Let he who is without "sin" cast the first stone..

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Nov 7 2006, 08:23 PM) [snapback]345204[/snapback]</div>

I'm sure there's a debate raging about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, too.

But...

Science isn't perfect, either. Just look at, (oh, where to begin)...asbestos...PCB's...DDT...MTBE (and how it stays in the drinking water supply indefinitely, not a good thing to put underground in tanks)...some of the drugs that were given to women in the 50's and 60's to ease childbirth, but could result in damage to the fetus...not to mention all of those Army Corps of Engineers projects that seem to go wrong...

Isn't it frustrating when I argue both sides?!?
[laughing]

Seriously, I think there's something to be said for tempering the hubris of science with the dogma of religion.

 

I'll take science over dogma any day. Hubris is not science, it is hubris.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Nov 7 2006, 06:53 PM) [snapback]345212[/snapback]</div>

I think that we're mixing things here a bit. Science is the application of a process (the scientific method) to observable phenomena in order to understand the underlying principles. It is not philosophy, though it may influence philosophy with the demonstration of facts. For example, it might be possible to develope a grand theory of the universe but that theory would not be able to tell us why there is a universe for us to describe. That is the realm of philosophy.

If you're interested in the interaction of the two check out "When Science Meets Religion" (which, I think, should be retitled "When Science Meets Christianity") by Ian Barbour. It explores the different ways that science and religion can interface with each other (or not).

Science is a human endevour so of course it isn't perfect. Of course, it also didn't take a reformation or a 30 years war to address the issues in your examples.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Nov 7 2006, 08:53 PM) [snapback]345212[/snapback]</div>

i think religion has a bit of hubris itself... after all, it's pretty presumptuous to say that if you don't follow this set of beliefs based on events that happened a really freakin' long time ago that you're going to spend your afterlife in hell... especially since there are hundreds of groups each proclaiming this result if you don't follow THEIR beliefs.

 

I am always amused by the philosophical flailings and gyrations of the defenders of religion when they try to equate atheism or science with religion, on the grounds that since nobody can really know anything, both science and atheism require "faith."

Then, of course, in the next breath, they insist that they know that there is a god, and that their religion is the only one that accurately describes the character and the wishes of god.

Not all atheists accept science, and not all scientists are atheists. But what most atheists and most scientists have in common is the process by which they arrive at their views of the world: They observe and they experiment: they develop hypotheses, and then they test those hypotheses, and those that fail the test are discarded.

As an atheist, I look for evidence. I see no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a god. In fact, what I see is a clear pattern of the mindless cruelty of nature, leading to the conclusion that if there is a guiding force in the universe, it is malevolent, not benevolent.

Religious "authorities" operate under a totally different paradigm: They dream up religions, and when observation contradicts their beliefs, they discard the observations. Their followers, rather than asking for evidence, ask only for the promise of pie in the sky.

Atheism is indeed a belief: it is the belief that there is no god. But the belief that something does not exist is qualitatively different than the belief that something exists for which there is absolutely no evidence.

The schism between atheism and religion is that atheism, like science, relies on observation, while religion explicitly rejects observation. And those that reject evidence and observation will never come to terms with those who believe (yes, believe) that we can know the world by observing it.

The final contortion of religion is trying to explain how a benevolent god would give us eyes to see, and a brain to reason, but then demand that we reject the evidence of our eyes and the reason of our brain and accept his existence though he keeps himself so absolutely hidden from us that our eyes and our brain, if we but use them, must inevitably come to the conclusion that he does not exist.

 

I believe in life - in all its beauty and strength, harshness and fragility. I like to see weeds growing up through the cracks, because it gives me hope that life will endure, despite what we're doing to it. Most of my actions are governed by a healthful respect for all forms of life, and people would never guess that I'm not the fine upstanding young Christian my parents hoped I would be. Maybe I'm just too inquisitive for my own good - my relentless questions about the nature of heaven led me to conclude the whole concept was wishful thinking rather than reality. After 40+ years of deep thought and philosophical discussions, eternal life and omnipotent beings make as much sense to me as any other myth. It's a pleasant and comforting story, but it's not real. So, I guess that makes me an atheist. I'm still gonna watch where I walk so I don't step on any bugs.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Nov 6 2006, 02:21 PM) [snapback]344534[/snapback]</div>

Mark, MEN (and Women) can, individually, rise above and better their world. MAN cannot. They have tried it for 6000 years and failed miserably.

No, Mankind NEEDS something bigger than they are. Individual men will see the truth, mankind itself is doomed.

 

I find it curious, Schmika, that someone of faith like yourself feels mankind is doomed, yet an atheist like me thinks we have a bright future, if only we had more respect for that which sustains us.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Nov 7 2006, 05:23 PM) [snapback]345204[/snapback]</div>

Maybe so but you can't refute the fact that churchs were the progentors of the first institutes of higher learning.
Wildkow

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Nov 7 2006, 06:24 PM) [snapback]345223[/snapback]</div>

Good point and I might point out that science is the direct result of religious people studying the natural world in an effort to understand God as the creator and the creation itself.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 7 2006, 08:12 PM) [snapback]345273[/snapback]</div>

This is an astounding statement. Life was BETTER 6,000 years ago? While there are certainly aspects of our present world that could stand improvement, I know of no one who would deliberately seek to live life as it was lived 6,000 years ago, when one was lucky to attain a lifespan of 40, and there were no cures for toothache. Even with all the ills that still bedevil us, on balance our lives are infinitely more enjoyable for a larger segment of humanity than was the case at any time in our history. This is not failure by even the most pessimistic measure but stupendous, miraculous success!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 7 2006, 08:12 PM) [snapback]345273[/snapback]</div>

Here I agree completely. Observing someone like Stephen Hawking engaged in an endeavor so much larger than himself - divining the vast, inscrutable machinery of the universe - that it reduces his disability to merely a painful nuisance - his work dominates his life, not his disability - is awe inspiring. Observing a Beethoven on the verge of suicidal despair at his deafness finally overcome his self pity and go on to defiantly give the world the gift of his talent - some of the most profound and beautiful music ever conceived - similarly evokes awe at such superhuman grit and determination.

I think we should all strive to leave legacies larger than ourselves - it leaves the world a better place for those who follow us, and gives us a strong sense of worthwhile purpose - purpose so great it can transcend the most disabling of personal disability.

Frankly, in my opinion, worshipping some imagined tyrant in the sky, spending all my time attempting to flatter it, is the opposite of pursuing a larger purpose - it inflates my conceit that such a tyrant would pay me heed, it weakens my contributions to a world that needs them and deflects them to a ghost who doesn't - it's a colossal and in several senses even criminal waste of time and effort.

Consider that a MAJOR tenet of your religion is that good works on earth amount to nothing - that what counts is only that you BELIEVE. If ever there was a precept that defeated pursuit of larger purpose, that's it in spades and capital letters.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

How long should an Athiest wait until they decide that everything they have not observed scientifically has been settled? Ya'll come to some conclusion that God does not exist because scientifically you have not yet experienced or observed God. How did you decide it was time to shut down the science experiement and call it done?

Maybe the discovery isn't in test tubes and bunsen burners. Maybe God is found in a scientific experiement conducted in experimental reading of the Bible and experimental prayer to a God you are testing to see if He exists. Do a year long experiment here and I think you'd find out of 100 devout Athiests, that a decent percentage would come to the conclusion that God does exist.

Do it... Observe, keep notes and see what you get. If you want to be a millionaire after you're done, do the full blown deal. Get 100 fully qualified Athiests... Everyone get into the Bible, prayer and journaling the experience. After a year, write the book and publish the papers. You'll have an out of control best seller and a big pile of money as a result.

Do any Athiests on here know the story of Lee Strobel? Any comments on how he could have gone wacky?

 

Refute it !?! LOL.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the institutions you would like to evoke as the progenitors of science were seminaries with specific aims of preventing the diffusion of learning out to the masses. The people were to be kept illiterate; only priests would read and write. Absolute control of books that passed the tests of then day dogma were made available, and then only to the priesthood, who would be educated and influential enough (with the threat of torture always available to help them) to 'teach' the people exactly, and only, what the church wished.

Those seminaries were a core feature of Christianity's attempt at absolute mind control of the people.

Were you home schooled Wildkow ? I just cannot imagine how someone can be so brainwashed and ignorant.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Nov 8 2006, 12:43 AM) [snapback]345349[/snapback]</div>

Very Well put!

 

I kill mosquitoes, and I have been known to squash flies if they refuse to take the open door offered.

Otherwise, I share Hyo Silver's views, and enjoyed immensely his (her ?) post.

 

And I'm reading the post of a Christian Right Republican explain that Haggard is NOT a hypocrite. She's got some twisted definition that proves he's not.

Brother.

This is how she explains it:

"American Heritage Dictionary defines "hypocrisy" as: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

I don't think, using this definition, that Haggard can be called hyprocritical. He can really hold the beliefs he professes (that homosexuality is wrong), even though he falls short of his own standard of behavior. He is a sinner, though we all are.

His position on gay marriage would be no less valid if he had always been out as a gay man and pastor and advocated agains gay marriage. In fact, if all gays were against gay marriage, their argument would be no less valid.

A hypocrite would be someone who holds themselves seperate from the behavior they would have others follow. Like Rosie O'Donnell advocating gun control, even though she benefits from the services of armed security guards. "

I guess the only thing that suprises me is that it took the religious rightwing of the GOP this long to come up with this ludicrous explaination that basically exonerates Haggard. Anyone know who came up with this? Limbaugh or Coulter?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Nov 8 2006, 11:07 AM) [snapback]345479[/snapback]</div>

That has got to be one of the best examples of doublethink I've ever seen in my life!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(George Orwell @ 1984)</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Nov 8 2006, 12:16 AM) [snapback]345296[/snapback]</div>

I'm with you, hyo. And, hey, isn't it Christians who say that, "God helps those that help themselves..."

I think we as people are up to the challenges at hand; it's good to accept responsibility for our actions and their consequences, and not attribute them to the intervention/meddling of a greater power (in my humble opinion).

Responsibility is scary sometimes, but ultimately empowering.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Nov 7 2006, 09:23 PM) [snapback]345297[/snapback]</div>

I remember that institute. Since its founders all had inquiring minds, they called it "The Inquisition."