This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

C/D some people are religiously Atheistic

#81bratt100Posted 3/3/2013 4:10:53 AM
He's passionate but doing it in a wrong way.

Many of the magical beliefs of many religions are "stupid" but many of the lessons they teach ring true.

Do I in any way feel that Noah's ark or the garden of Eden are real or even likely? Not at all, do I think believing in those stories is pretty stupid? Yeah I do, but I've noticed in the past little while that the belief in a stupid idea does not make that person stupid. Overly optimistic perhaps but not stupid.
---
If you believe in the flying Spaghetti Monster and are 100% proud of it copy this to your sig.
#82SSj4WingzeroPosted 3/3/2013 6:16:57 AM
Even then, it's pretty ridiculous to claim that everyone should hop on the "lol religion isn't true" bandwagon when it's something that can't really be proven from a scientific standpoint either way. Any scientist worth his weight in salt will admit that, which is why even men like Dawkins only go as far as to say that "There's probably no God".

Some might go a bit further, but they're generally bigoted scumbags, so who cares?
---
Not changing this sig until the Knicks win the NBA Championship! Started...4/23/2011? Or was it 2010?
#83squareandrarePosted 3/3/2013 9:37:21 AM
From: SSj4Wingzero | #082
Even then, it's pretty ridiculous to claim that everyone should hop on the "lol religion isn't true" bandwagon when it's something that can't really be proven from a scientific standpoint either way. Any scientist worth his weight in salt will admit that, which is why even men like Dawkins only go as far as to say that "There's probably no God".

Some might go a bit further, but they're generally bigoted scumbags, so who cares?


You think science doesn't have anything to say about, for example, whether it is possible to walk on water? You can't just believe in magic when there are simple, natural explanations and then expect your beliefs to be treated as intellectually serious. We have clear standards for how to think like a rational adult, but we just throw those out the window when talking about religion. Then you rationalize this double-standard with bulls*** like "scientism," as if thinking rationally is the same as believing in faith-based magic.

You want to be treated like an adult? Then start thinking like one.
---
"Physics is not a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time raising money."
-- Leon Lederman
#84SSj4WingzeroPosted 3/3/2013 6:02:31 PM
Never said anything about any specific religion.

If you want to talk "rationality", then it's very irrational of you to make such a damning statement against religion when there's so much about the world that we don't know. The Origin of Species is over a century old and despite the fact that we can point to evolution via natural selection as the way in which life on this planet developed, we still don't really know what the origins of life on planet Earth are, and we're barely any closer to solving the answer to that question today than we were a decade ago, and yet you've made a sweeping generalization against a large group of people, many of whom are far wiser than you are and have contributed far more to the natural sciences than you have?

That seems pretty irrational to me, but then again, it's my fault for wasting time with your ridiculous assertions in the first place.
---
Not changing this sig until the Knicks win the NBA Championship! Started...4/23/2011? Or was it 2010?
#85squareandrarePosted 3/3/2013 6:18:46 PM
then it's very irrational of you to make such a damning statement against religion when there's so much about the world that we don't know.

Religion, by its very construction, is terrible at answering the unknowns of the world. At least, correctly answering them. If it took a testable, reliable, evidence-based view, we wouldn't call it religion. Religion tells you that you can bypass the entire learning process and jump straight to divine truth, and that is just dumb.

And smart people can still believe silly nonsense. They just usually give more creative rationalizations.
---
"Physics is not a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time raising money."
-- Leon Lederman
#86SSj4WingzeroPosted 3/4/2013 3:00:42 AM
Yeah, I don't think this needs to be argued. There are some posters worth having a discussion with, but I don't think this guy is one of them.
---
Not changing this sig until the Knicks win the NBA Championship! Started...4/23/2011? Or was it 2010?
#87squareandrarePosted 3/4/2013 9:07:42 AM
You're right that we shouldn't be arguing about whether magic is real in the 21st century. This should have been resolved long ago.
---
"Physics is not a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time raising money."
-- Leon Lederman
#88ThuggernautzPosted 3/4/2013 9:33:24 AM
SSj4Wingzero posted...
Never said anything about any specific religion.

If you want to talk "rationality", then it's very irrational of you to make such a damning statement against religion when there's so much about the world that we don't know. The Origin of Species is over a century old and despite the fact that we can point to evolution via natural selection as the way in which life on this planet developed, we still don't really know what the origins of life on planet Earth are, and we're barely any closer to solving the answer to that question today than we were a decade ago, and yet you've made a sweeping generalization against a large group of people, many of whom are far wiser than you are and have contributed far more to the natural sciences than you have?

That seems pretty irrational to me, but then again, it's my fault for wasting time with your ridiculous assertions in the first place.


On the origin of life, we definitely know a lot more than we did a decade ago. We've even been able to construct protocells in labs, and have found that early cells can reproduce without processing proteins and without thick cell walls:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130228124138.htm

and also, we are surrounded by the ingredients for life in icy asteroids and comets. Not quite panspermia, but similar:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130228113436.htm
#89SSj4WingzeroPosted 3/5/2013 7:54:37 AM
Thugg, I'm sure we do know more, per se, but there's always going to be so much we won't know, such as when and where those "early cells" came from, and even once we know that (if we ever know that), it only addresses the value of religion from a "where the world came from" standpoint.

The complexity of the human condition is where the ultimate value of religion comes from. Humans are technically just animals, but we also have the ability to very easily override our basic genetic programming, and there'll always be room for that, given the fact that even the most hard-line atheists alive today regularly behave irrationally every single day, finding ways to substantiate the fact that simple scientific rationality in an attempt to explain mankind's actions and thought processes is entirely insufficient. Sure, you could use science to explain the origins of the natural universe, but it's hardly sufficient to answer the rest of what people do and why they do those things, or why they shouldn't do those things.
---
Not changing this sig until the Knicks win the NBA Championship! Started...4/23/2011? Or was it 2010?