I'm a Christian, and am not embarrassed to admit it. I'm embarrassed by these assholes, though. (Atheists often think that Christian == fundamentalist, which simply isn't true.)
I'm not sure it's more logical to say that the universe created itself than it was created by someone, but to each his own, I guess.
I actually saw them today at the con, holding up a Jesus Is Lord sign, as a bunch of cosplaying executioners paraded around. I didn't know it was the Westborough asshats, or I'd have had words with them,
And you also get upset when theists call you asshats, am I right? (Do you never wonder why?)
Honestly, I think the arguments for the existence of God are more compelling than the opposite, but doing your dickwad atheist bit isn't a good counterargument.
Dawkins has made being-an-asshole-to-theists his raison d'etre, but it neither makes him right, nor even sound particularly smart. His arguments are laughably bad when he strays outside the area he knows (evo
Better to be considered an asshat by someone who is clearly delusional, than being delusional yourself - or enabling their delusions at the cost to society as a whole. Religion needs put down, hard.
The best single argument for me against faith has been one posited by Hitchens in part 2 of a debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYaQpRZJl18&feature=related [youtube.com] (part1) and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkHuvErbpd0&NR=1 [youtube.com] (part 2). The idea that existence of this sort of god being "compelling" is more ab
You know what? Religion is a good way for people to feel good about themselves as well as band together and help out those less fortunate. I'm not a religious person but I can see the good that can come from most groups.
It's very possible that some of our core scientific beliefs will be proven wrong in the next 100 years, will your great grandchildren look back and think "wow, the people who believed in nuclear fission were so archaic!"
You don't need religion to band together. Why not do it without the dogmatic baggage?
And if you look at the history of science, you find two things: First, it is one of the most reliable ways we have of discovering reality. And second, it tends to get refined, not wholly overturned. Newton wasn't wrong, just inaccurate.
Certainly, we'll be in a far better place to embrace new scientific discoveries if we don't have dogma blocking the way.
Well, I guess my stated source was "the history of science", and you could look at it yourself and see. The idea isn't mine though. I got it from some History of Science lectures I attended that put it forward.
There are two ways in which it's true. One is the very "practical" way in which "the churches" were (obviously) very involved with education, knowledge, communities etc. back then. There is, however, a much more interesting level on which it is true. That is that the idea of having an external, uni
One is the very "practical" way in which "the churches" were (obviously) very involved with education, knowledge, communities etc. back then.
True, religion played a much more central role in society in the old days. Of course, when societies separate religion from the rest of society, that's when things tend to progress the most. Look at the peak of Greek, Roman, Middle Eastern, and modern Western civilization - they all occurred when religion was less central to public life than normal, either becaus
I unfortunately muddled up bits in my response that came from monotheism and bits that came from religious movements in general.
Religious thought has the genesis of the idea that there are things worth searching for that are objective, independent of human regard (man is NOT the measure of all things). That you might sacrifice base hedonism for a lifestyle that works towards some sort of external goal. That idea is put forward very well at the end of Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals.
I unfortunately muddled up bits in my response that came from monotheism and bits that came from religious movements in general.
Well, you've gone from "... [science] couldn't have been done without using classically "religious" framework" and "[external truth, cannons, experts] all come from monotheism" to "religion might have helped science along in some vague ways that can't be verified". I'll just consider your original claims retracted.
the idea of having an external, universal truth that you're searching for as a team; having a "canon" of accepted material documenting that truth; having institutionally-recognised experts who will teach students - these all come from monotheism.
What? Really? Please, cite sources if you can, because that'd be really interesting -- because this seems to fall apart with armchair analysis:
external, universal truth
That's hardly a new idea -- indeed, that's how humans function, whatever religion they have or don't. Please explain what worldview existed before monotheism in which there was no such truth -- in which there might be many truths. In particular...
external, universal truth that you're searching for as a team
The Greek philosophers definitely did that.
having a "canon" of accepted material documenting that truth
Here, you're wrong on both counts -- the Greeks had the Iliad and the Odyssey,
Religious thought has the genesis of the idea that there are things worth searching for that are objective, independent of human regard...
I would guess it's quite the other way around -- religious thought is a reaction to thoughts about things worth searching for which are objective and independent of human regard.
But I don't know that, so if you have some evidence for this, I'd love to hear it...
That you might sacrifice base hedonism for a lifestyle that works towards some sort of external goal.
This, too, doesn't seem to need or much benefit from religion. While I don't know if I agree that it was a good cause, this movie [wikipedia.org] presents a story of several people, some opposed, all intensely passionate about their cause. The true story [wikipedia.org] highlights
I think you replied after I clarified that I'd mixed some non-monotheistic stuff in with the other religious stances that informed those things. Anyway, I'm just going to respond to a few of your points here:
1. The Greek philosophers were not team players, they were each pretty self-centred.
2. Polytheism means that with many Gods you can have many truths and many ideal ways of living. You might choose to worship a particular God because their domain fits in with your lifestyle. There's also the idea of
Not at all, I don't see how you could think that without deliberately misreading what I wrote either.
Your original post was: If you look at the history of science you'll find that it couldn't have been done without using classically "religious" framework.
and now you're saying: Religious thought has the genesis of the idea that there are things worth searching for that are objective, independent of human regard (man is NOT the measure of all things). That you might sacrifice base hedonism for a life
The Greek philosophers were not team players, they were each pretty self-centred.
Is that why Plato's Republic is all about improving society as a whole? I'll grant that the "team" of Pythagoras did cut themselves off from society, but that's another team.
Polytheism means that with many Gods you can have many truths
Nope, sorry. There might be many opinions about Aphrodite and Ares, but the "truth" that they had an affair is not up for debate.
All polytheism does is suggest that truth is ultimately independent of the gods -- or at least, of these gods.
Your argument that there is not a scientific "canon" seems pretty shallow to me. At the simplest level, there are journals that a university/RI wants you to publish in and those that they don't. That creates a canon.
No, that creates a university policy. There are other universities [patriotuniversity.com], if you really want to publish s
I haven't read Nietzche, so I was avoiding this...
I just looked it up [records.viu.ca] -- I have to preface this with, I don't have time to read the entire thing today, but glancing through, I honestly can't find what you're talking about. The closest seems to be the relationship he describes -- that science "still" cares about truth, and the relationship between science and the ascetic ideal.
He never claims Christianity is the origin of these ideas about truth. He also refers me to other texts to explain what he means by t
It's not an optical illusion, it just looks like one.
-- Phil White
Still doing that? (Score:0, Troll)
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a Christian, and am not embarrassed to admit it. I'm embarrassed by these assholes, though. (Atheists often think that Christian == fundamentalist, which simply isn't true.)
I'm not sure it's more logical to say that the universe created itself than it was created by someone, but to each his own, I guess.
I actually saw them today at the con, holding up a Jesus Is Lord sign, as a bunch of cosplaying executioners paraded around. I didn't know it was the Westborough asshats, or I'd have had words with them,
Re: (Score:-1, Flamebait)
No, no, we do not think all of you are fundamentalists, However, we do think you are all delusional.
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
>>However, we do think you are all delusional.
And you also get upset when theists call you asshats, am I right? (Do you never wonder why?)
Honestly, I think the arguments for the existence of God are more compelling than the opposite, but doing your dickwad atheist bit isn't a good counterargument.
Dawkins has made being-an-asshole-to-theists his raison d'etre, but it neither makes him right, nor even sound particularly smart. His arguments are laughably bad when he strays outside the area he knows (evo
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's very possible that some of our core scientific beliefs will be proven wrong in the next 100 years, will your great grandchildren look back and think "wow, the people who believed in nuclear fission were so archaic!"
Live and let live if they aren't harassing me.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need religion to band together. Why not do it without the dogmatic baggage?
And if you look at the history of science, you find two things: First, it is one of the most reliable ways we have of discovering reality. And second, it tends to get refined, not wholly overturned. Newton wasn't wrong, just inaccurate.
Certainly, we'll be in a far better place to embrace new scientific discoveries if we don't have dogma blocking the way.
Re:Still doing that? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at the history of science you'll find that it couldn't have been done without using classically "religious" framework.
And I assume you can back up that claim with...?
Re: (Score:1)
There are two ways in which it's true. One is the very "practical" way in which "the churches" were (obviously) very involved with education, knowledge, communities etc. back then. There is, however, a much more interesting level on which it is true. That is that the idea of having an external, uni
Re: (Score:2)
One is the very "practical" way in which "the churches" were (obviously) very involved with education, knowledge, communities etc. back then.
True, religion played a much more central role in society in the old days. Of course, when societies separate religion from the rest of society, that's when things tend to progress the most. Look at the peak of Greek, Roman, Middle Eastern, and modern Western civilization - they all occurred when religion was less central to public life than normal, either becaus
Re: (Score:1)
Religious thought has the genesis of the idea that there are things worth searching for that are objective, independent of human regard (man is NOT the measure of all things). That you might sacrifice base hedonism for a lifestyle that works towards some sort of external goal. That idea is put forward very well at the end of Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals.
The monotheistic bit
Re: (Score:2)
I unfortunately muddled up bits in my response that came from monotheism and bits that came from religious movements in general.
Well, you've gone from "... [science] couldn't have been done without using classically "religious" framework" and "[external truth, cannons, experts] all come from monotheism" to "religion might have helped science along in some vague ways that can't be verified". I'll just consider your original claims retracted.
Re: (Score:2)
the idea of having an external, universal truth that you're searching for as a team; having a "canon" of accepted material documenting that truth; having institutionally-recognised experts who will teach students - these all come from monotheism.
What? Really? Please, cite sources if you can, because that'd be really interesting -- because this seems to fall apart with armchair analysis:
external, universal truth
That's hardly a new idea -- indeed, that's how humans function, whatever religion they have or don't. Please explain what worldview existed before monotheism in which there was no such truth -- in which there might be many truths. In particular...
external, universal truth that you're searching for as a team
The Greek philosophers definitely did that.
having a "canon" of accepted material documenting that truth
Here, you're wrong on both counts -- the Greeks had the Iliad and the Odyssey,
Re: (Score:2)
Religious thought has the genesis of the idea that there are things worth searching for that are objective, independent of human regard...
I would guess it's quite the other way around -- religious thought is a reaction to thoughts about things worth searching for which are objective and independent of human regard.
But I don't know that, so if you have some evidence for this, I'd love to hear it...
That you might sacrifice base hedonism for a lifestyle that works towards some sort of external goal.
This, too, doesn't seem to need or much benefit from religion. While I don't know if I agree that it was a good cause, this movie [wikipedia.org] presents a story of several people, some opposed, all intensely passionate about their cause. The true story [wikipedia.org] highlights
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
1. The Greek philosophers were not team players, they were each pretty self-centred.
2. Polytheism means that with many Gods you can have many truths and many ideal ways of living. You might choose to worship a particular God because their domain fits in with your lifestyle. There's also the idea of
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all, I don't see how you could think that without deliberately misreading what I wrote either.
Your original post was:
If you look at the history of science you'll find that it couldn't have been done without using classically "religious" framework.
and now you're saying:
Religious thought has the genesis of the idea that there are things worth searching for that are objective, independent of human regard (man is NOT the measure of all things). That you might sacrifice base hedonism for a life
Re: (Score:2)
The Greek philosophers were not team players, they were each pretty self-centred.
Is that why Plato's Republic is all about improving society as a whole? I'll grant that the "team" of Pythagoras did cut themselves off from society, but that's another team.
Polytheism means that with many Gods you can have many truths
Nope, sorry. There might be many opinions about Aphrodite and Ares, but the "truth" that they had an affair is not up for debate.
All polytheism does is suggest that truth is ultimately independent of the gods -- or at least, of these gods.
Your argument that there is not a scientific "canon" seems pretty shallow to me. At the simplest level, there are journals that a university/RI wants you to publish in and those that they don't. That creates a canon.
No, that creates a university policy. There are other universities [patriotuniversity.com], if you really want to publish s
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't read Nietzche, so I was avoiding this...
I just looked it up [records.viu.ca] -- I have to preface this with, I don't have time to read the entire thing today, but glancing through, I honestly can't find what you're talking about. The closest seems to be the relationship he describes -- that science "still" cares about truth, and the relationship between science and the ascetic ideal.
He never claims Christianity is the origin of these ideas about truth. He also refers me to other texts to explain what he means by t