Athiests - Who cares

Zubeneschamali · 15-01-2015 04:44PM

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive.

Science excludes lots of religions, like Young Earth Creationism.

Sneaky religions where God only comes out when Science isn't looking, like Roman Catholicism, can claim the two are compatible, but in fact Science is only compatible with the fancy-schmancy high theology version of catholicism, where nothing supernatural ever happens.

The regular version many people believe, where God answers prayers with actual information and actions in the real world is false. The version where Pope John Paul II is a saint because a miracle happened is false. The one where St. Anthony can help you find your car keys is false. The one where people go to Lourdes and miracle cures happen is false. The one about Fatima and the one about Medjugore are false. The version where statues bleed or cry or dance is false, as well as being very funny.

And as a scientist, you know that very well.

Bootros Bootros · 15-01-2015 04:44PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

In fairness, religion and science may not be mutually exclusive, but catholicism (if you're not going a la carte) and science definitely are. There'd be some serious cognitive dissonance going on for a devout catholic who also trusted the scientific method, one of the pillars of which is falsifiability.

And yet so many scientists prior to the 20th century were christian and/or Catholic.

One eyed Jack · 15-01-2015 04:46PM

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Why have you ignored my 30% fact?

I ignored it too Baggy tbh because your sample size is way too small for a start to be able to offer anything conclusive that you could extrapolate out to a national context.

Would you hypothesise that your figures would be reflected across the country? You also didn't state whether the children were of another religious denomination or whether they were atheist or indeed simply non-religious as a reason for their non-participation in religion classes.

I mean, we could all pull anecdotes out of the air, put our own spin on it to back up whatever point we want to make, but it really wouldn't tell us a whole lot, and certainly I wouldn't encourage anyone to draw any hasty conclusions from such little evidence.

Zubeneschamali · 15-01-2015 04:46PM

Bootros Bootros wrote: »

I thought this thread was about sneering at new athiests(sic). Now it's run by them.

Actually, many atheists in this thread have said Dawkins is a knob.

But apparently, just voicing our opinions in a thread expressly about our opinions means we are "new", meaning obnoxious, atheists.

Maximus Alexander · 15-01-2015 04:47PM

Bootros Bootros wrote: »

And yet so many scientists prior to the 20th century were christian and/or Catholic.

Perhaps a bit of an oversimplification.

Peist2007 · 15-01-2015 04:48PM

I would also say there is a difference between a scientist and someone with a science degree who soldiers through a 9-5 with Boston Scientific.

A scientist would see religion for the bunkem it is and would certainly see Catholicisms recent attempts to find a niche for itself beside science as exactly for what it is, cynical social positioning.

Bootros Bootros · 15-01-2015 04:49PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Actually, many atheists in this thread have said Dawkins is a knob.

But apparently, just voicing our opinions in a thread expressly about our opinions means we are "new", meaning obnoxious, atheists.

But that's what this thread is about. Sneering at the Santa haters ( cis it's lying) and the other self important crap from the people who never shut up about atheism. You have your forum for this bollocks. Be bores in there. This is about taking the piss out of you.

mrsbyrne · 15-01-2015 04:50PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

One example? Just one please.

Ah theres loads of examples over numerous threads. Have a look yourself.
And don't get them started on the 6PM Angelus on RTE1. What sounds like a bell, ringing for ONE WHOLE MINUTE!!! Bong! Bong! Bong! Each bong driving a dagger of fire deep into their hearts! And its accounting for least €80 of their licence fee! And theres no way to avoid it! its thrust down your throat even as you struggle to close your delicate ears !Oh the persecution and the suffering! Its right up there with Saddam Hussein and the Kurds!

Eutow · 15-01-2015 04:53PM

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

More foolish people, more people let astray by outside influences, lacking faith and people thinking they are super cool and sticking it to the man by giving two fingers to religion is definitely a major one.

That doesn't suggest that in the future this trend will continue.

Less foolish people*, less people being influenced by Catholic teachings, more people questioning people of Catholic faith, Catholic teachings. It's got nothing to do with people thinking they are super cool - (a stupid comment to make from somebody that claimed to be "more intelligent than a lot of posters here")

In a previous post you stated it is "highly offensive to refer to Catholic teachings as fairytales" but you have no problem claiming non Catholics as foolish people, a claim that can itself be highly offensive to people not of a Catholic belief system.

*I don't conside people to have religious beliefs to be foolish.

SpaceTime · 15-01-2015 04:53PM

Bootros Bootros wrote: »

And yet so many scientists prior to the 20th century were christian and/or Catholic.

Prior to the 20th century they also believed that women's brains were inferior and incapable of studying science too.
Yet, we now (correctly) consider that an absolutely ridiculous suggestion. Yet, in the 19th century it was all the rage.
Times move on and now a huge % of the science community are female.

In the 19th century many doctors smoked pipes while doing open surgery.

I'm not really sure what your point is tbh?

In the 19th century it was also so outrageous to be an atheist that you'd probably have been booted out of university (don't forget most were still theocratic). So, I don't think many people in academia would have necessarily wanted to have been seen to challenge the Church (Catholic or Church of England) in those days either.

Sadly, Ireland just clung onto a big chunk of the 19th century until about 1978.

Zubeneschamali · 15-01-2015 04:55PM

Bootros Bootros wrote: »

This is about taking the piss out of you.

Not our fault you couldn't take the piss out of a bucket of piss with a piss ladle.

Baggy Trousers · 15-01-2015 05:01PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I ignored it too Baggy tbh because your sample size is way too small for a start to be able to offer anything conclusive that you could extrapolate out to a national context.

Would you hypothesise that your figures would be reflected across the country? You also didn't state whether the children were of another religious denomination or whether they were atheist or indeed simply non-religious as a reason for their non-participation in religion classes.

I mean, we could all pull anecdotes out of the air, put our own spin on it to back up whatever point we want to make, but it really wouldn't tell us a whole lot, and certainly I wouldn't encourage anyone to draw any hasty conclusions from such little evidence.

Hold on, my example was in response to Nox saying that people are falling over themselves in the UK to get into Catholic schools and that all Catholic schools in Ireland are packed. My point is that not all people attending those schools are practicing Catholics in the UK or Ireland.
He is from Galway so I provided a Galway example.

To be fair I think Ismael Freezing Tv has been very brave to argue his beliefs on this thread. I don't like that people accused him of trolling because I believe he believes what he is saying even if I think he is deluded.

SpaceTime · 15-01-2015 05:04PM

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Hold on, my example was in response to Nox saying that people are falling over themselves in the UK to get into Catholic schools and that all Catholic schools in Ireland are packed. My point is that not all people attending those schools are practicing Catholics in the UK or Ireland.
He is from Galway so I provided a Galway example.

The UK's full of anti-state school snobbery though which is what that's all about. The religious schools are private trusts and they tend to have a queue of parents who are interested in education, hence the results are better.

The religious ethos has nothing to do with it. It's all about exclusivity and barriers to entry.

The Tories love this kind of thing too... Snobbery, free market competition between schools, league tables and so on ...

Ireland does this with small fees charged to prevent access i.e. not really private schools, just a barrier fee to ensure the 'right type' of people go there. That grand a year to ensure that none of those rough children from the council estate get in, yet entirely state funded of course.

Tarquin, Fiachra and Snachta need to network with the right type of toddlers! Otherwise how do you expect them to get jobs in the bank or politics?!

One eyed Jack · 15-01-2015 05:07PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

I would also say there is a difference between a scientist and someone with a science degree who soldiers through a 9-5 with Boston Scientific.

A scientist would see religion for the bunkem it is and would certainly see Catholicisms recent attempts to find a niche for itself beside science as exactly for what it is, cynical social positioning.

Sure he would -

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/03/the_muslim_scientist_who_birthed_the_scientific_method.html

Peist2007 · 15-01-2015 05:09PM

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Ah theres loads of examples over numerous threads. Have a look yourself.
And don't get them started on the 6PM Angelus on RTE1. What sounds like a bell, ringing for ONE WHOLE MINUTE!!! Bong! Bong! Bong! Each bong driving a dagger of fire deep into their hearts! And its accounting for least €80 of their licence fee! And theres no way to avoid it! its thrust down your throat even as you struggle to close your delicate ears !Oh the persecution and the suffering! Its right up there with Saddam Hussein and the Kurds!

You think its the noise of the angelus or the length of time it takes to complete is the problem?

One eyed Jack · 15-01-2015 05:12PM

SpaceTime wrote: »

The UK's full of anti-state school snobbery though which is what that's all about. The religious schools are private trusts and they tend to have a queue of parents who are interested in education, hence the results are better.

The religious ethos has nothing to do with it. It's all about exclusivity and barriers to entry.

The Tories love this kind of thing too... Snobbery, free market competition between schools, league tables and so on ...

Ireland does this with small fees charged to prevent access i.e. not really private schools, just a barrier fee to ensure the 'right type' of people go there. That grand a year to ensure that none of those rough children from the council estate get in, yet entirely state funded of course.

We also have gaelscoileanna to ensure the 'right type' of student goes there, the 'Fuinneog' agus 'Doras' types :pac:

Again though, as you quite rightly point out - nothing to do with religion.

DamagedTrax · 15-01-2015 05:12PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

You think its the noise of the angelus or the length of time it takes to complete is the problem?

i suggest a 'god doesnt exist' minute at 7pm, where the sound of *pagans involved in blood orgies is played. i think im onto winner.

*i know, i know, i know. pagans had gods too...

Peist2007 · 15-01-2015 05:16PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sure he would -

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/03/the_muslim_scientist_who_birthed_the_scientific_method.html

Ha talk about grasping. A guy in the 13th century, brilliant.

Here is a quote from your article:

"Little is known about Ibn al-Haytham's life...."

I would also argue that the scientist on this thread has more scientific advances over which to re-evaluate his religious beliefs that a guy in the 13th century who it is admitted that very little is known about.

Maximus Alexander · 15-01-2015 05:16PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sure he would -

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/03/the_muslim_scientist_who_birthed_the_scientific_method.html

A problem arises when you use people who lived under totalitarian regimes to 'prove' this point. In the 10th century someone doing this kind of work had no option but to claim to be doing it for God, regardless of what his actual thoughts may have been. There are indeed tales of the very same man lying about his mental state out of fear:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen wrote:

Legend has it that after deciding the scheme was impractical and fearing the caliph's anger, Alhazen feigned madness and was kept under house arrest from 1011 until al-Hakim's death in 1021

Regardless, cognitive dissonance is a real thing and people perform remarkable mental gymnastics in order to reconcile incompatible ideals. This in no way lends credence to the idea that science and catholicism are compatible and, by definition, they are not.

Peist2007 · 15-01-2015 05:18PM

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i suggest a 'god doesnt exist' minute at 7pm, where the sound of *pagans involved in blood orgies is played. i think im onto winner.

*i know, i know, i know. pagans had gods too...

Ever notice how it is always backward looking though. No one takes into account the present at all when considering the merits of religion. "This is the way it was done in the past" etc. Such a (literally) backward way of thinking.

One eyed Jack · 15-01-2015 05:31PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

Ha talk about grasping. A guy in the 13th century, brilliant.

How is it grasping? Where do you think the scientific method scientists use today came from? It was a hell of a lot more useful in the 13th century than the unscientific nonsense perpetuated by the likes of Sam Harris, a neuroscientist who claims that religion is a mental illness, or the scientist in Uganda who claimed people are homosexual because magnets! My point is that nowadays science seems to be more and more dictated by popularly held belief than at any other time in human history. This is one of the reasons why medical professionals are beginning to ignore the DSM, because it's no longer a reliable reference source.

Here is a quote from your article:

"Little is known about Ibn al-Haytham's life...."

What's your point? How much do you know about Richard Dawkins life, apart from when he puts his foot in his mouth on Twitter?

I would also argue that the scientist on this thread has more scientific advances over which to re-evaluate his religious beliefs that a guy in the 13th century who it is admitted that very little is known about.

That would depend entirely on their field of scientific study now, wouldn't it? A microbiologist isn't going to know a whole hell of a lot about anthropology and vice versa.

DamagedTrax · 15-01-2015 05:32PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

Ever notice how it is always backward looking though. No one takes into account the present at all when considering the merits of religion. "This is the way it was done in the past" etc. Such a (literally) backward way of thinking.

when you want to keep the status qou, progress is the enemy. in both government and religion.

Sofiztikated · 15-01-2015 05:38PM

I'm not even sure who is arguing with who any more!!

nox, answer me one question, seeing as you have ignored all my others.

Why is your particular flavour of religion more correct than any others?

15-01-2015 05:39PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The regular version many people believe, where God answers prayers with actual information and actions in the real world is false. The version where Pope John Paul II is a saint because a miracle happened is false. The one where St. Anthony can help you find your car keys is false. The one where people go to Lourdes and miracle cures happen is false. The one about Fatima and the one about Medjugore are false. The version where statues bleed or cry or dance is false, as well as being very funny.

I don't believe the they are false, if I did I how could I call myself a catholic?

Its hilarious how you sit there writing all the above being false as if you actually have a clue.

One eyed Jack · 15-01-2015 05:41PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

A problem arises when you use people who lived under totalitarian regimes to 'prove' this point. In the 10th century someone doing this kind of work had no option but to claim to be doing it for God, regardless of what his actual thoughts may have been. There are indeed tales of the very same man lying about his mental state out of fear:

Richard Dawkins doesn't live under a totalitarian regime, and yet he goes on as if he does, he's never made a claim he's actually had to stand behind, instead placing the burden of proof on other people to prove him wrong. When did science turn into "I can say what the hell I like, come out with any sort of nonsense I want, and it's up to everyone else to prove me wrong!"?

Regardless, cognitive dissonance is a real thing and people perform remarkable mental gymnastics in order to reconcile incompatible ideals. This in no way lends credence to the idea that science and catholicism are compatible and, by definition, they are not.

I agree with you, they're not compatible, but they're not opposed to each other either. The only people who set the two ideologies against each other are the likes of people like Dawkins, but that's because he is an anti-theist, nothing whatsoever to do with the fact he's a scientist.

15-01-2015 05:46PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

I would also say there is a difference between a scientist and someone with a science degree who soldiers through a 9-5 with Boston Scientific.

Is that directed at me?

Peist2007 · 15-01-2015 05:46PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's your point? How much do you know about Richard Dawkins life, apart from when he puts his foot in his mouth on Twitter?

My argument is that little is admittedly known about this guy's life. So i would then surmise that little is known about his beliefs and whether same beliefs came about through absolute devotion and unwavering belief or because peace and patronage would be easier to come by. Who knows?

Can you point to any science living side by side with religion in a secular context? Or in modern times?

Ps. When they say "we know little about his life" it means they dont know about his life. I dont like Richard Dawkins but, and this is crucial, he lives in 2015 and therefore has infinitely more scientific information to form his opinion than your friend from the 13th century. Plus i am sure his life is documented with easily verifiable facts. If only there was a Wikipedia in the 13th century.

Peist2007 · 15-01-2015 05:48PM

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

Is that directed at me?

No. I am saying that calling oneself a scientist usually means feck all.

Maximus Alexander · 15-01-2015 05:51PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Richard Dawkins doesn't live under a totalitarian regime, and yet he goes on as if he does, he's never made a claim he's actually had to stand behind, instead placing the burden of proof on other people to prove him wrong. When did science turn into "I can say what the hell I like, come out with any sort of nonsense I want, and it's up to everyone else to prove me wrong!"?

I agree with you, they're not compatible, but they're not opposed to each other either. The only people who set the two ideologies against each other are the likes of people like Dawkins, but that's because he is an anti-theist, nothing whatsoever to do with the fact he's a scientist.

I don't really know why Dawkins is involved, but I agree with you - I have absolutely no time for him.

SpaceTime · 15-01-2015 06:05PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I'm not even sure who is arguing with who any more!!

nox, answer me one question, seeing as you have ignored all my others.

Why is your particular flavour of religion more correct than any others?

Strawberry or Chocolate. I'm not too keen on the Blueberry ones and that banana flavoured one.. yuck!

Athiests - Who cares

Comments