Well what on Earth do you expect? You cannot gain credibility simply by complaining about “subtle insults”, you have to earn it.
And besides, it’s the ideas being attacked, not the people.
$.02 chiming in.
Organized religions give me the willies. Of course there’s a lot of good content in their verbage, and some people are well served by their missions. But so much evil has been achieved along the way that I could never really trust an institution or just be a follower - even the Unitarian Universalists were a bit much for me. Then again, I don’t like corporations either. Anything that comes down to “Go Team!” has to compromise truth in order to achieve victory (and pay the rent). Plus I don’t agree with the literal model of God used by churches; I believe God simply IS. By that definition we all have to find it ourselves anyway.
I get rather weary of the Christian thing myself.
Re: faith and gullibility, it’s my experience that belief is far more important than knowledge. When I rely overmuch on “knowing”, it’s generally motivated by fear; usually I’m better off acting on belief than holding out for proof. Of course, I’m not flying jets or performing brain surgery :).
I’d prefer if you respect the firmly held religious beliefs of others without resorting to subtle insults.
I want you to love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Nothing like a huge stereotype to fit your argument. A vast majority of theists that I know and have dealt with on this board and in life are nothing but respectful for other beliefs, including atheism. There are, of course, certain people who hold theists beliefs, lekatt included, who don’t, but don’t let that stop you from painting with that broad brush of yours. And, in case you didn’t notice, Roy Moore lost his case.
I’m sorry you’ve had to deal with religious intolerance. Reciprocating in kind isn’t going to solve it though.
As I said before, there are certainly people like that, even on this board. And, as I said before, I’m sorry you’ve felt disparged in your beliefs.
I’ll be repetitive, but I’m sorry again you feel pressured by a certain minority of theists. Does it excuse subtle insults though?
I’m not necessarily a Christian. But I also wouldn’t come back with “you believe in a fairy tale, you ignorant jerk.”
Or the daily barrage of UFO stories or cats who can talk.
Gotcha. This tells me all I need to know about your point of view.
Earn it? I have to earn the right not have my beliefs insulted? Gotcha.
ROFL !! Wow… now that is a good “logic”. I Pray = Everyone Prays too. I would have been severly tempted to say Belzebu or Satan just for shock value… I did tell a kid telling me about exorcism in his church that since I dont beleive in God that I dont beleive in the Devil and therefore was not subject to “possession”… which reversing means he beleived in the Devil and was a “devil magnet” of sorts. That scared him…
Back up a minute here. Are you criticizing science because it is inherently amoral? I mean come on! The evils foisted on humanity in the name of religions through the ages certainly show that religion is easily as capable of being used to fulfill evil intent as science could ever be. In fact, I would venture to say that it is even more apt a tool for those purposes, since you can whip followers up into a murderous frenzy over religious principles alone, without needing any ulterior motive. It’s hard to get a crowd to stone someone over the existance of the aether or the cosmological constant, but religious intolerance is always in plentiful supply.
My goodness. Science and religion are not mutually incompatible, you know. I personally find nothing more spiritually inspiring than when I spot something really cool in my telescope. The universe is such a beautiful place! Similarly, I find natural selection to be an elegant and lovely process. How wonderful it is that humans are just one of billions of creatures that have walked the earth; we are not better than the rest of the planet, we’re part of it. It’s so amazing, I personally find it to be spiritually uplifting.
FTR, I am a Reform Jew.
I don’t have a problem with organized religion as long as I am left out of it. I get tired of people trying to convert me. I am tired of people who are fake. They are only religious when it’s convenient to them. For instance, at the college I go to a person was running for president of the student council or something like that. He sent an email out to the engineering students in hopes of garnering votes that started off “I am a christian.” Like woopdy friggin’ doo! You just got my vote! NOT!
I still don’t understand this view. Religion makes many unproven assumptions about the universe. When people say they believe in both science and religion, there seem to be two implications:
[ul]
[li]Our current understanding of science is not incompatible with their religious beliefes, so they can keep the faith and still accept and use the currently known laws and theories of science.[/li][li]Science is a way to bring us closer to god, i.e. to give physical evidence to their beliefs.[/li][/ul]
In the first case, they are merely accepting the results of the scientific method but not the method itself. The second case means doing science to prove a pre-conceived conclusion. Both cases are contradictory to the scientific method.
You’re assuming that the scientific method applies in all matters of inquiry – that it is the only way to know the truth. Theists – and many non-theists – believe otherwise. They recognize that science applies in some circumstances, but not all of them. Hence, there is no inherent contradiction between believing in science and religious faith.
You’re also confusing evidence with proof. Science may provide evidence for one’s beliefs, but it does not necessarily provide absolute proof, and so there is still room for faith.
Now, let me repeat the question which I posed to blowero earlier. Do you truly believe that science is the only way to discern truth? If so, then what scientific methodology did you use to determine this to be true?
Perhaps there are others: but in what way do your suggested alternatives relate to discerning truth from falsity? Faith does not appear to be such a method.
But the scientific method means believing in only what we can observe. Once you say there are some things in the universe that cannot be observed but should be believed in, you’ve thrown the scientific method out the window.
I truly feel that there is no point in believing what we cannot observe. My only justification is that I cannot find any advantage in doing otherwise. Belief without observational proof will only make it difficult for us to see the truth. It’s happened numerous times in history that observational data pushed us towards a certain conclusion, and established beliefs made it difficult to accept this inevitable conclusion.
JThunder, you are mistaken about science. by its nature, it is an all-encompassing epistemology. like any epistemology, the reasons for its acceptance do not lie within it. that would be cheating. that is, one who claims scientific method as his tool for gaining true knowledge should not claim that the knowledge he gains is absolutely true. only within the realm of science, can that knowledge be considered true. and knowledge of epistemologies is not within the realm of science.
so having said that, once you accept science, it is your only tool for gaining knowledge. positing things that are outside the realm of science is contradictory with the tenets of science.
at the same time, you are free to grab the parts of science that you like, and leave the ones you don’t. at that point though, you are not using science as your method for gaining knowledge. you are using something else.
I’ll have to review my earlier message, but it appears I may have mistyped. I agree with you that Joe Believer may try to effect whatever changes he wants, but – to ensure harmony between folks of different belief systems – he should not be allowed to succeed in making changes based on religious reasons alone.
Which is a roundabout way of saying we’re on the same page. 
Answer the question. If science is the only way to discern the truth, then what scientific methodology did you use to establish this fact?
Answer the question.
Prove it, then. Rigorously prove to us all that science encompasses everything. Don’t merely assert it. PROVE IT.
In that case, one shouldn’t reject religious belief on the grounds that it’s not “scientific.”
Is that a known fact? Is that part of your knowledge? If so, then please describe how you applied the scientific method to determine this fact.
Again, is that part of your knowledge? What scientific methodology did you use to gain this knowledge?
If science is truly “your only tool for gaining knowledge,” then you should be able to describe how you determined these things to be true.
So please, answer these questions directly. Since you specificaly claim that science is the only tool for gaining knowledge, I will accept nothing less than a rigorous description of the scientific methodology which you used to determine these things.
It’s a meaningless question because you are asking for a circular argument. It’s the same as using the Bible to prove that Christianity is valid.
The scientific method says no such thing. Here is a detailed description of the scientific method, courtesy of Rochester University. While this method requires making observations, owhere does it say that we must only believe in things which we can observe.
Do you really believe that? How did you observe it to be true? (Note that I’m asking for observations, not ruminations or conjecture.)
Is that true? If so, then I shall level the same challenge that I gave to Ramunajan, Apos and company. If your statement is true, and if science is the only way to the truth, then what scientific methodology did you use to establish this fact???
Again, I’m not asking for mere ruminations, conjecture or reflections. I’m asking for the scientific process which you used. If science is the only means for learning the truth, then please describe this process.
In fact, people who truly know science should be acutely aware ofits limitations. Anyone who claims that science is the font of all true knowledge, and who cannot prove this scientifically, has just refuted his own position.
The scientific method is a method for trying to understand the universe. It starts from the premise that the universe is something that is logical and comprehensible. It requires that you only believe what you can observe. Hypotheses are tested against observations and thrown out when they fail to agree. “Science” is this method itself, not the current set of laws and theories. I can’t prove this approach is “correct” but if we give up this method, the only alternative is to construct an arbitrary model of the universe without worrying about whether it fits the facts. You will have no reason to favor one model over the other.
It’s not a meaningless question. You said that science is the only way to the truth. If so, then you can surely demonstrate how you determined this, scientifically.
The question isn’t meaningless. Rather, your claim is a self-refuting argument – an argument which violates its own premise. Such arguments are, unfortunately, all too common url=“http://www.geocities.com/jxmccain/Science.html”]when people fail to recognize the limitations of science.
It’s like saying “All statements are false.” Such a statement implicitly disprove themselves, for if all statements are false, then so is that one. Or it’s like saying “I always lie.” If so, then that statement can not possibly be true. Questioning these statements is not meaningless; rather, it’s the statements themselves which are.