[Izzy]

Heh... The Spiritual World thread got locked, oops. Anyway, I thought the discussion was interesting, and would love to continue, maybe in the appropriate thread this time. If possible, can the mods split the old thread starting here?

My original topic title was "Atheism vs. All: Debate Style", but I figured it could be hilarious interesting to having people claim why ____ is better than _____, possibly educational as well.

Common courtesy applies in this thread. Remember to attack the arguments people post, rather than the people themselves. If you're going to tease someone, do so cleverly.

I'd like to pick up from where we left off, but anyone can feel free to start us off. NO PREACHING. No threatening with Hell because of disbelief. If I see any of that, I will ask to have your post removed.

[Izzy]

I don't think the universe(s) can/have always existed, because then there's little difference to say some supreme ruler has always existed. I don't know what I believe, but that doesn't mean I won't look for the answers. For me, we definitely started with nothing. (Maybe empty space has always existed? Because that's not really anything existing, just a big vast of nothingness. Then, in this space, particles and antiparticles started forming, because they could. And of course, everything else falls into place. Or... maybe everything has just pure energy. But.. energy was really nothingingness. Just like an essence, it was there, but not there, didn't do anything, yet had the potential to do things. Typing as I think, this is probably incoherent rambling. Going to click the post button anyway.

*edit* Color

Edited May 1, 2009 by Izzy

[Guest]

It seems we're off-topic again, but since it's Izzy's thread, and she doesn't seem to mind...

d3k3: I agree that time exists within the universe, but I think the universe(s) has(have) always existed, and therefore time as well. That's just my personal inclination. But I really don't know, and neither does anyone The most likely scenario is that we're both wrong and the real truth isn't even comprehendable

OK. How do you explain how we reached this moment? Or, try looking at it from the other perspective: imagine an event in the infinitely distant future. Will it ever occur? In any case, if there was time "before" the Big Bang, it is completely irrelevant. Not only can it not be observed, but no events from the "other side(s)" can possibly affect our universe. It therefore is not connected to our time-frame.

[...] Maybe empty space has always existed? Because that's not really anything existing, just a big vast of nothingness.

But... you need space in order for there to be an expanse, even of nothingness. What I'm saying (and I believe most physicists agree) is that space-time itself ceases to exist "outside" the universe. This is not just because the concept is meaningless. The universe appears to have neither boundary nor center. It does, however, appear to be finite. These observations are inconsistent with the classical view of Euclidean space (i.e. three infinite orthogonal spatial dimensions). I believe a closed topology (i.e. finite space-time) is supported, e.g., in general relativity.

Edited May 1, 2009 by d3k3

[unreality]

d3k3: I see what you mean. Rules before the big bang, even if the same "universe" may have been completely rescrambled, or something like that.

And I see what you're saying about the universe... a 1d point can move forever on a finite line if it's curled in 2d space into a circle. A 2d shape can move forever on a finite plane if it's curled in 3d space into a sphere. And a 3d object, like us, can move forever in a finite space if it's curved in 4d hyperspace

[Guest]

I believe a closed topology (i.e. finite space-time) is supported, e.g., in general relativity.

Er... oops. Come to think of it, space-time is curved in GTR, but space is of the traditional Euclidean type.

Edit: I kant spel so gud.

Edited May 2, 2009 by d3k3

[Guest]

I myself believe that space and time are infinite. I don't see any reason for time to go away at all. And as far as space?

Well, I guess my little fourteen year old brain can't grasp itself around a space where there's less than nothing. Because in this sense, nothing is something, and... Christ, I don't know how to explain myself. I'm just trying to say that there can't be an end to nothing and all things simultaneously, because what would be on the other side of the end? Nothing? Something? In our universe at least, every Sq. mm. within it is filled with one or the other.

[Guest]

There are ways that physicists are conceiving now that allow the big bang to begin from something bigger than a singularity. Think about the fact that nothing makes any sense that is smaller than the Planck Length. This applies to the big bang as well. The theory of "Loop Quantum Gravity" postulates that the universe could have come from a previous mother universe that condensed into or produced a "seed" that condensed into something of Planck Length size. No information can pass through that "seed" as we understand it. But some sort of "DNA" might be able to come through that allows mother universe to pass on its laws of physics with some quantum uncertainty involved that makes the whole process worthwhile (meaningful) because it allows for the evolution of universes by quantum mutation. If there's a "higher power" that "designed" our universe, maybe it's that "DNA" from the mother universe.

[Guest]

Seeksit: I thought LQG was all about a cyclic universe. O.o Gah! Another thing I need to bone up on...

Ploper: Surprisingly, I'd never considered any of this in context of The Beard. How can anything finite contain it? Is it part of our universe, or are we simply one of its perfect hairs?

[Guest]

Well, the fact is, Christianity or not, their has to be a higher power, until scientists get smarter. Think of the Big Bang as a dominoe effect. Big bang happens, because of that planets form, when earth forms volcanoes form, stromatolites appear, carbon dioxide warms climate, new life forms appear, and we come into the scene. Someone had to have started the Big Bang, since their was no space and time before, as scientists have said. That starter was God, the higher power. He was the one who "toppled the first dominoe", so to speak. Another thing, a chemical reaction could not have started even the simplest life. A single-celled organism is far more complex than, say, a speck of dirt, so life did not evolve from inanimate objects. God was the one who intervened, set conditions right, and started life on Earth.

There are two concepts in science that I think you could benefit from learning about. The first is the concept of parsimony which is basically the idea that the simplest logical explanation is more likely to be the correct one, and should therefore be excepted so long as the evidence supports it. If new evidence is added that changes the simplest explanation, the new answer immediately replaces the old, at least once it has passed the scrutiny of peer experts in the field. If only religion were to take on that strict of policies for what to teach, right! If that were the case, there would be only one religion, not countless offshoots all branching from the same tribal cultist beliefs. The one religion would be supported by well documented, verifiable data, not just an old book. We wouldn't have people killing each other over all the little details within their faith, we wouldn't have catholic v. protestant, sunni v. shiite, creationists v. rational (which isn't a religion, but it is a worldview much in the way Buddhism has no theistic superstitions but is still considered a religion)... you get the idea.

The other concept is the anthropic principle. This one might be a little more difficult for you to understand, but what it basically means is that it doesn't matter how unlikely something is to happen if it has. the odds of a person getting struck by lightning are pretty bad. The odds of a specific person being struck by lightning on a specific date in a specific place are astronomically bad. Even so, people get struck by lightning all the time and at that point, the odds no longer matter because even if they were 100000000000000000 to one, the simple fact that it did happen means that it can. This principle is applied to both the origin of the universe (most likely a big bang) and the origin of life so that even if they are astonomically unlikely, the fact that we are here to talk about it today proves it did, we just need to figure out how. To paraphrase what somebody said on here before, even near infinite odds still end up being not so bad when you have infinity to wait for them to happen.

The fact that you assess God as the reason the anthropic principle became true is just one of many proposed hypotheses, unfortunately there is absolutely no evidence or any way in which to verify it to be true. The big bang, on the other hand, has a multitude of ways that it is supported by evidence, so even if it turns out not to be true, it is still the accepted hypothesis based on the available evidence at this time due to the concept of parsimony. That is the difference between science and religion. Science knows when it is wrong and changes to fit the facts, religion knows when the facts are wrong and tries to change them to fit the religion.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Martini

[Guest]

...the concept of parsimony which is basically the idea that the simplest logical explanation is more likely to be the correct one, and should therefore be excepted so long as the evidence supports it. If new evidence is added that changes the simplest explanation, the new answer immediately replaces the old, at least once it has passed the scrutiny of peer experts in the field. ... The fact that you assess God as the reason the anthropic principle became true is just one of many proposed hypotheses, unfortunately there is absolutely no evidence or any way in which to verify it to be true. The big bang, on the other hand, has a multitude of ways that it is supported by evidence, so even if it turns out not to be true, it is still the accepted hypothesis based on the available evidence at this time due to the concept of parsimony. That is the difference between science and religion. Science knows when it is wrong and changes to fit the facts, religion knows when the facts are wrong and tries to change them to fit the religion.

This comes to the heart of the matter. The law of parsimony (also called Occam's Razor, or Ockham's Razor), calls for us to accept the simplest explanation.

Placebos work. Keep that in mind. Scientific experiment has confirmed that.

"God" or an unknown "influence" with "supernatural" (really extra-natural) powers is often the simplest consistent explanation for issues not yet understood through reason, logic and science. It is consistent in that it is widely accepted, just as scientific results are.

Science does not accept absolute results, but always intends to revise its "belief structure" based on new evidence. There is no reason a modern religion cannot do the same. There is no reason that a modern religion cannot accept everything that science has uncovered and still have room for a favorite Placebo or extra-natural influence.

And there is not even any good reason to avoid making that extra-natural influence a personal one (anthropomorphizing one's god). In fact there are good reasons to give "god" a voice. People respond better to personal influence than to the cold, impersonal knife of reason.

Will science ever completely erase all doubt on all matters? Most scientists will tell you "no". As "Darwin's Bulldog" T.H. Huxley put it:

"The known is finite, the unknown is infinite; intellectually we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicabibilty. Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land."

What's wrong with learning to swim?

Can a reasoning person accept both sides of an open debate at once?

How can (s)he not?

[hugemonkey]

I myself believe that space and time are infinite. I don't see any reason for time to go away at all. And as far as space?

Well, I guess my little fourteen year old brain can't grasp itself around a space where there's less than nothing. Because in this sense, nothing is something, and... Christ, I don't know how to explain myself. I'm just trying to say that there can't be an end to nothing and all things simultaneously, because what would be on the other side of the end? Nothing? Something? In our universe at least, every Sq. mm. within it is filled with one or the other.

Current understanding of space-time is that the universe is extremely large but not infinite. However the "edge" is not a spacial boundary but one of time. Have you ever heard that when we look into space we are looking backward in time? This is because light takes time to get here. At a certain point of looking into deeper and deeper space we hit a wall of observation that is made up of microwave static. The static is (moments after) the big bang and can be seen as an edge of time. As far as a spacial "edge" there is none.

It helps to understand it if you mentally flatten some of the dimensions. Imagine that there are only two dimensions of space instead of three. the spacial dimensions of the universe woulds be like the surface of the sphere. if you were to travel on the surface you would eventually make a complete circle and wind up where you started. You would not perceive any edge.

[Guest]

This comes to the heart of the matter. The law of parsimony (also called Occam's Razor, or Ockham's Razor), calls for us to accept the simplest explanation.

Placebos work. Keep that in mind. Scientific experiment has confirmed that.

"God" or an unknown "influence" with "supernatural" (really extra-natural) powers is often the simplest consistent explanation for issues not yet understood through reason, logic and science. It is consistent in that it is widely accepted, just as scientific results are.

Science does not accept absolute results, but always intends to revise its "belief structure" based on new evidence. There is no reason a modern religion cannot do the same. There is no reason that a modern religion cannot accept everything that science has uncovered and still have room for a favorite Placebo or extra-natural influence.

And there is not even any good reason to avoid making that extra-natural influence a personal one (anthropomorphizing one's god). In fact there are good reasons to give "god" a voice. People respond better to personal influence than to the cold, impersonal knife of reason.

Will science ever completely erase all doubt on all matters? Most scientists will tell you "no". As "Darwin's Bulldog" T.H. Huxley put it:

"The known is finite, the unknown is infinite; intellectually we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicabibilty. Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land."

What's wrong with learning to swim?

Can a reasoning person accept both sides of an open debate at once?

How can (s)he not?

I am having trouble telling if this is an argument for or against religion. Well, let me rephrase that, I am having trouble telling if this is a sociological argument for the function of religion in society or if it is a rational argument against faith in the face of more solid evidence.

Of curse we are all aware, by we I mean those who are arguing on my side of this debate, that religion historically and currently serves a function in society and on a personal level. I had this conversation with my wife last night as a mater of fact since she was raised in a Catholic home and is struggling with my atheism. W understand that prayer can work, but not in the way that the faithful expect it to work. Prayer works on the same level that grief counseling or sharing with a confidant works for any non-religious person; it works by helping people cope and giving them hope. As far as your claim that the placebo effect happens, it is true but I think you overestimate its power. The placebo effect is controlled for in all drug and treatment studies so that they can discover the actual effects of the drug. Some people on the placebo might get a little better from a minor illness or condition, but no placebo has ever healed cancer.

Religion as a mythology serves as a cultural history, a moral compass and as a source of good works in society. Zealotry, fundamentalism, blind faith and obedience, intentional and chosen ignorance in the face of facts on the other hand are bad for society and that is how a small portion of the faithful in this country (the US is where I reside) are making faith a dangerous thing. More people have been killed in the name of gad than for anything else ever, so claiming that religion is good is a double edged sword. Yes, religious structure such as the Catholic church are able to do great human services works on a global scale. They contribute more money to and begin more charities than secular sources ever have. They offer free counseling to anybody who asks, albeit from relatively "on the job" trained counselors. The church can be a good thing. The church is also the reason that there are millions of loving couples in America who are unable to express their love in a legal union of marriage. The church is the reason that my wife's aunt and uncle were torn apart inside when their son was not allowed a funeral or burial in a catholic cemetery after he killed himself, instead they were offered the "comfort" of knowing he would burn in hell for all eternity.

I guess what I am getting at is that it seems you and I are on he same page about religion having good aspects, but I don't think anybody is arguing about it. My point is that choosing to ignore reality in the face of reason is dangerous to the individual and to society at large.

[hugemonkey]

This comes to the heart of the matter. The law of parsimony (also called Occam's Razor, or Ockham's Razor), calls for us to accept the simplest explanation.

This is not a law but a useful logical tool. It is not infallibale. The simplest answer is not automatically true. It is just that the simplest answer is most likely to be true. Unlikely thing happen all of the time.

Placebos work. Keep that in mind. Scientific experiment has confirmed that.

Science has confirmed the existance of a placebo effect. There is a statistically significant improvement in human patients that receive placebos as opposed to those that receive nothing. This has more to do with human psychology than anything else. Our brain controls certain aspects of our immune system and it is more likely to help if it thinks that it is getting a real drug. There is not placebo effect when it comes to animals (lab rats and such) because they do not know that they are being treated.

"God" or an unknown "influence" with "supernatural" (really extra-natural) powers is often the simplest consistent explanation for issues not yet understood through reason, logic and science. It is consistent in that it is widely accepted, just as scientific results are.

Without the cultural baggage of religion I doubt that you would see God as the simplest answer. I try to resist the temptation that lack of understanding = supernatural. And again simple does not equal true.

Science does not accept absolute results, but always intends to revise its "belief structure" based on new evidence. There is no reason a modern religion cannot do the same. There is no reason that a modern religion cannot accept everything that science has uncovered and still have room for a favorite Placebo or extra-natural influence.

Science does not change its "belief structure"; it changes its "dogma". The [only belief structure of Science is that boarder understanding can be gained through limited observation and narrowly defined experimentation. This breaks questions down into a series of "if...then" statements that can be independently verified by anyone. The answers to these questions form a sort of "dogma." This "dogma" can change at any time if new evidence or interpretations arise. Religious belief systems are made entirely of dogma. Any ammendment proccess would change the belief structure itself and would be very risky in maintaining consistency through time

And there is not even any good reason to avoid making that extra-natural influence a personal one (anthropomorphizing one's god). In fact there are good reasons to give "god" a voice. People respond better to personal influence than to the cold, impersonal knife of reason.Just because you want something to be a certain way does not make it so. This seems more like a reason why "God" would have been invented than why it exists.

Will science ever completely erase all doubt on all matters? Most scientists will tell you "no". As "Darwin's Bulldog" T.H. Huxley put it:

"The known is finite, the unknown is infinite; intellectually we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicabibilty. Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land."

What's wrong with learning to swim?

It's fine to swim...but that is not the goal of science.

Can a reasoning person accept both sides of an open debate at once?

How can (s)he not?

I am not meaning to pick on you, seeksit, but I wasn't following this thread for a few days and your arguments were just too temping.

[Izzy]

Stepping away from what we were talking about before for a sec., let's go into the advantages/disadvantages of religion. This is a post I made in another thread, which was locked, so I'll just copy and paste it rather than putting it into quotes tags so it's easy to reply to, if anyone wants.

Advantage*: Population control. More people have died in the name of God, whatever God, than anything else. I'm pretty intolerant of most religions, but what keeps me from wanting to destroy them all is the thought of them (different denominations) killing each other off while atheists have the chance to watch from the sidelines. Biggest threat to US atheists would be getting grouped with the damn Christians, but I'm sure since we're amazing, we can figure out a way out of it. Religion (at least back then) made the world a very 'survival of the fittest' one. I'm afraid it isn't exactly like that now, look at the obesity level and prediction levels in the US, but all in good time.

*Disclaimer: What I'm saying isn't targeted at anyone. I feel the Holocaust will be mentioned. I believe IN NO WAY that the slaughter of 12 million people was justified. However, looking at these types of things in the .... sorta selfish, can be optimistic, will probably come off like an a**hole 'how does this benefit me/things related to me' way, yeah, population control.

Disadvantages:

1. There is no reason to believe in a lie, regardless of whether it makes you happy or not. Every religion is some complete BS, made up either for money, or to spread completely illiberal beliefs, like ones where slavery is okay, women should be oppressed, and homosexuals should be stoned.

2. Childhood indoctrination, i.e. corrupting the mind of youths before they're given to tools to think things over logically, is evil and should be illegal. This can be compared to Santa Claus, a mostly harmless, fun, tradition. From an incredibly young age, children are made to believe in things that aren't real, be that Santa, the Easter Bunny, God, whatever. Fortunately, the children eventually develop some logical thinking skills, where they begin questioning Santa, and other like creations, because, given the lack of evidence for his existence ("I stayed up all night but he didn't eat my milk and cookies." "Daddy is in the costume." "How can Santa be at EVERY mall?" etc.), asserting he isn't there is no longer hard. Unfortunately, the same logic is rarely applied to God. Maybe that's because we're not meant to sense (with the physical senses) his presence.

3. What's the point of a God that doesn't interfere? And when the only time he does, it's with murder? According to some religions, AIDs isn't a serious disease, merely God's solution for homosexuals. According to some Muslims that made the news, swine flu isn't any scary epidemic (well, it isn't anyway, but yeah), it's Allah showing his fury and killing those who disobey him and eat pork. I'm sure it's even been argued that STDs are merely the punishment for premarital sex.

4. Religions are intolerant of other religions. This isn't just at the adult level, but helpless kidlets are actually being bullied in school for having beliefs off par the norm in their area. There was a kid who refused to pray with his class when prompted, and he never heard the end of it. I've refused to do the Pledge of Allegiance since I've understood it, sometime in second grade, and kids make such a big deal out of it. Thankfully, most people have gotten over that now, but yeah, that was like three years of elementary hell. I even remember this one time, this year, when we had some ex-military (female) fundie substitute. As usual, I would sit respectfully while everyone else did the pledge, and she came over and told me off. We got into a very debate style argument, which ended something like..

Me: I have the freedom to do or not do whatever I want, and the pledge, your moment of silence, and any other silly singalongs non class related are completely optional. If you don't believe me, go look it up in the school rules. If you refuse to look it up, ignorance of the rule is no justification for any complaint I decide to make, as you've now been well informed.

Her: I don't care. You will stand and do the pledge and pray with the rest of us while I am in this classroom.

Me: Um. No. No, I won't.

Her: Go sit in the hallway. You can come back in in five minutes.

Me: *leaves classroom and immediately walks to the administration building to complain*

More to come when I feel like typing them out.

[Guest]

More people have been killed in the name of gad than for anything else ever [...]

I doubt that is true. I think you will find that comparatively few wars have been fought over religion, and that even holy wars usually have had a political motivation, and religion was simply used to rally people to the cause. The butcher's bill of WWII alone is awfully grim, and none of it was motivated by religion (even the holocaust was ethnically motivated, and had nothing to do with the Judaic religion).

[Guest]

I doubt that is true. I think you will find that comparatively few wars have been fought over religion, and that even holy wars usually have had a political motivation, and religion was simply used to rally people to the cause. The butcher's bill of WWII alone is awfully grim, and none of it was motivated by religion (even the holocaust was ethnically motivated, and had nothing to do with the Judaic religion).

I think that this is more of a semantic assertion that an actual difference. In my opinion very few things are actually done with what's best according to the religion in mind, but many things are portrayed that way. Religion is the opiate of the masses, but it is also the tool of the elites to control them, whoever controls the church controls the people. I also think that you are failing to remember the crusades and the jihad, and making the claim that something is ethnically motivated and not religiously is truly a semantic difference only - most people are part of an ethnicity due to a religious organization or sect. In almost every country, empire, monarchy... any sort of government or society, there has been persecution of one group by another. The biggest factor that creates who is in which group? Their religion. No two people within any religion believe exactly the same thing, but he fact that they share common beliefs unites them into or against persecution. Holy wars may not have actually been fought to spread religion, it may have been to spread one man's empire, but the real reason is not the reason the soldiers are fighting. It is not the way that each man wielding a sword, an axe, a rifle or a bomb justifies the lives he is about to take. More often than not, if he is a religious man, he thinks that god would think it is ok because these people are heathens or heretics anyway.

[Guest]

a quick addendum to my previous post, the idea of 9 virgins if you die a martyr's death has definitely added to the amount of religious murder/suicides in islam

[Guest]

Stepping away from what we were talking about before for a sec., let's go into the advantages/disadvantages of religion. This is a post I made in another thread, which was locked, so I'll just copy and paste it rather than putting it into quotes tags so it's easy to reply to, if anyone wants.

Advantage*: Population control. More people have died in the name of God, whatever God, than anything else. I'm pretty intolerant of most religions, but what keeps me from wanting to destroy them all is the thought of them (different denominations) killing each other off while atheists have the chance to watch from the sidelines. Biggest threat to US atheists would be getting grouped with the damn Christians, but I'm sure since we're amazing, we can figure out a way out of it. Religion (at least back then) made the world a very 'survival of the fittest' one. I'm afraid it isn't exactly like that now, look at the obesity level and prediction levels in the US, but all in good time.

Seriously, Izzy, Most murders are/were caused by territorial disputes among humans (and Chimpanzees, you should see them some time.) Those who commit atrocities in the name of their religion are shunned by their peers.

*Disclaimer: What I'm saying isn't targeted at anyone. I feel the Holocaust will be mentioned. I believe IN NO WAY that the slaughter of 12 million people was justified. However, looking at these types of things in the .... sorta selfish, can be optimistic, will probably come off like an a**hole 'how does this benefit me/things related to me' way, yeah, population control.

Disadvantages:

1. There is no reason to believe in a lie, regardless of whether it makes you happy or not. Every religion is some complete BS, made up either for money, or to spread completely illiberal beliefs, like ones where slavery is okay, women should be oppressed, and homosexuals should be stoned.

Happy is the ultimate reason.

2. Childhood indoctrination, i.e. corrupting the mind of youths before they're given to tools to think things over logically, is evil and should be illegal. This can be compared to Santa Claus, a mostly harmless, fun, tradition. From an incredibly young age, children are made to believe in things that aren't real, be that Santa, the Easter Bunny, God, whatever. Fortunately, the children eventually develop some logical thinking skills, where they begin questioning Santa, and other like creations, because, given the lack of evidence for his existence ("I stayed up all night but he didn't eat my milk and cookies." "Daddy is in the costume." "How can Santa be at EVERY mall?" etc.), asserting he isn't there is no longer hard. Unfortunately, the same logic is rarely applied to God. Maybe that's because we're not meant to sense (with the physical senses) his presence.

This is opinion, not fact, or are you trying to "indoctrinate" us?

3. What's the point of a God that doesn't interfere? And when the only time he does, it's with murder? According to some religions, AIDs isn't a serious disease, merely God's solution for homosexuals. According to some Muslims that made the news, swine flu isn't any scary epidemic (well, it isn't anyway, but yeah), it's Allah showing his fury and killing those who disobey him and eat pork. I'm sure it's even been argued that STDs are merely the punishment for premarital sex.

Let's think philosophically here. Lots of religions believe in HEAVEN or HELL. What's the use of having a Hell if everybody gets zapped when they do something wrong? Everybody would suddenly ACT good. If the purpose of heaven and hell was to sort people into good and bad groups, then nobody would be put in the right group. I could go into a little more detail, but this should suffice

4. Religions are intolerant of other religions. This isn't just at the adult level, but helpless kidlets are actually being bullied in school for having beliefs off par the norm in their area. There was a kid who refused to pray with his class when prompted, and he never heard the end of it. I've refused to do the Pledge of Allegiance since I've understood it, sometime in second grade, and kids make such a big deal out of it. Thankfully, most people have gotten over that now, but yeah, that was like three years of elementary hell. I even remember this one time, this year, when we had some ex-military (female) fundie substitute. As usual, I would sit respectfully while everyone else did the pledge, and she came over and told me off. We got into a very debate style argument, which ended something like..

Me: I have the freedom to do or not do whatever I want, and the pledge, your moment of silence, and any other silly singalongs non class related are completely optional. If you don't believe me, go look it up in the school rules. If you refuse to look it up, ignorance of the rule is no justification for any complaint I decide to make, as you've now been well informed.

Her: I don't care. You will stand and do the pledge and pray with the rest of us while I am in this classroom.

Me: Um. No. No, I won't.

Her: Go sit in the hallway. You can come back in in five minutes.

Me: *leaves classroom and immediately walks to the administration building to complain*

When you meet people like that you know you've got a weirdo, or a stereotype. When you get down to it there is a great deal of religious tolerance. In fact, when you get down to intolerance, it has nothing to do with religion at all. It's just a bunch a bunch of power-hungry morons trying to legitimacize their actions, take N Ireland for example. The English take away some Irish land. Waah, Waah, what are you going to do about it? You change the subject and object. Now, The PROTESTANTS take away some CATHOLIC land. There is also a similar situation is Israel/Palestine, but hopefully you get the point.

More to come when I feel like typing them out.

I hope this makes you feel like typing out some more, hopefully soon, I don't get on as often as I used to.

[Izzy]

Seriously, Izzy, Most murders are/were caused by territorial disputes among humans (and Chimpanzees, you should see them some time.) Those who commit atrocities in the name of their religion are shunned by their peers.

Territorial disputes of the territories God 'entitled' them to. Manifest Destiny and the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict come to mind.

Happy is the ultimate reason.

Truancy, drugs, unhealthy amounts of Family Guy, junk food, and snogging teachers would make me happy. Needless to say, I don't do any of that stuff. Doing something because it makes you happy when it ultimately poses a problem isn't right. Being ignorant of the problem doesn't help either.

This is opinion, not fact, or are you trying to "indoctrinate" us?

Guilty. However, childhood indoctrination is a disadvantage, because although it's alright to educate your children, the decision of religion should primarily belong to the child, not the parent. That's why I like what RD says: There is no Christian/Muslim/Jewish/etc. child, just a child of Christian/Muslim/Jewish/etc. parents.

Let's think philosophically here. Lots of religions believe in HEAVEN or HELL. What's the use of having a Hell if everybody gets zapped when they do something wrong? Everybody would suddenly ACT good. If the purpose of heaven and hell was to sort people into good and bad groups, then nobody would be put in the right group. I could go into a little more detail, but this should suffice

I didn't mean interfere as barbarically zapping people. Kind of malevolent of an all-loving God, no? I mean, why let the worms in Africa it the eyes of children as they sleep? Why plague everyone with flus and diseases? People dying at birth? The death of innocent children? Omniscient God should still know who should go into what group.

When you meet people like that you know you've got a weirdo, or a stereotype. When you get down to it there is a great deal of religious tolerance. In fact, when you get down to intolerance, it has nothing to do with religion at all. It's just a bunch a bunch of power-hungry morons trying to legitimacize their actions, take N Ireland for example. The English take away some Irish land. Waah, Waah, what are you going to do about it? You change the subject and object. Now, The PROTESTANTS take away some CATHOLIC land. There is also a similar situation is Israel/Palestine, but hopefully you get the point.

It does have to do with religion. "You will pray with us while I'm in this classroom." Maybe I pissed her off before it got to that point, but it all had to do with me being seen as a threat to her religious belief in the odd event my 'rebelliousness' would set some sort of bad example for my classmates. Even worse, I could have made people think for themselves! *gasp* Like, without religion (though I admit her veteran-ness definitely had something to do with the pledge bit), she wouldn't have cared.

Yeah, you're proving one of my points. Religion = waaaaar. Arg, attack! Blah.

I'll think of some more right now. Mom screaming for me to get offline..

[Izzy]

5. Religion stunts scientific growth, or at least the concepts science establishes. Especially with regards to evolution. Religion ignores things that it doesn't believe fits its book. Why don't fundies just quit school after the first few years? By this point, they should have all the intelligence they need to read their lovely scripture, and know enough basic math to be able to calculate money, tax, that sort of thing. I guess an introductory course to physics or something could help, but chemistry and that sort of thing would be pointless to them. History can be learned through books. All other time can be devoted to the lord.

[Guest]

Religion as a mythology serves as a cultural history, a moral compass and as a source of good works in society. Zealotry, fundamentalism, blind faith and obedience, intentional and chosen ignorance in the face of facts on the other hand are bad for society and that is how a small portion of the faithful in this country (the US is where I reside) are making faith a dangerous thing. ...

I guess what I am getting at is that it seems you and I are on he same page about religion having good aspects, but I don't think anybody is arguing about it. My point is that choosing to ignore reality in the face of reason is dangerous to the individual and to society at large.

What I am saying is that a *modern* religion doesn not have to be frozen into zealotry, fundamentalism, blind faith, etc. It can function on the same level as science and accept all that science has to offer.

(From Hugemonkey: Religious belief systems are made entirely of dogma. Any ammendment proccess would change the belief structure itself and would be very risky in maintaining consistency through time

The argument that all religion must be based on dogma is specious. Just look at pantheism.

People get along just fine without any requirement to embrace dogma. Atheists are the ultimate example of that.

[hugemonkey]

What I am saying is that a *modern* religion doesn not have to be frozen into zealotry, fundamentalism, blind faith, etc. It can function on the same level as science and accept all that science has to offer.

Based on your previous posts I take it that you believe that there could be a modern religion that would embrace science and update itself when new scientific facts are discovered. If science has an area where it does not know something this could be temporarily explained by some kind of "spiritual" knowledge.

Why would you want to do this? There should feel no shame in accepting that there is some thing that is not yet understood. There is no reason to make up magical or spiritual reasons for some sort of mysterious phenomena. The problem with (religious) dogma is that it requires one to accept it without question. This is by definition, faith: accepting a belief without evidence. It is an excuse to stop thinking and stop questioning. I do not see how this is compatible with scientific thought which by definition is accepting a belief only after rigorous examination based on testable and repeatable evidence.

The argument that all religion must be based on dogma is specious. Just look at pantheism.

Dogma is, by definition, a religious belief or doctrine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

I was using it in quotes when referring to it in the scientific sense because there I meant it more metaphorically, as a belief or doctrine that is based on the scientific method. If by pantheism you mean more of the Spinozian sense of the word then, yes, you could be free of much of the dogma of Religion. Spinoza's pantheism is more of a metaphorical way of looking at the world and not truly a Religion. Its like using "God" as a synonym for "the universe". I use the term "Religion" to mean a certain type of established institution that has a belief system (based on dogma) and usually having some sort of associated moral code as opposed to just a belief system.

People get along just fine without any requirement to embrace dogma. Atheists are the ultimate example of that.

Yes, people can get along fine without dogma or Religion for that matter. Religions, by definition, cannot exist without dogma.

My responses above are in blue.

[Guest]

Based on your previous posts I take it that you believe that there could be a modern religion that would embrace science and update itself when new scientific facts are discovered. If science has an area where it does not know something this could be temporarily explained by some kind of "spiritual" knowledge.

Why would you want to do this? There should feel no shame in accepting that there is some thing that is not yet understood.

Some people's psychological makeup is such that they are not comfortable with doubt. If religion (which I insist has no intrinsic requirement to limit itself to dogma) can provide comfort to such people, and if science can make no promises that comfort them, then religion has a legitimate place.

What religion offers is a wider world than science alone can provide. Most of us live in a world of rich, vivid imagination and emotions, etc. These aspects of every human's life have little to do with reason. It's an interesting thought exercise to ask oneself why they take comfort in science. The "cold hard knife of reason" is not there to offer anyone any comfort at all. What is it that gives a person their sense of wholeness and well-being? Can anyone live a productive life in the complete absence of these things?

There is no reason to make up magical or spiritual reasons for some sort of mysterious phenomena. The problem with (religious) dogma is that it requires one to accept it without question. This is by definition, faith: accepting a belief without evidence. It is an excuse to stop thinking and stop questioning. I do not see how this is compatible with scientific thought which by definition is accepting a belief only after rigorous examination based on testable and repeatable evidence.

I agree with you entirely that stopping one's quest for truth is not the most enlightened way to live one's life. I suggest that this quest can include much more than just the quest for new (cold and impersonal) factual information through science.

Dogma is, by definition, a religious belief or doctrine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

I was using it in quotes when referring to it in the scientific sense because there I meant it more metaphorically, as a belief or doctrine that is based on the scientific method. If by pantheism you mean more of the Spinozian sense of the word then, yes, you could be free of much of the dogma of Religion. Spinoza's pantheism is more of a metaphorical way of looking at the world and not truly a Religion. Its like using "God" as a synonym for "the universe". I use the term "Religion" to mean a certain type of established institution that has a belief system (based on dogma) and usually having some sort of associated moral code as opposed to just a belief system.

But religion is not, by definition, restricted to a reliance on dogma. That is where modern Pantheism, Panentheism, Unitarian Universalism, and quite a few other modern religions come in. These religions reject dogma as vehemently as any atheist.

Religions, by definition, cannot exist without dogma.

I respectfully disagree with that definition.

[Guest]

5. Religion stunts scientific growth, or at least the concepts science establishes. Especially with regards to evolution. Religion ignores things that it doesn't believe fits its book. Why don't fundies just quit school after the first few years? By this point, they should have all the intelligence they need to read their lovely scripture, and know enough basic math to be able to calculate money, tax, that sort of thing. I guess an introductory course to physics or something could help, but chemistry and that sort of thing would be pointless to them. History can be learned through books. All other time can be devoted to the lord.

It didn't stop me.

[Izzy]

It didn't stop me.

Do you believe in evolution or a 6000 year old earth?

[Guest]

Do you believe in evolution or a 6000 year old earth?

Evolution. The "how long is a day" thing is the main thing that makes religion and evolution compatible.