Imagine No Religion- Page 12

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 9:46am

Viruses are technically not living things, yet they breed. They live off of other living creatures. They adapt, they alter, they move, they spread. They function much like humans do. Yet, they are not considered sentient beings.

In traditionally biological sense, viruses are considered "obligate intracellular parasites," nonliving because they don't meet one of the essential characteristics for life (independent reproduction). I think it's getting a little hairy to try to relate it to sentience -- what does that even mean when considering microorganisms? Responsiveness?

A lot of these people are rationally thinking people. It's not likely that what they put their faith in is totally irrational and doesn't exist.

I don't think that anyone is trying to say that those people were irrational, or weren't great thinkers or leaders. But there have also been a great many atheists (or deists, looking at the founding fathers of our country) who also made great contributions in the world, and to say that their beliefs (or lack thereof) invalidate their contributions is just as false.

This discussion actually brings to mind one of my very favorite quotes:
Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
- Thomas Jefferson

Honestly, to me, as long as you're actively thinking about it and coming to your own conclusions, I won't begrudge anyone his or her beliefs.
Updated On: 12/12/07 at 09:46 AM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 9:52am

"Nothing's obvious when it comes to the explaining the universe no one knows SH*T."

And this is the trope that just keeps getting repeated again and again but there's two things: 1) it's not true and 2) therefore a turtle might have vomited up the universe?

If you can't eliminate the most obvious myths and are going to give every outlandish possibility an equal likelihood of probability, there's little point in continuing the discussion along these lines.

Let's try this, to borrow Penguin's themes: I have never said that myths are not important. They were the earliest attempts at man to create some sense of order in a world that is fundamentally chaotic, that defies having "meaning" and "intention" attached to it like a narrative BECAUSE it is so random and chaotic.

Myths continue to this day, and they serve a similar purpose. They don't actually LOSE that purpose when people admit that they're myths.

Updated On: 12/12/07 at 09:52 AM

[soapguy17]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 10:01am

If you can't eliminate the most obvious myths and are going to give every outlandish possibility an equal likelihood of probability, there's little point in continuing the discussion along these lines.

With that I guess this discussion is over, as long as we all can agree (or agree to disagree)that every/some belief/s has/have a "likelihood of probability". That's exactly why I'm repeating myself. Someone else might be right. I'm still unable to figure out if you're aware of that or not.

Updated On: 12/12/07 at 10:01 AM

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 10:04am

"The point is... faith in a god (gods) transcended history, but it is shared by many people... Great leaders, well known philosophers, down to the most unknown of people have believed... a god of sorts."

The religions of the world historically are far too varied and complicated in structure and employment to make a sweeping statement like that. Buddhism, for example, can operate fully without the presumption of a God. Hinduism has gods but they are clearly humanistic and cyclical. The oldest religions made gods of the here and now, the animals you can see, the brother at your side. In other words, metaphor made real.

Monotheism, the belief in a single ultimate cosmic power (played by Robin Williams), is actually a relatively uncommon phenomenon in the world that we believe originated with the Egyptians worshipping the Sun.

Which makes a whole lot more sense--you can see the sun!!! It interferes in the world!

And yes, there have been many believers and non-believers (and those who stand in between are more common) throughout the history of the world. This does not prove the existence of God--it actually proves the spirit of humanity. We will continue to search for truth and we will continue to find it.

This is your problem. You're seeing the forest without seeing the trees. Even fifth century monks were searching for the trees. A skeptical view of religion has a lot more to tell you about why we are here than blind faith ever will.

"How do you know that a gigantic turtle ... it could've happened.

This is one of those points where I just feel like sighing audibly.
Thanks for taking the time you did to type all that out Roninjoey. "

I did the same thing. No prob, I think this stuff is interesting. Thanks for what you've said too.

Soapguy, that's the point. What is laughable to us now was not laughable to them, but thanks to SCIENCE, we now have greater understanding. No doubt in 50 to a thousand years people will laugh at us for thinking there was a man who waved his phoenix tail and ivy wand and said "Expecto Humanity".

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 10:56am

It's all the reasons in this thread that make me chuckle when a believer in the Judeo-Christian god scoffs at someone who believes in the tenets of Scientology. The only thing that really differentiates the two is a couple of thousand years.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 11:15am

I just have a hard time discussing this with someone who is hugging a Leggo Darth Vader in their avatar.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 11:22am

Oh, because your avatar is soooo much more serious :P It was either Darth Vader or Ron Weasley.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 11:28am

Are you hugging Ron as well?

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 11:52am

At FAO Schwartz there are lego depictions of HPotter and the crew, Darth Vader and the big hairy guy who yodels, and tons of stuffed animals from HP and Golden Compass and etc...

and anyway, how can you pass up photo ops like that?

[trinaaron]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 11:56am

Soapguy, that's the point. What is laughable to us now was not laughable to them, but thanks to SCIENCE, we now have greater understanding. No doubt in 50 to a thousand years people will laugh at us for thinking there was a man who waved his phoenix tail and ivy wand and said "Expecto Humanity".

Or they could be laughing at us for believing that people descended from apes. (I am not saying that I don't believe in evolution, but I am saying that tomorrow there may be a discovery that disproves what we assume is fact). There is a reason it is called the THEORY of evolution. If you are more comfortable putting all of your faith in science, that is your right, just as it is the right of others to search for alternatives. Science soes not have all of the answers, as much as some of you seem to believe. It is also true that the various religions of the world have their questions as well. It is my opinion that failing to see the problems with both sides is where the true irrationality lies.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 12:21pm

Well, we never brought the question of Darwinism into it. That is a theory but certainly there is proof of evolution--we know how the body is put together and the way it walks and moves around. And we know how our brains work. We understand the relationship between species. We understand adaptation. We see it in the world every single day. We can force the process. We haven't linked men to monkeys completely satisfyingly--but we're much closer to doing that than proving the existence of god.

But you're totally right. I'd rather put my trust in science, which history tells us can be postulated and then proven, than in religion, which has never been proven. Science does not have all the answers but has endless potential to find them. Religion offers all the answers with no way to prove them.

Religion, for me, is a metaphor for viewing life and has absolutely no place in politics or science, and the only place it has in school is to teach kids to think creatively and inquisitively. But as far as I'm concerned you can believe whatever you want as long as you don't try to run my life based on your own beliefs.

Okay, to the people on the side of religion: Can you prove to me that religion is evolving and always offering new answers to new questions being raised in this ever changing world, or does religion merely offer one simple easy answer that it has always offered?

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 12:25pm

"anyway, how can you pass up photo ops like that?"

By simply walking in the other direction.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 12:27pm

"Or they could be laughing at us for believing that people descended from apes."

That's a common misconception. The theory isn't that we are the descendants of apes, but rather that both apes and humans are derived from a common ancestor.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 12:41pm

Well Diva, it's not my fault we don't share a similar sense of humour :P Thankfully.

Yea, and considering the close relationship between the habits and appearance of certain breeds of ape and humans, it's not all that far-fetched an idea.

I mean, for chrissakes, you can teach a monkey to communicate through sign language... evolution may have some missing links but there sure as hell seems to be a lot of evidence for it in the world as I see it. Remember that Darwin, in fact, came to his theories and beliefs initially by the simple process of observation and experience of life.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 12:48pm

"Well Diva, it's not my fault we don't share a similar sense of humour :P Thankfully."

I guess the folks that made my cabaret act the longest running in LA's history would be happy as well.




But we are getting off of the point.



Imagine No religion!

Another Religious Problem

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 12:56pm

Erm, good for you then?

That family should have accepted Jesus Christ into their hearts. If only the whole world would conform to the all encompassing love of Jesus Christ, we wouldn't have incidents like this. Le sigh.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 1:05pm

You ARE kidding, right?

Updated On: 12/12/07 at 01:05 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 1:05pm

"There is a reason it is called the THEORY of evolution."

This is another common non-sensical trope trotted out by creationists. It would be great if the schools of the world could spend just a little more time on scientific vocabulary and maybe find a way to make the spring musical kids pay attention during those units.

Scientific theory is not just some idea spouted off, it's a postulation that people work to prove (and here's the key point) or disprove by finding a better more workable postulation. This is something that people who announce that something's just a mystery and declare "we'll never know!" simply refuse to do. So many of the "mysteries" that man "will never know so we'll just have to call it God and chalk it up to 'faith'" have since been decoded and solved. MUCH to the anti-science creationist type's long-standing chagrin. This is why the Taliban is so anti-science. AND Mike Huckabee.

Gravity is a theory too, you know.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 1:28pm

http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165035/

Interesting article from Christopher Hitchens' book that fairly touches on a lot of what has been talked about in this thread.

FindingNamo, it's much easier to say we'll never know than to take five to ten minutes to read the wikipedia article that can explain the reason to you perfectly well. Is that the TRUE meaning of religion?

YOU WILL DIE BEFORE YOU MAKE ME READ!

P.S. early religious zealotism was mostly foisted upon people who couldn't read by people who could. Just saying.

[trinaaron]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 2:02pm

"There is a reason it is called the THEORY of evolution."

This is another common non-sensical trope trotted out by creationists. It would be great if the schools of the world could spend just a little more time on scientific vocabulary and maybe find a way to make the spring musical kids pay attention during those units.

Scientific theory is not just some idea spouted off, it's a postulation that people work to prove (and here's the key point) or disprove by finding a better more workable postulation. This is something that people who announce that something's just a mystery and declare "we'll never know!" simply refuse to do. So many of the "mysteries" that man "will never know so we'll just have to call it God and chalk it up to 'faith'" have since been decoded and solved. MUCH to the anti-science creationist type's long-standing chagrin. This is why the Taliban is so anti-science. AND Mike Huckabee.

Gravity is a theory too, you know.

But that is exactly my point. It is called a theory because there is no way to prove it. Theories can be disproven, but there is no way to prove them because the next experiment could give a different result. The fact that scientists keep experimenting confirms this. Perhaps there is just one variable that we as fallible human beings are missing that would disprove even the most accepted of theories. Is it likely that everything scientists have learned over the last millenium is false? Of course not. But the chance that some of it is based on false assumptions is very probable. Now I am in no way trying to prove the existence of any type of god, I am mearly questioning the rather blind faith some people seem to have in science. Just looking at the field of medicine and the numerous reversals on advice about what is good for us and what isn't suggest that scientists are nowhere near as certain of things as they would like us to believe.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 2:09pm

It's not that it can't be proven, it's that people are open to better answers if they come along. Which is where it breaks down for the "faith" people.

[trinaaron]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 2:23pm

A theory CANNOT be proven. It is why it is called a theory instead of a fact. Evolution, gravity, relatively, what happened to the dinosaurs, even the nature of good and evil are all theories, albiet from different areas of the human experience. The chemical make-up of water is a fact because anything but 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom is not water. 2+2=4 is a fact. The uncertainty of science is built into the language.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 2:24pm

Trina, you're precisely stating our point while avoiding the question (where is the developing evidence of religion)... science is malleable. It is always developing off of present facts and observation of the world. Trial and error. Science is tangible, it can be experimented with, proven and disproven. If scientists wanted us to think they were infallible nobody would become a scientist and science would become a religion.

Religious faith is what it is. It can never be proven or disproven. There is no evidence for it or against it. You either believe or you don't. At the end of the day the sun is still going to set and rise again in the morning, no matter how many abortion clinics got bombed that day.

At least 'til the sun explodes. Which we know will happen thanks to good ol' science and observation (and we even have pictures of it happening!).

[trinaaron]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 2:52pm

Don't get me wrong, I think science in all of its forms is a wonderful thing. (well, I didn't in school, but as an adult I can fully appreciate its value). What I do not agree with is scientific theories being thrown about as THE reason to not believe in God. Believe or not, and for whatever reason, that is your choice. Could it be that God does exist, but we just don't have the tools to prove it?

Religious faith is what it is. It can never be proven or disproven. There is no evidence for it or against it. You either believe or you don't. At the end of the day the sun is still going to set and rise again in the morning, no matter how many abortion clinics got bombed that day.

I don't disagree with this. I do disagree with the idea some seem to have that because it can't be proven it is false. Just because people 200 years ago didn't know about bacteria didn't mean that they didn't die from infections.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 3:09pm

You're right. They aren't mutually exclusive ideas. There are scientists who believe in god, just as there have been religious scholars who were also scientists.

I just disagree with the idea that belief in God is the natural conclusion. A person chooses to hold such beliefs. They should be left out of the higher workings of mankind such as science (except for theological science), politics, etc... it is certainly more likely that there is no god than that there is, but people are free to believe what they feel.

I think we're all the same page about that, at least. I still think it's a vital conversation. Like it or not religious miseducation and misappropriation is the root of many of the problems in the world today because too few are having this conversation.

Imagine if a leading proponent of an inane 150 year old religion became the leader of our country? It would be so fitting. *sigh*