Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Failing to see how ridiculous religion is until you escape it

1…5681011…20

Comments

  • #212
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Glenster wrote: »
    seperate them into three batches then.

    I just used anti relativist because arelativist looks weird.

    If someone filled in no on a 'do you believe in god form' (In the post next week) then as far as I'm concerned they are an atheist. What's wrong with that? it's in the dictionary.

    But can you possibly fathom how one could describe an "anti-theist" position as being a belief, but not atheism?

    Do you have that subtly of cognition?


  • #213
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Glenster wrote: »
    Is it more acceptable to believe a scientific theory without checking the facts than it is to beleive a religious theory without checking the facts.
    If some scientific position is backed by a significant weight of peer-reviewed literature, yes, it certainly is much more acceptable to give it a higher level of trust than religious writings.


  • #214
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    Ah, your denomination made the wise decision in removing in drug-fuelled ramblings of Revelations then?

    A step in the right direction, at least.

    I dont understand.

    I just wouldn't be arrogant enough to draw a picture of a bloke with a beard and write a book of aphorisms and say this is divinity and this is all that it is.


  • #215
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Glenster wrote: »
    Is it more acceptable to believe a scientific theory without checking the facts than it is to beleive a religious theory without checking the facts.
    Yes, in my view.

    Because at least you can check the evidence (not facts, per se) in science whereas it's impossible to verify a theological or philosophical concept. If the scientific evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny, or does not exist - then the theory can go the in the "I don't buy it" bin, along with religion. :)


  • #216
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    robindch wrote: »
    If some scientific position is backed by a significant weight of peer-reviewed literature, yes, it certainly is much more acceptable to give it a higher level of trust than religious writings.

    Exactly. Especially when it's findings bear so many tangible fruits. No need to list them all, but I'm quite sure the bible didn't build the PC I'm using now...


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Glenster wrote: »
    Maybe god was the wrong word, It's a name and a noun, replace it with a divinity
    You can do that, but you're then changing the nature of the atheism you're denying.

    Before somebody can claim to be an atheist, one has to say what deity, or class of deities, one is denying the existence of. If you don't do that, then you're in the same vague, shapeless boat as a christian who thinks he's declaring a belief in some very specific interpretation of some particular deity, when he makes a non-specific statement to the effect that he believes "in god".


  • #218
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    robindch wrote: »
    If some scientific position is backed by a significant weight of peer-reviewed literature, yes, it certainly is much more acceptable to give it a higher level of trust than religious writings.

    That just smacks to me to be similar to the religious argument that '1 billion believers cant be wrong'.

    If all the people in the world say that black is white, it doesn't mean that it is.


  • #219
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Glenster wrote: »
    Just cos someone tells you something doesnt mean it's true.

    You could trust that guy, trust is a beautiful thing but you'd never know unless you looked yourself.

    Look at it this way, if someone you didn't trust was at door a you probably wouldn't go through door a. The fact that someone claims to have seen it doesn't make the fact any more true objectively.
    You're still not getting the point. with the second door you can't look yourself, no one can ever look but some people claim to know what's behind it anyway. With the first door the person could be lying or they could be wrong but at least they didn't pull their opinion out of their arse and, as you say yourself, if you don't believe him you can look for yourself.

    I can see why you would take the claims made by the second guy with a pinch of salt, I would too, but why would you ever accept any claims that anyone ever made about what they think is behind the first door? No one has ever looked. By all means don't accept everything science says but why would you accept anything religion says?
    Glenster wrote: »
    Tell me more about my religion.

    This is maybe an argument for a different thread.

    That's what you're religion teaches. You can choose to ignore those bits if you want but then you're a christian in name only


  • #220
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Glenster wrote: »
    I dont understand.

    I just wouldn't be arrogant enough to draw a picture of a bloke with a beard and write a book of aphorisms and say this is divinity and this is all that it is.

    Never mind. Good bloke, that Jesus, all the same. It's funny, I never remember hearing about his more "dark" side when being brainwashed as a child. I wonder why...


  • #221
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    robindch wrote: »
    You can do that, but you're then changing the nature of the atheism you're denying.
    denying? dont understand?
    robindch wrote: »
    Before somebody can claim to be an atheist, one has to say what deity, or class of deities, one is denying the existence of.

    How exhausting!

    Surely that would only define the type of atheist that they are. An atheist who denies a monotheistic god is different from an atheist who denies a polytheistic god. But are they not both atheists?


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Glenster wrote: »
    How exhausting!

    Surely that would only define the type of atheist that they are. An atheist who denies a monotheistic god is different from an atheist who denies a polytheistic god. But are they not both atheists?

    You deny many polytheist gods. Are you an atheist?


  • #223
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Glenster wrote: »
    Is it more acceptable to believe a scientific theory without checking the facts than it is to beleive a religious theory without checking the facts.

    I don't think you are getting the point being made. How do you check religious theory? How can you even claim to be checking "facts" if you are referring to something that cannot be checked, cannot be tested, cannot be evidenced? Scientific theory often explores areas we are not wholly knowledgeable and pushed out hypothesis based on certain assumptions or projections but those hypothesis are based in fact, on our best knowledge to date. It's not somebody in a white coat claiming something, not providing a jot of empirical evidence and expecting everyone to accept those claims as, well, gospel.

    When someone doesn't personally check the facts with regard to scientific theory, the data actually exists and can be studied and tested if you wish - I'm not sure why you are determined to consider it the same as a theory in which no evidence is even presented?! :confused:


  • #224
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Glenster wrote: »
    That just smacks to me to be similar to the religious argument that '1 billion believers cant be wrong'.

    If all the people in the world say that black is white, it doesn't mean that it is.

    The peer review process is how science is carried out. If you think it's invalid then you should stop using the billions of advancements it has allowed you to enjoy


  • #225
    --amadeus--
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,095 ✭✭✭--amadeus--


    Glenster wrote: »
    Is it more acceptable to believe a scientific theory without checking the facts than it is to beleive a religious theory without checking the facts.

    If you genuinely cannot distinguish between accepting at face value a statement that can be verified and accepting at face value a statement that cannot be verified then this is (unsurprisingly) a conversation that will never go anywhere


  • #226
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    I'm not sure why you are determined to consider it the same as a theory in which no evidence is even presented?! :confused:

    Because he likes to think that accepting science is just as much a matter of "faith" as accepting religion.


  • #227
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    @ Robin & Dades,

    A few weeks ago I was thinking about making a suggestion regarding our recurrent friends like Glenster, DL, etc; in that we should perhaps make collaborative sticky thread containing all the usual, tired "arguments" that get dragged in here every week, but thoroughly debunked by the A&A crew so that the next time one of our little friends arrives in here with pages of points to make, freshly printed from answersingenesis, we can simply direct him/her to that thread first.

    Thoughts?


  • #228
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    @ Robin & Dades,

    A few weeks ago I was thinking about making a suggestion regarding our recurrent friends like Glenster, DL, etc; in that we should perhaps make collaborative sticky thread containing all the usual, tired "arguments" that get dragged in here every week, but thoroughly debunked by the A&A crew so that the next time one of our little friends arrives in here with pages of points to make, freshly printed from answersingenesis, we can simply direct him/her to that thread first.

    Thoughts?

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055730903 ;)


  • #229
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    I'm actually going to repeat this in case it gets missed because I think it might finally get through to you:
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I can see why you would take the claims made by the second guy with a pinch of salt, I would too, but why would you ever accept any claims that anyone ever made about what they think is behind the first door? No one has ever looked. By all means don't accept everything science says but why would you accept anything religion says?

    That is the point. Scientist's aren't always right and you shouldn't just accept what they say but why would you give any credence whatsoever to a religious opinion? Their guess is as good as yours. If a scientist claims to know something he might be lying but if a religious person claims to know something I know they're lying because they can't possibly know


  • #230
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Glenster wrote: »
    robindch wrote:
    Before somebody can claim to be an atheist, one has to say what deity, or class of deities, one is denying the existence of.
    How exhausting!
    Well, yes. If somebody wants to be understood properly, then they should take the time to explain themselves properly. If that's an exhausting process, then tough luck!
    Glenster wrote: »
    Surely that would only define the type of atheist that they are. An atheist who denies a monotheistic god is different from an atheist who denies a polytheistic god. But are they not both atheists?
    With respect to their different deities, yes they are.

    But you will generally find that most religious people have a hard time understanding that point and will usually vigorously object to being called atheists, even if they admit the atheism with respect to deities other than their own special one or ones.

    In short, the word "atheist" just pisses off religious people and while they deride atheists as being closed-minded etc, in fact, they hold exactly the same views about most gods as most atheists do. It's just that they make an exception for one special deity and hope that nobody will notice the atheism they claim with respect to all the other ones.


  • #231
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    you can look for yourself.

    Maybe I'm being dense But if you can look for yourself, what's the point of those other people being there?

    It doesnt matter what either of them say as long as you avail of the option to look where you're going.

    If you dont avail of that option then it is no more likely that there is a trapdoor/bear behind one door than the other, in choosing either door you're merely accepting someone's word over the other.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    That's what you're religion teaches. You can choose to ignore those bits if you want but then you're a christian in name only

    ???

    What's my religion again? and since when were you elected it's spokesperson?


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Glenster wrote: »
    Maybe I'm being dense But if you can look for yourself, what's the point of those other people being there?

    It doesnt matter what either of them say as long as you avail of the option to look where you're going.

    Because the analogy is about trusting what people are saying based on the facts they have at their disposal which you always have the choice to check for yourself - or trusting unverifiable assumptions that you must put your faith in... :confused:


  • #233
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Glenster wrote: »
    Maybe I'm being dense But if you can look for yourself, what's the point of those other people being there?
    Well if we were relying on Glenster to do every bit of science in the world I don't think we would have got very far. Some scientists do the work, then all the other scientists check their work and repeat it, then any lay people who are interested check it again and through this extended process of repeated verification and improvement we arrive at good theories. It's a hell of a lot better than declaring that an old book is true with no way to know if it is or not.
    Glenster wrote: »
    It doesnt matter what either of them say as long as you avail of the option to look where you're going.

    If you dont avail of that option then it is no more likely that there is a trapdoor/bear behind one door than the other, in choosing either door you're merely accepting someone's word over the other.
    This is starting to melt my brain. Please explain what possible reason you could have to accept someone's "word" on something when they don't actually have any more information than you do? To go back to the analogy, the first guy might be lying about what's behind the first door but the second guy has no fcuking idea what's behind the second door but claims to know anyway. Why the hell would you accept someone's word on something when they cannot possibly know the thing that they are claiming to know? Why does trust even come into it? He doesn't know what's behind the door so his opinion should be disregarded because even if he later turns out to have been right it will be through sheer luck!
    Glenster wrote: »

    What's my religion again? and since when were you elected it's spokesperson?

    You are a christian of some kind and I don't have to be a spokesman to read the bible and quote parts of it. You were quick enough to tell atheists what they believe a few weeks ago. In fact you told us over and over again that you knew better what we believe (and don't believe) than we do ourselves.


  • #234
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Because he likes to think that accepting science is just as much a matter of "faith" as accepting religion.

    Stop making this gross generalisation, I'm not saying that science done properly requires the same amount of faith as religion.

    I'm saying hypocrites attack religion for being a matter of 'faith' while at the same time refusing to recognise that they have a similar level of 'faith' (i.e. blind acceptance) in certain other systems or claims.

    In the instance of someone who has done all the research necessary to make the claim that they understand the workings of string theory, or the big bang, or the genetic processes of evolution, I would invite that gentleman to come forth and say how ridiculous the religious argument that opposes his understandings are.

    But dont make the self-satisfied assumption that you are smarter than the unthinking, doctrine-accepting, religious simpleton just because the things you believe in, for which you have never looked up the cold, hard evidence or even have activly verified the existance of such, are 'true'.

    You're both as credulous as each other.


  • #235
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Glenster wrote: »
    Stop making this gross generalisation, I'm not saying that science done properly requires the same amount of faith as religion.

    I'm saying hypocrites attack religion for being a matter of 'faith' while at the same time refusing to recognise that they have a similar level of 'faith' (i.e. blind acceptance) in certain other systems or claims.

    In the instance of someone who has done all the research necessary to make the claim that they understand the workings of string theory, or the big bang, or the genetic processes of evolution, I would invite that gentleman to come forth and say how ridiculous the religious argument that opposes his understandings are.

    But dont make the self-satisfied assumption that you are smarter than the unthinking, doctrine-accepting, religious simpleton just because the things you believe in, for which you have never looked up the cold, hard evidence or even have activly verified the existance of such, are 'true'.

    You're both as credulous as each other.

    No, I'm not no matter how much you like to think otherwise. Can you honestly, seriously not see any difference between believing someone when they say they've carried out an experiment that had certain results and believing someone when they say that they know what happens to you after you die? How trustworthy the second person is doesn't even matter, they have never died and so have absolutely no idea what happens to you afterwards. To quote Stephen Fry on QI: Anyone who tells you what happens to you after you die is either a liar or a fool. And they are either a liar or a fool because they are claiming to know something that they cannot possibly know. And someone who believes someone when they claim to know something that they cannot possibly know is not in the same league as someone who doesn't have any particular reason to think that a scientist is lying to him


  • #236
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    Glenster wrote: »
    Stop making this gross generalisation, I'm not saying that science done properly requires the same amount of faith as religion.

    I'm saying hypocrites attack religion for being a matter of 'faith' while at the same time refusing to recognise that they have a similar level of 'faith' (i.e. blind acceptance) in certain other systems or claims.

    In the instance of someone who has done all the research necessary to make the claim that they understand the workings of string theory, or the big bang, or the genetic processes of evolution, I would invite that gentleman to come forth and say how ridiculous the religious argument that opposes his understandings are.

    But dont make the self-satisfied assumption that you are smarter than the unthinking, doctrine-accepting, religious simpleton just because the things you believe in, for which you have never looked up the cold, hard evidence or even have activly verified the existance of such, are 'true'.

    You're both as credulous as each other.

    Rubbish.

    Really, under what possible circumstances today does anyone blindly believe what they are told without some level of cynicism, I'll tell you who, the gullible.

    Contrary to your belief, most intelligent people who form an opinion on something will have looked it up.

    I have read about evolution, I have read about string theory, gravity, relativity, all these things.

    So if your claim above is founded on the assumption that it is default for anyone who trusts a scientific claim to be acting out of faith alone, your foundation is shoddy indeed.

    Point out someone who criticises faith and would strongly believe and profess to some scientific theory he has no knowledge of and we will have your hypocrite and he will also be a fool.


  • #237
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Stercus Accidit wrote: »
    Rubbish.

    Really, under what possible circumstances today does anyone blindly believe what they are told without some level of cynicism, I'll tell you who, the gullible.

    Contrary to your belief, most intelligent people who form an opinion on something will have looked it up.

    I have read about evolution, I have read about string theory, gravity, relativity, all these things.

    So if your claim above is founded on the assumption that it is default for anyone who trusts a scientific claim to be acting out of faith alone, your foundation is shoddy indeed.

    Point out someone who criticises faith and would strongly believe and profess to some scientific theory he has no knowledge of and we will have your hypocrite and he will also be a fool.

    And another very important thing to note is that at no point in my entire life have I ever described string theory, evolution, gravity or any scientific theory as "true", any scientific theory is only the best model we currently have. I know that they are almost certainly wrong to some extent. We know for a fact that the theory of gravity is wrong but we teach it anyway because it's close enough for practical purposes


  • #238
    scienceoverBS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 55 ✭✭scienceoverBS


    jif wrote: »
    Ive seen 2 posts in this thread which should probably should have been deleted, is this seriously (in the internet sense of seriously :D) an atheists forum? it has an awfull stench of religion off it.

    religion is going out of style , i fear the ryan report is the final nail in the coffin of the RC curch in ireland , but i will ask the OP he says hes an atheist but chuckles at mass. hmmm so you go to mass to mock quietly to yourself .if there is one thing i cant stand is a smug atheist who smirks at the beliefs of others .people need to respect other people's views and show some respect.

    what i will agree on is the utter comical way that religion has been stuffed down our troaths since we were young enough to understand ,when your young and impressionable is were you get taken in i guess. i personally feel its a joke but im also sensitive and respectful of my fellow mans beliefs. plus the storys of jesus from over 2000 years ago . i mean come on ,there are storys from the vietnam war that have been manipulated to be fact . when in reality it was all BS , i mean the murder of 100s of 1000s of north vietnamese in the name of freedom ,thats only from 40 years ago .try find truth from 2000 years ago nah thanks . my faith is my family and my god is me


  • #239
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Glenster wrote: »
    Stop making this gross generalisation, I'm not saying that science done properly requires the same amount of faith as religion.

    I'm saying hypocrites attack religion for being a matter of 'faith' while at the same time refusing to recognise that they have a similar level of 'faith' (i.e. blind acceptance) in certain other systems or claims.

    You are still completely missing the point, deliberately I think at this stage. One claim comes with evidence which can be checked, it doesn't have to be a matter of trusting scientists, that is down to personal choice - religious people have no alternative, they must have faith because there is no evidence to check.


  • #240
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    You are still completely missing the point, deliberately I think at this stage. One claim comes with evidence which can be checked, it doesn't have to be a matter of trusting scientists, that is down to personal choice - religious people have no alternative, they must have faith because there is no evidence to check.

    Exactly. The lay people trust the priests but the priests don't actually know so they trust the bishops but they don't actually know so they trust the pope.....but the pope doesn't know either. They're all just hoping they're right even though there is absolutely nothing to suggest that they are


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Well if we were relying on Glenster to do every bit of science in the world I don't think we would have got very far. Some scientists do the work, then all the other scientists check their work and repeat it, then any lay people who are interested check it again and through this extended process of repeated verification and improvement we arrive at good theories. It's a hell of a lot better than declaring that an old book is true with no way to know if it is or not.
    Personal attacks? Really?

    How many times do I have to say it? The scientific method is fine, is great, more power to it. Best thing ever.

    I've a problem with someone who doesn't check the science behind a theory but still espouses it. Someone who is not expert enough in the theories of the origin of the universe to posit any insights of their own (i.e. someone who reads what someone else has written and accepts it) and then has the arrogance to turn around and scoff at someone else for accepting what some guy you dont like has written.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    This is starting to melt my brain. Please explain what possible reason you could have to accept someone's "word" on something when they don't actually have any more information than you do? To go back to the analogy, the first guy might be lying about what's behind the first door but the second guy has no fcuking idea what's behind the second door but claims to know anyway. Why the hell would you accept someone's word on something when they cannot possibly know the thing that they are claiming to know? Why does trust even come into it? He doesn't know what's behind the door so his opinion should be disregarded because even if he later turns out to have been right it will be through sheer luck!

    I'm not saying I would go through either door or listen to either man, I dont know what's on the other side of either one!

    How does the fact that the second person doesnt know one way or the other convince you that what the 1st guy says is true?

    If there was no person at the second door, it wouldn't make a difference, I would still be suspicious of the first guy. I certainly wouldnt turn around to someone else there and tell them that the first door is the safe one.

    You are a christian of some kind and I don't have to be a spokesman to read the bible and quote parts of it.[/QUOTE]

    Quote the bible to your hearts content, just leave your opinions about the workings of my inner mind to yourself.


Advertisement