science vs religion

JamesB5446

Don't pretend you've said something clever when you're just dodging the question.

1. Are you religious?
2. If so, why?

cat_with_no_tail

JamesB5446 wrote:

Yes, I have. Never got a good answer.

I've explained why it bothers me. I think it's good for people to think about things rather than blindly believing them and I think the world would be a much better place without religion.

From the posts you've made here, I don't believe for a second you've ever really asked anyone properly without sounding like an antagonising, condescending tool.

And why do you think the world would be a better place without religion? You think people would instantly stop killing each other, there would be no more war? Don't you think people would just find another excuse to kill each other? I've already said. Religion is a convenient excuse, just like "I saw it in a film/computer game".

I'll put i another way. If someone chooses to have blind faith in god and heaven as a way of coping with the death of a loved one, why does that person need to be made to challenge that belief? What does society gain from that?

JamesB5446

Cat With No Tail wrote:

From the posts you've made here, I don't believe for a second you've ever really asked anyone properly without sounding like an antagonising, condescending tool.

Stop being a crybaby. This is the crudcatcher, not real life you half wit.

Cat With No Tail wrote:

And why do you think the world would be a better place without religion? You think people would instantly stop killing each other, there would be no more war? Don't you think people would just find another excuse to kill each other? I've already said. Religion is a convenient excuse, just like "I saw it in a film/computer game".

Of course I don't think that, what a poor strawman, you're better than that. I think there would be less war. I think removing a pretty big reason that people use to excuse killing each other, stop people learning things etc could only be a good thing.
Would getting rid of religion stop all the worlds problems? Of course not. But it would get rid of a few of them.

Cat With No Tail wrote:

I'll put i another way. If someone chooses to have blind faith in god and heaven as a way of coping with the death of a loved one, why does that person need to be made to challenge that belief? What does society gain from that?

Because there is very little evidence that blind faith helps people cope.
If a loved one dies you are no less sad because you have the belief that they will go to heaven.
Society gains because people will start doing good things because it's a good thing to do, rather than because they want to suck up to god. Society gains because society always gains when people look at things rationally.

YeehaaMcgee

Er, there's actually a kajillion metric fukktons of evidence that "blond faith" helps people cope. So much so, that it has to be considered when testing any treatment or therapy for a given problem.
Have you never heard of the placebo effect?

cat_with_no_tail

JamesB5446 wrote:

Cat With No Tail wrote:

From the posts you've made here, I don't believe for a second you've ever really asked anyone properly without sounding like an antagonising, condescending tool.

Stop being a crybaby. This is the crudcatcher, not real life you half wit.

Really? the best you could come up with?

JamesB5446 wrote:

Cat With No Tail wrote:

And why do you think the world would be a better place without religion? You think people would instantly stop killing each other, there would be no more war? Don't you think people would just find another excuse to kill each other? I've already said. Religion is a convenient excuse, just like "I saw it in a film/computer game".

Of course I don't think that, what a poor strawman, you're better than that. I think there would be less war. I think removing a pretty big reason that people use to excuse killing each other, stop people learning things etc could only be a good thing.
Would getting rid of religion stop all the worlds problems? Of course not. But it would get rid of a few of them.

We are obviously never going to agree on that then.
The vast majority of atrocities that are committed in the name of religion are poorly veiled attempts to disguise the real reason, be it land, money, power. That's obviously not something you agree with though.

JamesB5446 wrote:

Cat With No Tail wrote:

I'll put i another way. If someone chooses to have blind faith in god and heaven as a way of coping with the death of a loved one, why does that person need to be made to challenge that belief? What does society gain from that?

Because there is very little evidence that blind faith helps people cope.
If a loved one dies you are no less sad because you have the belief that they will go to heaven.
Society gains because people will start doing good things because it's a good thing to do, rather than because they want to suck up to god. Society gains because society always gains when people look at things rationally.

Sorry, but that's just very poorly thought out drivel.
If someone chooses to believe their loved one has gone to a better place, where they can go and join them in time, it is clearly going to ease the pain of losing that person more than just accepting that person is now nothing more than compost.

Why does it matter why a person does good things? and why do you assume people would start doing good things for the sake of it rather than to suck up to god? That seems like another poorly thought out argument.

You've clearly run out of intelligent things to say, so I eagerly await the rapid decline of this thread into another crudcatcher flame war.

cooldad

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Er, there's actually a kajillion metric fukktons of evidence that "blond faith" helps people cope. So much so, that it has to be considered when testing any treatment or therapy for a given problem.
Have you never heard of the placebo effect?

I believe in blonde Faith (Hill)



She can help me cope anyday.

cat_with_no_tail

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

"blond faith"

Quoted for posterity

cat_with_no_tail

dammit, beaten to it. Curse you CD, infact, as it's a religious thread I declare a Jihad on you!

cooldad

Cat With No Tail wrote:

dammit, beaten to it. Curse you CD, infact, as it's a religious thread I declare a Jihad on you!

Rock and Roll, dude.

welshkev

Cat With No Tail wrote:

dammit, beaten to it. Curse you CD, infact, as it's a religious thread I declare a Jihad on you!

He beat me to it as well! Curse you and your family!

St Mark

JamesB5446
Have to side with the others on this one. Proving someone wrong doesn’t make you right.
I have my own views on religion and I am comfortable with my views and have no need to argue them. My views would not be strengthened by proving you wrong or diminished by failed to convince you. They are based on my experiences and my interpretation of what I see around me.
As for believing things that we have no evidence for, is that not a description of how science has progressed.

VWsurfbum

i was going to post something about couldnt care less but this is much better

YeehaaMcgee

Blond faith, love it, sometimes autocorrect just comes up with a cracker

St Mark wrote:

As for believing things that we have no evidence for, is that not a description of how science has progressed.

Er, no. No it isn't.

St Mark

As for believing things that we have no evidence for, is that not a description of how science has progressed
Er, no. No it isn't.[/quote]

I was meaning a hypothesis, as an educated guess or proposition that attempts to explain a set of facts and then we go about testing this. Probably distracted by the blond.

YeehaaMcgee

JamesB5446 wrote:

I'll ask you the same question that the other chap is ducking. If they know it's not literal, and can see the constant contradictions, why do they believe in any of it?

It's not so much belief in all the little details, as finding morality and ethics within the meanings of the stories. How they interpret the meaning is personal and very important to them.

YeehaaMcgee

St Mark wrote:

moron wrote:

St Mark wrote:

As for believing things that we have no evidence for, is that not a description of how science has progressed

Er, no. No it isn't.

I was meaning a hypothesis, as an educated guess or proposition that attempts to explain a set of facts and then we go about testing this. Probably distracted by the blond.

Science is almost the exact opposite though, it's only believeing things we can prove beyond reasonable doubt. Until that point, it's considered just a hypothesis.
That's a very paired down simplistic view, but I believe it encapsulates one major difference between the two.

JamesB5446

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Er, there's actually a kajillion metric fukktons of evidence that "blond faith" helps people cope. So much so, that it has to be considered when testing any treatment or therapy for a given problem.
Have you never heard of the placebo effect?

I have heard of the placebo effect.
Most of the studies I've read regarding the religion placebo are pretty inconclusive about it.

Happy to read what you've got though, as I said, we science types like learning new stuff.

St Mark wrote:

As for believing things that we have no evidence for, is that not a description of how science has progressed.

No. Not at all.

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

JamesB5446 wrote:

I'll ask you the same question that the other chap is ducking. If they know it's not literal, and can see the constant contradictions, why do they believe in any of it?

It's not so much belief in all the little details, as finding morality and ethics within the meanings of the stories. How they interpret the meaning is personal and very important to them.

Yup. I get that, but that's not what I'm asking.
I'm asking why they believe in god or whatever, despite the lack of evidence, when they're educated/clever enough to understand that all the stories in the bible as daft?

spongtastic

JamesB5446 wrote:

Don't pretend you've said something clever when you're just dodging the question.

1. Are you religious?
2. If so, why?

Not dodging the question. You're dodging the answers that others are giving because they don't fit your views.

1. I am not religious
2. Because there is no religion that I feel, on a personal level, is not flawed.

However two of our friends died this year who were. The first survived the holocaust and believed until the day she died that God saved her, despite her flaws, and drew great comfort from this and acceptance that the rest of her family did die. You cannot comprehend this as I expect you feel this is irrational. The second died at the age of 34, happy and comforted that although he knew he would die young he would not be split from his family. Again I think you will suggest this is irrational.

One question though for you, how many bike rated products have you purchased in your lifetime on the basis that they will improve your cycling ability without any firm scientific basis?

cooldad

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

That's a very paired down simplistic view, but I believe it encapsulates one major difference between the two.

Pair of pears


Pair of pairs


Pared - past participle, past tense of pare (Verb)
Verb: Trim (something) by cutting away its outer edges.
Cut off the outer skin of (something).

Any excuse to add boobs.

VWsurfbum

cooldad wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

That's a very paired down simplistic view, but I believe it encapsulates one major difference between the two.

Pair of pears


Pair of pairs


Pared - past participle, past tense of pare (Verb)
Verb: Trim (something) by cutting away its outer edges.
Cut off the outer skin of (something).

Any excuse to add boobs.

This is a difficult picture :? Head of left one, Boobs of right? maybe errrrr

JamesB5446

spongtastic wrote:

JamesB5446 wrote:

Don't pretend you've said something clever when you're just dodging the question.

1. Are you religious?
2. If so, why?

Not dodging the question. You're dodging the answers that others are giving because they don't fit your views.

I'm not at all. No one has answered it yet.

spongtastic wrote:

1. I am not religious

Ok.

spongtastic wrote:

2. Because there is no religion that I feel, on a personal level, is not flawed.

In what way do you think they are flawed?

spongtastic wrote:

However two of our friends died this year who were. The first survived the holocaust and believed until the day she died that God saved her, despite her flaws, and drew great comfort from this and acceptance that the rest of her family did die. You cannot comprehend this as I expect you feel this is irrational.

Yup, it is.

spongtastic wrote:

The second died at the age of 34, happy and comforted that although he knew he would die young he would not be split from his family. Again I think you will suggest this is irrational.

Yup, it is.

Sorry for your loss by the way.

spongtastic wrote:

One question though for you, how many bike rated products have you purchased in your lifetime on the basis that they will improve your cycling ability without any firm scientific basis?

None.

I buy them because they are Italian and cool.

YeehaaMcgee

JamesB5446 wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Er, there's actually a kajillion metric fukktons of evidence that "blond faith" helps people cope. So much so, that it has to be considered when testing any treatment or therapy for a given problem.
Have you never heard of the placebo effect?

I have heard of the placebo effect.
Most of the studies I've read regarding the religion placebo are pretty inconclusive about it.

Nonsense. Placebo effect is placebo effect. The belief that a loved one is now at peace can bring great comfort to the bereaved. I can't fathom why you would think otherwise.

JamesB5446 wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

JamesB5446 wrote:

I'll ask you the same question that the other chap is ducking. If they know it's not literal, and can see the constant contradictions, why do they believe in any of it?

It's not so much belief in all the little details, as finding morality and ethics within the meanings of the stories. How they interpret the meaning is personal and very important to them.

Yup. I get that, but that's not what I'm asking.
I'm asking why they believe in god or whatever, despite the lack of evidence, when they're educated/clever enough to understand that all the stories in the bible as daft?

No, you asked why they believe in something that's not to be taken literally. The answer is that THEY don't expect it to be taken literally, YOU do.

YeehaaMcgee

VWsurfbum wrote:

Pair of pears

Sigh :roll:
I thought using the laptop this time would erradicate any autocorrect silliness.
How wrong I was

thekickingmule

JamesB5446 wrote:

thekickingmule wrote:

Calling someone stupid for a belief is belittling, that's quite simple.

And that is why I've not called you stupid.
I might think that some of the things you believe are stupid, but that doesn't mean I think that you are stupid.

You're contradicting yourself now. You call beliefs stupid, but not the people that believe them stupid?

JamesB5446 wrote:

thekickingmule wrote:

I know a lot of people believe in heaven as something to live for. On the basis that when you die, it's game over, they will question the point of living. "To pass on ones genes" is what most scientists will say, but to what end? There is no proof as to what happens when you die, it's impossible to say, so people like to think that there's something to look forward to after life.
If it keeps them happy, why so angry that they believe it?

Why does there need to be an end? Why can't you just live for the sake of living? Why can't you think "right, this is it, lets try to be as happy as possible and make others as happy as possible before I die" rather than "shoot, I best do what the big man says or I'm farked for eternity"?
There is plenty of proof as to what happens when you die. You die.

You've still not said why you believe in god though. Do you believe?

Personally, I like to believe there's an afterlife of sorts. I don't care what it's like, and don't profess to know either. It doesn't bother me what you think about that. I try to lead a happy life, but I don't believe that if I don't do 'Gods word' that I'll be burned in damnation for eternity, quite the contrary. I do what I like, as I believe that's what I'm entitled to do, and nobody judges me for it (apart from you it would seem).

The proof that you die is obviously there, but you don't know what happens afterwards. Reincarnation (more possible than you'd realise)? Heaven? Ghosts? All are better options than 'you just die'. I like to think that my life is more than just a speck of time, but as I said, I don't give a rats ar$e what others think of my beliefs, I'll happily joke about it with them.

cooldad

VWsurfbum wrote:

cooldad wrote:

Pair of pairs



Any excuse to add boobs.

This is a difficult picture :? Head of left one, Boobs of right? maybe errrrr

I am very choosy too.
My selection process:
Is it human, if not was it?
Job done.

And a chance to post boob again.

Chunkers1980

James, I'm religious, God does exist. Prove otherwise.

JamesB5446

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Nonsense. Placebo effect is placebo effect. The belief that a loved one is now at peace can bring great comfort to the bereaved. I can't fathom why you would think otherwise.

Because I've seen no evidence for it.
As I said, happy to be proven wrong.

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

No, you asked why they believe in something that's not to be taken literally. The answer is that THEY don't expect it to be taken literally, YOU do.

Right. I don't know how I can make this any clearer.
Why do they believe in god when the only evidence for god comes from a book that they admit is a load of fiction?

thekickingmule wrote:

You're contradicting yourself now. You call beliefs stupid, but not the people that believe them stupid?

Not contradictory at all. Some stupid people believe things that are true, some clever people believe things that are stupid.

[

thekickingmule wrote:

Personally, I like to believe there's an afterlife of sorts. I don't care what it's like, and don't profess to know either. It doesn't bother me what you think about that. I try to lead a happy life, but I don't believe that if I don't do 'Gods word' that I'll be burned in damnation for eternity, quite the contrary. I do what I like, as I believe that's what I'm entitled to do, and nobody judges me for it (apart from you it would seem).

That all seems fine. I take it that you mean you would like to believe in one buy know there isn't.

thekickingmule wrote:

The proof that you die is obviously there, but you don't know what happens afterwards. Reincarnation (more possible than you'd realise)? Heaven? Ghosts? All are better options than 'you just die'. I like to think that my life is more than just a speck of time, but as I said, I don't give a rats ar$e what others think of my beliefs, I'll happily joke about it with them.

They're not better options though are they? Not sure why you would say that...

cooldad

Chunkers1980 wrote:

James, I'm religious, God does exist. Prove otherwise.

Dumbest comment yet, in a fairly dumb thread.

thekickingmule

St Mark wrote:

JamesB5446
Have to side with the others on this one. Proving someone wrong doesn’t make you right.

This is being said by one of the freaking Gospels!!

What say ye now, heathen!?

JamesB5446

Chunkers1980 wrote:

James, I'm religious, God does exist. Prove otherwise.

That's not how it works though is it.
If someone makes an outrageous claim as to somethings existence they have to prove it, it's not up to everyone else to prove them wrong.

If I said I had some magic beans I would have to prove it, you wouldn't just take my word for it.

I think you knew this and are just being a cheeky monkey.