Crap. I may have underestimated your cognitive abilities and will power to read through my long winded witnessing post. You are clearly very practiced at picking apart my weak arguments and unsubstantiated claims. I can see now that I don’t stand a chance of a snowball in hell in here. Please continue without me. I’m sorry I ever found this message board. I’ve embarassed myself and exposed my entire belief system to ridicule. I must now seek forgiveness for being inadequately prepared to defend and rebutt your counter assertions. I hope you’re all happy with yourselves. Good luck getting into heaven, you goddless bastards.
Witnessing just isn’t what it used to be. I blame Jack Chick. He’s always showing that all you have to do is mention Jesus Christ’s name and the unbelievers will be following all over themselves to convert. People nowadays don’t realize witnessing is hard work.
No time to respond to this load, just two items. For this one, cite? Evolution and natural selection does a fine job in creating information through the interaction of the genome and the environment. It filters genes causing a reproductive disadvantage. I don’t have my information theory text any more, but IIRC there was no requirement on information coming from an intelligent source. And I know - I used to work across the hall from Claude Shannon’s office. (Not that he ever showed up.)
Gee, is it more prideful to think that the creator and ruler of the universe cares about us, or even made us the culmination of creation, or that we are one tiny race on one small world in an immense universe not in any way put here for our benefit. You got a hell of a lot more pride than I do.
You might ask yourself why science is riding “a wave of popularity” (which is nothing like it was in the '60s. It’s not because we sing well, or look good in bathing suits, or attract groupies (damn it.) It is because science has increased our life spans, science has let us talk to each other better, and that science has made our lives better. And science has done all this by testing facts against harsh reality - something religion avoids with a passion. If as many astronomers still believed in the Steady State theory as Christians believe in creation, science would - rightly - be a laughingstock. The Maharishi couldn’t levitate, but religions seem to hover in the air even after all factual support has been cut out from under them.
I agree with most everything you said there. Where the problem lies is that there are those who speak in the name of science whe do not entirely represent scientific research or speak outside the realm of science relying on the good name of science to give what they say credability.
A good example of this is myself. Going back 30 years or so I had a period of financial success in my own life that lasted through my thirties and ended in my ealy forties. Durring that period it seemd everybody wanted my opinion on everything and every time I started talking it seemed everyone got silent and listened. I only had one area of expertise yet my opinion was greatly valued for no real good reason beyond the fact I was successful. It felt very odd to me, I was embarrassed by it yet sometimes I caught myself talking out my ass just because I could get away with it.
Society is very dynamic, emotions and moods will travel across the earth like waves carrying large numbers of the population with it. If those in science offered a more tolerant view of those with faith, offering religions a friendlier platform, I believe religion will make the needed channges in due time, maybe not as fast as some in science would like but fast enough. No need for all this animosity and hatred.
Approximately how long for, say, Christianity to accept that there was no “special*” or other creation? Life is purely a naturalistic phenomena, humans are simply very smart apes and in no supernatural way different from them i.e. we do not have souls.
We will assume here that our currently accepted knowledge about life, humans, and souls** is correct and at no time in this “due time” period do we find any evidence that our currently accepted knowledge is in any way incorrect.
Science deals in subjective evidence, that which can be detected and/or measured. Does religion have anything to bring to such a platform? If so, it will be treated with equal measure.
I can’t help noticing your example has nothing to do with science or scientists.
Like I said, you still haven’t posted any examples. While we could talk about a few scientists like Richard Dawkins (now I’m doing it for you!) who are pretty hostile toward religion, I think most scientists don’t take that approach. For one thing, faith is one area where a lot of people are inclined to respect differences of opinion (although the more faithful people are, the less they do that) and most scientific research has nothing to do with faith one way or another, so the religious belief or nonbelief of an individual scientist probably doesn’t affect his or her work. And for that reason, most people won’t say science disproves religion. But you keep insisting they say this, so you ought to bring some real examples already. Regardless, you continue to totally misplace the blame. On the whole - and I am speaking in general here - religion is much more hostile to science than science is to religion. Religion has been in a place of social authority for a very long time and partly for that reason it can be very intolerant of dissent. It’s ridiculous to say that things would be totally different if skeptics and scientists tried even harder to be friendly to it.
For science specifically scientific stuff is presented in peer reviewed papers. Even senior scientists can get their papers rejected. Anything else is opinion. Sure some people give undue credence to the opinion of scientists or financially successful people, but some people seem to care what Snooki has to say. Plus the free flow of information means that it is good that all such people offer opinions - and it is just as good if those who disagree say so. If religious people disagree with Dawkins, say, they should give specific examples of where his arguments fall down, not that he should restrain himself as a scientist.
There are a hell of a lot more religionists - even fundamentalists - than scientists. I’m also unaware of many scientists who wish to ban religion. Your definition of tolerance seems to be not questioning religious precepts. That’s not mine, and it is a dangerous definition. Part of scientific training is to question everything, and to not expect anyone to buy what you say without supporting evidence. There is no reason not to apply this to religion also, even if it reduces church attendance.
And of course if any religion truly had contact with the divine it would not have to make changes. Anyone can teach ethics - just don’t claim it comes from God without some decent evidence.
I am probably wrong for blaming science for what I perceive to be an aggressive attitude toward Christians. More like individuals who claim to come from scientific based backgrounds.
The aggressive attitude I am reffering to is just a barrage of comments I see posted, things like Jesus can go fuck himself, or christians should all be locked in loony bins etc. I consider that every bit as offensive as anything racial, cultural or sexual. I know tons of people who attend church but aside from a few most fully accept the scientific progress that has been made but just choose not to worry about it too much on Sunday. They get something from the tradition and cultural aspects of the church they attend that is very dear and important to them. That should be respected.
So in point of fact this has nothing to do with science at all. You have a problem with nonbelievers who express their opinions in a particular way.
And most people do respect that in most contexts. There are people who don’t, but it’s inaccurate and unfair to blame “science” for that, and it’s not reasonable to hold scientists or skeptics to one standard of decorum and respect and religious believers to another. Your argument is that nonbelievers have to be ultra-polite and eventually religions will be forced to change - meaning the nonbelievers just have to keep absorbing abuse until they win. That’s not only unreasonable, it’s a losing strategy. If religious people have the right (not the logic or good arguments, just the right) to vehemently promote and defend their views, than skeptics and nonbelievers have the same right. At the end of the day, one group far outnumbers the other and has a far greater ability to pressure the other even in countries that are basically secular.
Ah, it is not scientists, now it is just people on message boards. Got it. There is plenty of sinning on both sides.
I’ll ask you this. You seem to have financial experience. If you knew someone very happy and hopeful about the future after participating in what is clear to you is a Ponzi Scheme, would you tell him? Or would you respect the importance to him of the illusion of security?
No question about it, I would tell him. I think this is where the problem lies. The anti believers see religion as a ponzi scheme. I see many religions that way myself. I have a huge hard-on for these preachers that continue to rob their flock with absolutey no conscience. I also realize that religion has had a shaky history. And yes when I think I see a preacher as being a thief I give my opinion in my own name. I have a sister in law who lives in the country in Mississippi. She is barely making ends meet, her preacher demands 10% or her social security. She just sold off some land to pay off bills and the preacher demanded 20% of the sale. Who am I to challenge that? I am just me with my opionion, and the evidence the preacher has given all of us by his extravagent life style.
I haven’t really given this topic enough thought to make a real good arguement nor do I have much of a background to speak from. I can just feel when something is wrong or is going to far.
