Believing in Beliefs; Religion - Atheism - Science

Very interesting read thank you very much. :yo:

 

More science v religion

Miss USA 2011

 

^ Why aren't the women in the video wearing sashes? That YouTube was not serious as it was not the real contestants.

 

Here are the interviews of the Miss USA contestants that inspired that spoof. The spoof isn't far from the real interviews.

 

Beauty pageants are not exactly known for great intellectual comment on any topic.

The BBC author was spot on: The science vs. religion debate could go on and on with nothing solved, just like it's gone on for years at PC.

So why continue an argument that is guaranteed to frustrate members and nothing else?

That's insanity defined.

 

Listening to the gals is hardly any different than listening to a bunch of politicians. (However, when in comes to watching, it's vastly different than watching a bunch of politicians.)

How are they to answer when the goal is to win a beauty contest? They are not being asked for how they answer. They are being asked for pure entertainment.

 

With nothing erudite to add to a contentious point there are those among us who feel they must be heard regardless of the usefulness of such communication. Lacking the capacity to extract or put to words this erudite point, they resort to ridicule, mockery or scorn. Much like a person with a limited vocabulary resorts to the "F" word. This type of person regards a positive step by anyone towards mutual acceptance and respect of an opposing point of view an anathema.

 

Dup post

 

It's like an ill-fitting brassiere, some folks have a real need to get it off their chest.

 

Hmm.

Science is exactly about understanding the world by using the very best among human minds. What you see from atheists are attack on being satisfied with "God did it" whenever there is something science doesn't yet explain.
Or even worse, when science does explain something and people still prefer the myth!

A good scientist would make references when claiming something extraordinary, like "(science) has become a vehicle for myths"
But let's jump onto this alleged "myth" and see where it goes:

Humanity as in the way humans have evolved when looking at its impact and interaction with the environment and itself is surely moving forward, and it does so with science as a primary tool. It is through science that humanity can keep on supporting its ever increasing size, and maintain an ever increasing level of education.

What is an evangelical atheist?
History proves that conflict arises when large groupings of opposing believes meet. It does not give any examples of conflict where everyone had the same believes.


This article also falls into the very common pitfall of criticising without offering any arguments why the alternative is better.

 

^

A polite way of referring to militant atheist.

The alternative is tolerance, acceptance of different POV's without condemnation, judging, mockery or hateful rhetoric. It's common sense that this position is better, unfortunately factions on both sides aren't very good at it.

 

It may be common sense, but it's not always correct. Tolerance is good for things that are harmless. For example, tolerance of plaid pants is fine. I may not like them, but other people wearing them won't hurt anything.

Tolerance of Nazis is not so good. Appeasement of them in WWII proved to be disastrous. Before I accept any blanket claim that tolerance is always better, I want a few details about what we are tolerating.

Tom

 

^ Nazis are not participating on this thread. ...hope no such demonization is resorted here.

Like the point of the BBC article that science does not have all the answers. I'll add to that it's changing....Aristotle was superseded by Newton, then again by Einstein.

Delayed getting in this thread in the hopes this one will have a short life and no afterlife.

 

Please clear up your post qbee are you analogizing Christians to plaid pants, Nazis or both? Hmmmm, Nazis in plaid pant's! :fear: I'm quite sure I feel doubly offended but that image just busts me up!

BTW: did not state that tolerance is "always better" nor did I equate appeasement with tolerance, in fact they're not even close. Just wanted to make it clear. :nod:

p.s. A word note from my Mac's dictionary, conversational, opinionated, and idiomatic, these Word Notes are an opportunity to see a working writer's perspective on a particular word or usage.

 

If science had all the answers it would be a bore.

Science is a hell of a good lifestyle.....a way of thinking and living.

All that "superseding" is often via refinement.

However, since scientists are human, sometimes dogma (or careerism) sticks in one area or another until a revolution is needed.

Atheists have more fun........:<P

 

Then some context is needed. Who are these militant atheists who want everyone to be atheists and don't tolerate anything else? Are they even a loud minority? Sure you should be able to find some kid voicing a similar opinion somewhere, but when no reference or context is given, it might seem like the author reaches out against atheism/science as a whole and claiming it wants to get rid of religion.

 

that "humanity" can use science to remake the world...

Science is the process of discovery. The use of these discoveries is Technology.

 

If you have been at PC very long, the answer is very obvious. Posts like "If I were the King of the World I'd ban religion..." and many others characterizing religion as the worst thing ever and it's adherents idiots, making personal attacks, being disagreeable on threads even when they don't have a valid point.

In the general public, that would include Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, among others.

 

^ This. +1