said "alchemy" or "numerology"). Then they put theology over in that category. Then someone finally wised up and said, "Doh! You guys! Just cuz it's an -ology doesn't make it a science! For example, philology isn't really a science. It's the 'study of' how language has evolved. But you can't put Old Norse in a beaker, heat it at 220 K, and expect to get a gaseous strain of Modern Swedish, right?"

So began the Campaign to Categorize and Define Science.
During these posts, people said stuff like: "Ok. Biology is a true science. Sociology is a soft science."

Then there was the "Pascal's Wager! let's do that!" and the "we're just here to have kids and die" arguments. Neither one really worked. And yeah, someone got mistaken for a man.

And then some arguments got repeated. People got offended...again...people agreed to disagree...again...people made heated arguments that probably should've been previewed before posting...again.

And someone defined philosophy as religion. I think that was his attempt at uniting science and religion. I'm not sure. Basically, it seems we've all agreed on three things: Science, Philosophy, and Religion are all separate concepts. Well...most of us are in agreement. Personally, I think they're interrelated, but it's 3:41, and I have to work out tomorrow morning. So good night.

PS. Sorry if stuff is out of order.

Well, I have an argument for secularism in government and a philosophy that supports golden rule morality in atheism, but this'll take a while to type up. I apologize if the discussion wavers from the points I'm trying to address.

Argument for Secularism in Government

Assumptions: Inductive logic (A therefore B)

Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am.

Your thoughts show that you are a conscious individual, or at the very least, percieved as one. There really is no difference here, but the superficial differentiation is required to be noted.

As a conscious individual, you recieve input via several different senses (namely, five: sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch). Using these senses you can observe the physical universe around you. Everything that you assume to exist must, for the sake of intellectual honesty, effect you through one of these five senses.

Can we prove these senses are not lieing to you? Of course not, but is it necessary to assume they are when, by definition, what is really happening has no effect on you if your senses are lieing to you. The same can be said of the observed universe: only things you have been effected by in some way through your senses (whether it seeing something, smelling it, hearing it, tasting it, or feeling it) can truely be assumed to exist.

Therefore, a materialistic world is born, one where something must not be disproven by logic to be extant. If we can disprove something using logic, than it does not exist. This logic is born of our own experiences, as I described: if something effects us, we can assume it exists. Whether or not it really does exist on some ultimate level is irrelevent; it effects us and that is all that matters. Anything is natural and materialistic if it effects us.

Supernatural phenomenae, by definition, do not effect us. Therefore, whether or not they do exist or did happen is irrelevent because it has no bearing on us.

This, however, does not necessitate any kind of universal proof; you need not prove anything to anyone else, it is personal experience and proof that matters because, in reality, you cannot prove anything to anyone else because it is all based on viewpoint, perspective, and interpretation of experience.

Therefore, someone could believe an experience they've had is a result of intervention by a god, gods, or invisible pink unicorn. This makes it natural and real to them because it has had an effect on them.

However, since we do not all have the same viewpoint, and I use we because we observe others like us so we must assume they exist, and cannot prove to each other any experience (or at least any interpretation of shared experience), one must take into account that a culture should then be run on that which can be logically based: personal effects by a god/gods/etc are all well and good for the individual, but they cannot be proven on a culture-wide basis. Therefore, such a requirement for logical base says we must devise some kind of method that can allow us to, as an entire people, find that which we can share as experience and interpretation.

Enter the scientific method. It is based entirely on the assumption of inductive logic, but then again, so is this entire essay (and believe me, the world gets crazy without inductive logic). We apply it to this conglomeration of individual viewpoints and we get results that effect all of us, that are, in a word, real.

Does this mean a god/gods/etc don't exist? No, it just means belief in such without a personal experience is extraneous and completely un-called for. You are free to believe if you wish, but do not ask anyone else to do so, regardless of personal experience or not.

The Golden Rule and Atheism

Assumptions: Inductive logic

We all know the Golden Rule (at least, I hope we all do). Do unto others as you would wish done unto thineself. In short: only do to other people what you would want other people doing to you.

This leads to a sort of mutual respect between people. Animosity may exist for whatever reason, but you wouldn't kill your neighbor because you would not want to be killed yourself.

We all know that everyone, in some way, seeks mental gratification. Not necessarily pleasure in the physical sense of the word, but even those who seek pain are only aiming to find mental pleasure. Everyone seeks pleasure, we have observed this and stands the test of logic.

Now, what is the best way to guarentee that your own pleasure is not violated by others for their pleasure? We institute the Golden Rule as a sort of legally binding social contract between us. This leads to law, mutual respect, and is a form of completely atheist philosophical morality.

This means that everyone has a greater chance of seeking their own pleasure without having to fear those who would deny them that desire.

Religious Fools
*snip
...many others who invented the scientific method, were religious as well.
Hello, non-believer here, if your wondering.

I have proof that you are an intolerant moron and that I would like to hit you with a blunt object.

OMG I R SCIENCEY ROFLCOPTER

<tour de force summary>

*Applauds*

They should pay you to do this every ten pages or so on the mega-threads.

*Throws flowers.*

*snip*

Ok, all you have done here is take some of humanities greatest minds and put a one worded sentence of insult at the end of your description of them without saying why you believe they are stupid. I sincerely doubt your more intellegent than them.

You know...I had just typed this beautiful post...and my computer ate it. Or something did. Ok, I guess that's a personal experience of divinity :rolleyes: God clearly wants me to get my butt to sleep.

But my butt isn't tired.

So, I'll just sum up what I originally typed, more concisely yet hopefully just as eloquent.

Your system is marvelous, with one flaw. Your world operates on the assumption that the natural world (which appears to include human interactions and human emotions) operates on a purely logical, empirical basis.

Ok. So there's this village. And a tornado wipes it out. But one kid survives. (Let's call him Bob) Bob wants to know why the torndao wiped out his village.

Of course, the logical reason is weather patterns, wind currents, and barometric pressures.

My point is that there are some places where logic is lacking. Disease, mudslides, earthquakes, tornadoes, drought, famine, poverty, oppression, slavery. All these things seem to thrive in the real world. Somehow, wind patterns and climate changes just don't seem to cut it. Something in Bob wants more than that.

Humans have trouble obeying the beautiful logic of the golden rule. I propose that humans have trouble being logical, and so, crime and violence and exploitation occur on planet Earth.

Ok. So we have human weakness and Nature, Red in Tooth and Claw. Logically, a benevolent and omniscient Deity (let's call him Potato) could not exist. If Potato existed, and Potato is omniscient, benevolent, and creator of the Earth, he wants his creation to be in a state of perpetual bliss and perfection.

This is not the case. Strife and hardship and evil exist. Therefore, Potato does not exist.

Allow me to suggest two possible ways in which Potato and evil could exist simultaneously:

1: Potato designs humanity with the ability to stop the evil in the world through social reform, better education, science, medicine. Poverty can be eliminated. Utopia is possible, and humanity is in charge of its own destiny.

2: a malignant force of equal or lesser power to Potato (whom is omniscient, remember) has usurped control of the natural forces. I.e.: Diseases, droughts, tornadoes.

Meanwhile, humanity has a challenge in that, though a logical creature with logical goals, etc., it has problems being logical. Therefore, since Potato is benevolent, omnipotent, and logical, Potato will eventually take back control of Earth and secure some way for humanity to regain complete control over its logical faculties.

Obviously, there is no logical reason to believe in any religion. Religion is irrational. But here is my question: What are the problems with being irrational in this sense if we can use this irrationality as a driving force toward improving the condition of humanity? Not through armed force or conversion. I mean going out, giving to charity, helping the poor, sending money, aid, and ourselves to Africa.

How about one of us cures AIDS, instead of waiting around for some supergenius or for some deity to solve all our problems for us?

Just because some dumb humans misrepresented 'God' does not in any way disprove 'God's existance, mind you.

It should probably be noted that the only way in which many of these people could attain and hold an academic post was through the church. It was also hardly acceptable to even consider atheism or the like before the 1970's.

Don't mistake everything that ends in "-ology" as science.
Exactly. "-ology" means 'the study of', not 'the science of'.

Religious Fools

Socrates: Father of non-religious ethics, invented the Socratic method. Had unorthodox, but unclear faith in the Greek Gods. Ignorant.

Plato: Socrates' student. Founded Neoplatonism, which dramatically influenced Christianity and much of the world and also founded Republicanism. Had abstract beliefs of God, making a metaphorical reference to the sun, believing God is "The Form of the Good" (the epitome of all morality, but not necessarily a physical being). Moron.

Aristotle: Founder of Biology, wrote the first book on logic. Believed in God, because he was the only possible "first cause." Illogical.

Epicurus: Invented Hedonism, contributed to Atheist philosophy. Believed in Gods, but believed they didn't intervene in human affairs. Founded the idea of inalienable rights (life, liberty, and safety). Traitor.

St. Thomas Aquinas: Christian philosopher that taught conscience is an intellectual determination, not given by God. Imbecile.

Al-Khwarizmi: Muslim that invented Algebra. Retarded.

Thales: Invented Geometry, and is considered "Father of Science." First one to propose Gods have no influence on reality, but believed in the abstract concept, "All things are full of God." Idiotic.

René Descartes: Invented modern Geometry, significantly contributed to mathematics. Believed in God. Jackass.

Thomas Thobbes: Contributed to political philosophy (influenced founding fathers of America). Wrote a book on it, called "Leviathan" (the Biblical dragon). Believed in God. Nincompoop.

Blaise Pascal: Invented Probability. Originally, focused on mathematics, but found himself going through a spiritual crisis. Despite being engulfed with the compassionate logic and reason that successfully and adequately answers all of life's fundamental, existential questions, he found himself unhappy, his life meaningless and without purpose. Became religious. Halfwit.

John Locke: Significantly contributed to political science, the major influence on the Founding Fathers ("Life, Liberty, and Property"). Supported the Church of England, believe a national church could create social harmony. Simpleton.

Friedrich Nietzsche: Famous philosopher who attacked Christianity with "God is dead" (meaning, God has no influence on our lives, but had an extremely high opinion of Jesus, though he questioned if he existed. Never advocated either God's existence or atheism, though atheists quote him as if he did. Kook.

Baruch Spinoza: Jewish philosopher who was labeled as being an atheist, at his time. But his beliefs are akin to Buddhism and eastern philosophy (as well as even the Jewish Kabbala). While he doesn't believe God is a conscious arbitor in our lives, he doesn't deny God's existence. But rather, sees God as being reason itself (with a similar idea in Greek philosophy, known as "logos", which was later adopted by Christianity). Nitwit.

George Berkeley: Christian philosopher. Proposed the idea that science is biased, significantly advanced the science of options (based on theories of relative perception). Mongoloid.

Auguste Comte: Founder of Sociology. Proposed the idea of a "New Christianity" based upon brotherly-love, with abstract (but not atheist) religious beliefs. Pinhead.

Albert Einstein: Originally outright claimed to be an atheist, but later wrote, "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." Dimwit.

Stephen Hawking: Modern genius who has substantially contributed to science (basically inventing modern Cosmology). Not Christian, but not necessarily Atheist either, suggesting that religious beliefs are good, but should coincide with sound reason. Dunce.

Founding Fathers of the United States: They were not mostly Christian or mostly non-Christian, but it depends on how you look at it. Defining "Founding Fathers" very broadly, most were Christian. But with a more narrow definition, about half were Deists and unorthodox Christians. But virtually none were atheists. Thomas Paine comes close, but not quite, as he believed in God yet was skeptical, and was mostly considered atheist because of how he belligerently attacked Christianity. As a result of the Founding Fathers believing in God, they said repeatedly, "Christianity is the established religion", and made various references to God in the law, on government buildings, and later on paper money. Incompetent.

And I'm just too lazy to write anymore.. But more than likely, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Francis Bacon, and many, many others who invented the scientific method, were religious as well.

*confusion*

Um, how is that proof that "Religious Belief Is For Unscientific Idiots"? Is this a joke that I have failed to pick up on?

*confusion*

Um, how is that proof that "Religious Belief Is For Unscientific Idiots"? Is this a joke that I have failed to pick up on?
No, it's a joke that you seem to have picked up on just fine. ;)

No, it's a joke that you seem to have picked up on just fine. ;)

*excessive confusion*

Okay... I'm now even more confused.

There are many fields of science that are "married" to the supernatural:

-Metaphysics (study of supernatural, physical phenomenon)
-Parapsychology (study of psychic ability)
-Ufology (study of UFOs)
-Cryptozoology (study of mythical animals)
-Theology (study of religion)
-Christology (study of Jesus)
-Alternative Medicine (untraditional or unorthodox medicine)

As for atheists that claim science "disproves" religion, look in the other thread on this. They do it.
This goes off-topic, sorry, but 'Metaphysics' is not the study of any sort of supernatural physical phenomenon (which is an oxymoron). It is a philosophy, the study of existence and the human consciousness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

Maybe one day, scientists will solve that pesky origin-of-matter question ;)
There are many possibilities, all of which I'm too tired to explain fully. I've also already explained themm in full detail in evolution-creation threads.

Basically, matter can be sponteneously created in a vacuum as long as it corresponds with the creation of anti-matter (and yes, these sub-atomic particles have been indirectly observed, they do exist). When many of these particles appear in the same place at the same time, space-time gets warped and creates the big bang.

:cool:

Empirical testing may not be possible at this time, maybe or maybe not in the future as regarding a supernatural source.
No empircal testing of the supernatural will ever be possible, because if that does happen, what is tested will no longer be supernatural, it will be natural.

You know...I had just typed this beautiful post...and my computer ate it. Or something did. Ok, I guess that's a personal experience of divinity :rolleyes: God clearly wants me to get my butt to sleep.

But my butt isn't tired.

So, I'll just sum up what I originally typed, more concisely yet hopefully just as eloquent.

Your system is marvelous, with one flaw. Your world operates on the assumption that the natural world (which appears to include human interactions and human emotions) operates on a purely logical, empirical basis.

Ok. So there's this village. And a tornado wipes it out. But one kid survives. (Let's call him Bob) Bob wants to know why the torndao wiped out his village.

Of course, the logical reason is weather patterns, wind currents, and barometric pressures.

My point is that there are some places where logic is lacking. Disease, mudslides, earthquakes, tornadoes, drought, famine, poverty, oppression, slavery. All these things seem to thrive in the real world. Somehow, wind patterns and climate changes just don't seem to cut it. Something in Bob wants more than that.

Humans have trouble obeying the beautiful logic of the golden rule. I propose that humans have trouble being logical, and so, crime and violence and exploitation occur on planet Earth.

This is a problem with any form of morality: some people will decide it doesn't apply to them. My whole point is that it is in everyone's best interests to create a system of law based upon the mutual respect found in the golden rule.

But the atheists weren't hearin' it: "No way. You guys don't get off the hook that easy! You're still lumpin' spiritual, supernatural stuff in with the natural. And God can only be in the supernatural. Likewise, science can only be in the natural."

I know the whole summary was kind of a joke - but this part demonstrates a big part of the problem.

Why assume that only an atheist would state that God is supernatural and therefore outside the realm of science? I am both a scientist and a theist and this is rather clear to me - I have even argued as such.