science vs religion

cat_with_no_tail

I'll man your straw in a minute!

YeehaaMcgee

Ooh, is that a promise? Here I was with no plans for a friday night, and then you come and save me.

JamesB5446

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

MTB_TR wrote:

I think he brought it up because someone likened the agressiveness of an atheist to a religious fundamentalist...who blow up churches and mosques... which atheists don't. Fair enough.

Not really. Nobody said that atheists blow up churches. He's making that up, it's called a "straw man argument".

Fair point.

In that case, in what ways do you think atheists are as hate filled as religious fundamentalists?
For full marks please provide sources.

benpinnick

I know lots of religious fundamentalists that aren't hate filled. All nuts, but no hate. I cant see the point of being an atheist though. Same way I don't feel the need to be a declared non-believer in Harry Potter, or to proclaim how I don't believe in Peter Pan. If we had to label everything we don't believe in we'd be here to kingdom come

Daz555

benpinnick wrote:

I know lots of religious fundamentalists that aren't hate filled. All nuts, but no hate. I cant see the point of being an atheist though. Same way I don't feel the need to be a declared non-believer in Harry Potter, or to proclaim how I don't believe in Peter Pan. If we had to label everything we don't believe in we'd be here to kingdom come

Hang on, you can't see the point in being an atheist? How about the point of simply not accepting an idea without some evidence - which I'd wager is a common atheist trait.

Northwind

benpinnick wrote:

I cant see the point of being an atheist though. Same way I don't feel the need to be a declared non-believer in Harry Potter, or to proclaim how I don't believe in Peter Pan.

It's a fair point this. It used to be pretty much neccesary, since there was an assumption of belief- so not believing in a god was a minority thing, and therefore a thing in itself. Basically religion was seen as something you opted out of rather than opting in. But these days, it's not that neccesary.

YeehaaMcgee

Not in the UK, at least. It varies from country to country, or even region to region.

cooldad

Yeah and some are weird. We only got TV in South Africa around 1976 as the govt was afraid it would corrupt the morals of society. I remember returning in the early 70's in the middle of a serious drought - there was a national day of prayer for rain. We had an outdoor assembly at school and everyone had to pray like mad - I remember thinking if god was making a drought he must be a real farker watching everyone plead and grovel for a bit of rain.
Coming from a long line of heathens I wasn't expecting much, but I did wonder what would happen if it started chucking down.
It didn't so I went happily back to a life of sin and debauchery.

benpinnick

Daz555 wrote:

benpinnick wrote:

I know lots of religious fundamentalists that aren't hate filled. All nuts, but no hate. I cant see the point of being an atheist though. Same way I don't feel the need to be a declared non-believer in Harry Potter, or to proclaim how I don't believe in Peter Pan. If we had to label everything we don't believe in we'd be here to kingdom come

Hang on, you can't see the point in being an atheist? How about the point of simply not accepting an idea without some evidence - which I'd wager is a common atheist trait.

I think you missed the point.

Gazlar

I saw a man blow up a church earlier this year

Daz555

Northwind wrote:

It's a fair point this. It used to be pretty much neccesary, since there was an assumption of belief- so not believing in a god was a minority thing, and therefore a thing in itself. Basically religion was seen as something you opted out of rather than opting in. But these days, it's not that neccesary.

Depends where you live. Not that many countries are as apathetic about religion as your average Briton.

paul.skibum

I think the more vocal athiests tend to be vocal because they perceive the danger of organised religion and its impact on government thinking, especially in the US.

The power of the religious groups in the US mean that, to get elected, the Republicans will disavow planned parenthood, stem cell research and the like - a fundamental christian can appear to have lost all grasp of what being a christian means. For some reason the Church of England mellowed into a very nice social community thing where as some sects of christianity preach hate almost as much as they preach love - burning abortion clinics, attacking doctors who work their - where is the christianity in those actions?

So if Dawkins speaks vehemenently against religious extremists it should be taken in the light that he is defending right and reason against darker forces I believe. He is not anti religious beliefs (it even says that in God Delusion) albeit he doesnt understand the need but he is anti the effect of strongly held religious beliefs.

I personally am an atheist however I went to a methodist school and was brought up by nice people who believe in beign good people - as it happens the majority of the ten commandments fit with my personal beliefs. But they arent commandments from God they are just some geezer sitting in the desert thinking "how can I get these idiots to behave like decent human beings"

Daz555

paul.skibum wrote:

So if Dawkins speaks vehemenently against religious extremists it should be taken in the light that he is defending right and reason against darker forces I believe. "

+1. Dawkins and his peers are going head to head against the US creationists and their anti-science lies and propaganda. He has taken the fight to their door and good on him.

cooldad

This is all way too sensible for Crudcatcher, but I agree with everything in the previous two posts.
I think I better go and butter my obvious before some mong starts singing CS&N songs.

paul.skibum

I'll sing you a song in a minute sweetheart.

St Mark

I think the debate between science and religion is no greater than when heading for a tight corner and thinking 'oh god I hope the tyres hold'

For what it's worth I think Bonnie Langford still touring is sufficient proof that there cannot be a benign deity.

Gazlar

St Mark wrote:

I think the debate between science and religion is no greater than when heading for a tight corner and thinking 'oh god I hope the tyres hold'

For what it's worth I think Bonnie Langford still touring is sufficient proof that there cannot be a benign deity.

Bonnie Langford? Nearly broke her back

Thewaylander

Gazlar wrote:

St Mark wrote:

I think the debate between science and religion is no greater than when heading for a tight corner and thinking 'oh god I hope the tyres hold'

For what it's worth I think Bonnie Langford still touring is sufficient proof that there cannot be a benign deity.

Bonnie Langford? Nearly broke her back

Thats only because you like uhm Ginger :P

St Mark

Bonnie Langford? Nearly broke her back[/quote]

Thats only because you like uhm Ginger :P[/quote]


Ginger snaps...my favorite

Boy Lard

I don't know why I'm doing this but...

Science seems to be the best guess we have at what is going on based on the amount of evidence we have available at the time. It isn't the exact truth, but the best guess we can make. Newton's Laws of Motion wouldn't be described as being wrong, but Relativity suggests that under some circumstances there is a better way of predicting the movement of objects. Similarly, we're taught as we come up through school that the smallest 'building blocks' of the universe are the elements of the periodic table, no they're not, it's atoms, no it's not it's sub atomic particles, etc. It's not that the last theory we have was wrong, it's just not as correct as it could have been.

I honestly believe, looking at this backwards, that religion was the first and worst guess at science. Not wrong, just not very accurate. Religion has just gone wrong when it stops allowing us to make other guesses at what might be more accurate.

Northwind

Yep, absolutely- it's all just ways to fill in the blanks. Newton was an alchemist as well as a scientist after all.

JamesB5446

Kinda.

Science says - this is how we think it is and we'll test it and change the ideas if evidence for something else comes up.
Religion says - this is how it is.

cooldad

JamesB5446 wrote:

Kinda.

Science says - this is how we think it is and we'll test it and change the ideas if evidence for something else comes up.
Religion says - this is how it is, and if you argue we'll burn you at the stake.

FTFY. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

concorde

Gervais is a legend! Religion is utterly wanked! Cannot stand it!

cat_with_no_tail

Concorde wrote:

Gervais is a legend! Religion is utterly wanked! Cannot stand it!

There you go then everyone. Discussion over.

concorde

Cat With No Tail wrote:

Concorde wrote:

Gervais is a legend! Religion is utterly wanked! Cannot stand it!

There you go then everyone. Discussion over.

It should be. Or we can discuss the invisible teapot that's orbiting my head??? Nobody can tell me there's not one!

cooldad

Concorde wrote:

Cat With No Tail wrote:

Concorde wrote:

Gervais is a legend! Religion is utterly wanked! Cannot stand it!

There you go then everyone. Discussion over.

It should be. Or we can discuss the invisible teapot that's orbiting my head??? Nobody can tell me there's not one!

I am sure that you do have a head, there's just not a lot inside it.

JamesB5446

Ad hominem attacks make your opinion more valid. Well done.

YeehaaMcgee

JamesB5446 wrote:

Ad hominem attacks make your opinion more valid. Well done.

welcome to the crudcatcher, you bellend.

cat_with_no_tail

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

bellend.

That's what I call my helmet.