Random Christianity Discussion

[hey]

Because sciences is "peer reviewed", it's safe to assume the 7% who believes in God do their job as well as the other 93%. You can't bullshit eternally before someone point you the door.

Peer review means no one is better than anyone else?

Why do you believe they can't do it right?

I don't believe such a thing. Obviously they can. I was just curious where you got your statistics on how good religious scientists were at Science.

[Greatguardian]

Interesting insinuation. Anything to back it up? Or are we just blowing it out our asses at the moment?

[Kaylia]

I think if we explored it you might even be less accepting than GG, but you are both much more accepting of faith being the basis of someones decision making processes than I am.

The difference in our views is degrees, but you guys are clearly more enlightened because your standards are more lenient.

The difference is that mine stop exactly where sciences end, while your continue a little further down the line.

I said previously, I draw a big thick line between an agnostic deist, who doesn't make claims of having received any kind of sense data or personal revelation of god, and any follower of one of the brand name religions. Where do you draw your line?
Still not clear on where the distinction is for you.

The only time where I find religion acceptable is when someone tell me: "Because I don't know better, because I can't know better, I will trust my own judgement and take a wild shot in the dark".

Such beliefs can't possibly conflict with sciences, and is as intellectually harmless as it can be. We can be judgmental, but what's the point? It's not like he doesn't understand the origin of his beliefs, or let them get in the way of reality.

So what is left? Argue against his morals with sciences? Such thing isn't possible to begin with.

A huge intelligent close relative to man, that has been reported in Russia, Canada, USA, Tibet, etc. but no one has ever found a skeleton of the proper size.

A religion created by L Ron Hubbard after deciding he wasn't making enough money writing short sci fi stories in digests, and actually mentioned to friends that religion was where the money was before shortly after starting the church of scientology.

I guess I agree, I would like to see what someone could possibly have to say to entice me to give either idea a chance beyond what I have already researched on it in the past. I am very doubtful that will ever happen, and I don't feel even slightly close minded about it.

Intellectual dishonesty is another topic, and to discuss it properly, I need to involve additional beliefs. Of course, I generally look down on people who tries to screw others, but that's because I have a strong respect toward mankind in general (okay, maybe not online, but I actually do).

My point, first off, was that intelligent well educated scientists are less likely to believe in god than the average bear. I thought that was clear. Additionally, of that 7% how many have the deistic view of god that makes no claims about the nature or about what god is actually like? I'd guess the majority. I would guess in that spectrum a very small amount would actually connect themselves to any organized religion, and even then I would think its safe to say they are "culturally" christian, just keeping peace with the family at large.

I understood your point the first time, it's not like I'm unaware of these things.

However, a single statistics can mean multiple things, and I think it's important to make people realize that religion doesn't always get in the way of sciences. I won't shed a tear if religion happen to disappears, but I'm not exactly fighting it as it was a plague like some people are doing here.

[Kaylia]

Let me know when you find a god-bothering biologist who isn't a laughing stock. Not that it would matter, because anecdotes are not evidence, and most of us aren't talking in absolutes, anyway. Do you see any claims that 100% of all people with any sort of belief make bad scientists in every field? Because that's what you seem to be arguing against. Good ol' black-and-white strawman.

I've seen this 100% claim multiples time in this very thread. I wouldn't even be arguing if people were actually able of moderating their opinions.

Secondly, "anecdotes" also happens to be observation, and when you have a significant sample, they can't be dismissed

Thirdly, biologist (and chemist) are the laughing stock of physicists anyway.

Oh shit, we've got a fortune teller here.

It's called statistics. And yes, I'm willing to make claim like this when the odds are in my favor.

Peer review means no one is better than anyone else

Not exactly, but it's still a safe assumption given the lack of data, and how these guys have no trouble making the distinction between sciences and religion.

[Thunder]

^

Let me answer the second one first since it relates to your first and third responses: Let me preface it by saying religion is obviously extremely relevant to the world in 2012, and I would even say extremely powerful. I hope you don't disagree. Its purpose is to control the uneducated people you, and many atheists, have a deep seeded problem with. If not for religion, these people would be outraged. Religion keeps a lot of the poor, and thus uneducated, population happy. I don't know any better way of explaining it other than using the same cues I have been. Wars on homosexuality, contraception rights, abortion laws, terrorism are things based on some kind of belief, not fact. Some time in the future the history books will tell of religion today and how it was the greatest con ever. Let me also note that I don't think religion is some conspiracy that has some kind of grand puppetmaster - that's an embarrassing theory to have.

It also has a place as history - you and I can perform mental gymnastics all day trying to figure things out about it. How, why, when, etc. It's as useful as discussing WWII.

And most controversially, I think it has a place in people's minds. It's like one of those martial artists who find "peace in themselves" by spending a better part of their free time practicing, believing in something could be something someone needs in order to be a better person. Or it's something someone enjoys. Who cares so long as it doesn't interfere with their voting/political sphere/etc. This is the point I'm having trouble putting into words - I just said art in place of it since art is about as "useless" as religion in my opinion. Says a lot about the time, the people, etc.

Anyhow, the first point: I assumed too much. My bad.

Last point: modern morality hasn't developed out of christianity, or any religion. Morality would sooner have developed an entire religion. You misunderstood what I said though, I think. The point there was that religion is a con, take it away, and a lot of people are upset. We're fighting wars people don't like, we're in the process of electing officials into the running for president that nobody would like, and we're seeing these guys who nobody likes at worst go back to their seats in congress after the race is done; I'm positive there's more, but that's all I can come up with right now.

I keep trying to separate religious people into two parts btw; uneducated, which are probably a majority of everyone everywhere. And the educated religious people who I say neither of us should have a problem with since they aren't letting their beliefs get in the way of their voting if they're a regular guy/gal, science if they're a scientist, etc etc.

[Siatdiat]

And no, scientists today not being 100% athiest is not evidence against science/math being less prone to religion. In fact, I'd sooner think it proves scientists are less prone to religion since they have less % of religious people than, say, janitors. Unless 93% of scientists are religious. Then I think that's bullshit. Because you used newton.. look at all of the people who challenged religion in history. It was always scientists. Their % of athiests has always been higher than the general population and it will continue to grow along with the general population.

I want to clarify that the 93% figure is not a cross section of all scientists, it is a poll of the members of the National Academy of Sciences. The 7% who have belief of some kind aren't specifically affiliated with religious denominations, at least it is not reported in that detail. Also should note that only just over half of them responded to the poll, and the poll is slightly dated.

I also think it is worth noting that, at least as far as I can think of at the moment, no overwhelming scientific breakthrough that challenged religion was done for that purpose, it was one purpose trying to figure out what was true, and it turned out that what was true did not line up with religious texts.

If religion is dead and we still have illogical people voting, being elected into powerful positions, and making/judging laws, etc then they need to be controlled just as religion is controlling them now. I postulate that we'd trade one evil for another if religion were to die right now.

Education needs to grow before religion dies, otherwise I think we'd be in trouble.

don't have to be a dick when discussing something, btw

Once again you are implying that it is religious fear and morality that have advanced the world to this point, at this point it seems you are even suggesting that without religion around everyone is going to go apeshit and go on a rape and murder spree.

I've also been trying to figure out where anyone got it in their head that anyway is making an attack on anyone elses personal right to hold religious beliefs. I have never done that. I just hold that anything is subect to reasoning and critical examination. Some people have suggested that science and religion exist in seperate categories and serve different purposes, but religion has never had an issue with jumping in and trying to explain how things happen, even though we know much better reasons now than in the past. I don't have to respect someones beliefs if I think they are stupid or wrong. There is always plenty of mockery going on in this forum in regards to almost any other personal matters, but people regardless of whether they hold any beliefs feel it should have a special protection because someone thinks it is holy.

I have raised several questions to certain people about specific ideas, like whether or not there is truth, or many different truths. I never get any answers, not even a half ass response.

[Kaylia]

Once again you are implying that it is religious fear and morality that have advanced the world to this point, at this point it seems you are even suggesting that without religion around everyone is going to go apeshit and go on a rape and murder spree.

What? Where? how? I'm not going argue this when the point was missed completely.

I've also been trying to figure out where anyone got it in their head that anyway is making an attack on anyone elses personal right to hold religious beliefs. I have never done that. I just hold that anything is subect to reasoning and critical examination. Some people have suggested that science and religion exist in seperate categories and serve different purposes, but religion has never had an issue with jumping in and trying to explain how things happen, even though we know much better reasons now than in the past. I don't have to respect someones beliefs if I think they are stupid or wrong. There is always plenty of mockery going on in this forum in regards to almost any other personal matters, but people regardless of whether they hold any beliefs feel it should have a special protection because someone thinks it is holy.

It's not so much the mockery that bother me, it's the mockery done in the name of "sciences" (or logic) that I find incredibly annoying.

[edit]
People also make a considerable amounts of unverified claims that are definitively debatable. Who can tell where mankind would be if religion had never existed? I know I can't. If everyone was cooperating and were as smart as Newton or Euler...then yeah, we probably would be a little ahead, but that's not what the lack of religion implies

[Siatdiat]

Secondly, from a personal experience, at least one third of our department are muslims, and I know they are doing a pretty damn good job with physics and mathematics. These guys are awesome (even if they don't eat bacon), and they will make sciences progress way more than you, or anyone who bash religions will ever do.

From my personal experience, I would disagree. This is why making generalizations based off of personal experience is not much more valuable than personal revelation of the truth from god.

[Siatdiat]

What? Where? how? I'm not going argue this when the point was missed completely.

Are you confused by me responding to Thunders post?

If religion is dead and we still have illogical people voting, being elected into powerful positions, and making/judging laws, etc then they need to be controlled just as religion is controlling them now. I postulate that we'd trade one evil for another if religion were to die right now.

Education needs to grow before religion dies, otherwise I think we'd be in trouble.

[Kaylia]

Are you confused by me responding to Thunders post?

I swear, it said Kaylia when I read it. >_>


I suppose that's what happen when I skip a night to complete a project because I wasted too much time on pointless internet debate.

[Siatdiat]

I've seen this 100% claim multiples time in this very thread. I wouldn't even be arguing if people were actually able of moderating their opinions.

My simple posting of polling of NAS sciences and average US citizens was to express the difference that is quite obviously and clearly there. Scientists are clearly much less likely to hold spiritual beliefs! Shocking! You can draw your own conclusion from that and my own personal distaste for religion and jump to conclusions though. Real quick though, what exactly does moderating our opinions mean? Is that a nice way of saying shut up?

I think myself and someone else has brought up Newton. GG brought up Keppler, of course I also brought up the context of historical differences in either situation. I doubt anyone you know that is a scientist believes in alchemy, astrology, or anything like that. I have asked for an example of a modern scientist who has done any work of value who believes in supernatural phenomena. If I need to define that I will.

Thirdly, biologist (and chemist) are the laughing stock of physicists anyway.

Cool story bro.

[Greatguardian]

Are you confused by me responding to Thunders post?

If religion is dead and we still have illogical people voting, being elected into powerful positions, and making/judging laws, etc then they need to be controlled just as religion is controlling them now. I postulate that we'd trade one evil for another if religion were to die right now.

Education needs to grow before religion dies, otherwise I think we'd be in trouble.

1) I love Education. I'm all for more education. Putting that out in the open from the onset.

2) Don't, please don't, use the word illogical where ignorant would be far more correct. It's semantics, sure, but the vast majority of the past 10 pages has been mostly semantics anyways. Science nerds getting mad at people co-opting the words "science" and "logic" incorrectly. It gives science a bad name.

3) You really don't think very highly of people. You treat them like they're not self-governing, self-aware entities with a will of their own and any more than a shred of personal responsibility.

You let them off too easily. You treat them like children who don't know any better. These are adults - Functional human beings. Expect no less of them than you do of yourself. If they fall short of those expectations, the fault is theirs and theirs alone.

[Kaylia]

From my personal experience, I would disagree. This is why making generalizations based off of personal experience is not much more valuable than personal revelation of the truth from god.

What is your personal experience? Is it worth the same as mine who actually works in the field, travel around the world to attend various conferences and meeting, and saw them in action?

You have every right to objects my claim if your experienced the opposite, or if you think I'm lying to you for the sake of the argument, but keep in mind that I'm entirely willing to listen to your "experience", and don't mind adding your data to mine.

Education needs to grow before religion dies, otherwise I think we'd be in trouble.

Education need to grow. That's all need to be said.

[Siatdiat]

The difference is that mine stop exactly where sciences end, while your continue a little further down the line.

Oddly I would define mine as stopping where science ends, and refraining from filling in the gaps. I don't really think that is much down the line.

The only time where I find religion acceptable is when someone tell me: "Because I don't know better, because I can't know better, I will trust my own judgement and take a wild shot in the dark".

The thing about this here... is that what specific types of view fit this right here? I think my best friend fits it well. He goes to a Lutheran church, but believes in evolution, doesn't believe the bible is literal, understands the bible is really poorly thrown together shit from a bunch of guys over a long period of time, doesn't believe in hell, etc. He just has trouble letting go of the tradition of it all. Hes finishing his bachelors in history at VT right now, did really well on his GREs, and has applied for Georgetown and Yale. I don't think his connection with family tradition is going to hold him back, he is basically a deist.

I would argue that a muslim who drops to the floor 5 times a day to pray to Allah is a different matter, or if you do have any colleagues who read their horoscope seriously.

So what is left? Argue against his morals with sciences? Such thing isn't possible to begin with.

I am way too tired to open this can of worms.

However, a single statistics can mean multiple things, and I think it's important to make people realize that religion doesn't always get in the way of sciences. I won't shed a tear if religion happen to disappears, but I'm not exactly fighting it as it was a plague like some people are doing here.

I don't personally think me expressing my distaste for religion on an internet forum really equates to fighting it like its a plague, but tomatoes tomahtoes I guess.

[Kaylia]

My simple posting of polling of NAS sciences and average US citizens was to express the difference that is quite obviously and clearly there. Scientists are clearly much less likely to hold spiritual beliefs! Shocking! You can draw your own conclusion from that and my own personal distaste for religion and jump to conclusions though. Real quick though, what exactly does moderating our opinions mean? Is that a nice way of saying shut up?

That polls most definitively bundle agnosticism with atheism, and doesn't tell you what kind of atheist they are like. Don't you think it's kind of cheap?

I mean, if I was included in that statistics, I would be counted in the 92%. Don't you think it's a little strange?

I also think it is worth noting that, at least as far as I can think of at the moment, no overwhelming scientific breakthrough that challenged religion was done for that purpose, it was one purpose trying to figure out what was true, and it turned out that what was true did not line up with religious texts.

I don't understand why people constantly hide behind a literal interpretation of the text. I hardly meet anyone who believes them literally, and whenever I do, I'm usually dealing with someone who is...very strange.

Cool story bro.

Because every arguments have to be super serial.

[Siatdiat]

It also has a place as history - you and I can perform mental gymnastics all day trying to figure things out about it. How, why, when, etc. It's as useful as discussing WWII.

Discussing WWII isn't useful? How so? History is arguably one of the most important areas of study when you realize its not about face memorization but learning to make accurate connections between events based off of reliable accounts.

And most controversially, I think it has a place in people's minds. It's like one of those martial artists who find "peace in themselves" by spending a better part of their free time practicing, believing in something could be something someone needs in order to be a better person. Or it's something someone enjoys. Who cares so long as it doesn't interfere with their voting/political sphere/etc. This is the point I'm having trouble putting into words - I just said art in place of it since art is about as "useless" as religion in my opinion. Says a lot about the time, the people, etc.

Anyhow, the first point: I assumed too much. My bad.

I'm kind of tired of reiterating things I have said, especially when doing so would take me a paragraph or so and I have already done it multiple times prior.

I keep trying to separate religious people into two parts btw; uneducated, which are probably a majority of everyone everywhere. And the educated religious people who I say neither of us should have a problem with since they aren't letting their beliefs get in the way of their voting if they're a regular guy/gal, science if they're a scientist, etc etc.

The part prior to this didn't make much sense to me. Maybe I am just tired.

When 40-47% of the pop specifically believes that the earth is less than 10k years old and that god made everything in 7 days, that scares me. It should scare most of us. I think that is a far cry from the 7% of scientists who most likely fall into the category of either deists or traditionalists. But I think that those people are an exception.

I do think that religion for an average person encourages them to be ignorant. I pointed out some things to my sister that she couldn't help but agree with, but then told me she just didn't want to think about it, she needed her faith. This is not that uncommon type of person, and she does not fall in the range of YEC, but more like intelligent design through evolutionary processes. I believe more than 50% of the population at the very minimum and probably more are intentionally self blocked from considering things that may seem blasphemous or heretical to their religious culture, especially when you consider that a big part of this type of belief system is crime think, or basically just thinking of a sin is equal to committing it.

I'm going to bed.

[Maguspk]

...it's ridiculous. So is astronomy, so is religion.

[Siatdiat]

That polls most definitively bundle agnosticism with atheism, and doesn't tell you what kind of atheist they are like. Don't you think it's kind of cheap?

I mean, if I was included in that statistics, I would be counted in the 92%. Don't you think it's a little strange?

google NAS religion poll or something like that. The actual complete breakdown is something like 7*% is atheist, 2*% is agnostic, that final 7% is only reported as having a personal belief in god. Deistic view is not comparable to agnostic.

I don't understand why people constantly hide behind a literal interpretation of the text. I hardly meet anyone who believes them literally, and whenever I do, I'm usually dealing with someone who is...very strange.

I don't think any other country touches the US when polled on belief in literal interpretation of the bible or other religious texts. Have you ever watched really old Richard Dawkins stuff? He never mentions god or religion at all. I am pretty sure he was a laid back dude until he was lecturing in America about evolution in a school, and the students and teachers all went off and screamed shit like "I AINT NO DAMND MUNKEY YOU YANKEE BASTURD!" Now he is the super aggressive miliant atheism poster child. I wonder if he knows the physicists and the mathematicians are laughing their asses off at him?

[Siatdiat]

1) I love Education. I'm all for more education. Putting that out in the open from the onset.

2) Don't, please don't, use the word illogical where ignorant would be far more correct. It's semantics, sure, but the vast majority of the past 10 pages has been mostly semantics anyways. Science nerds getting mad at people co-opting the words "science" and "logic" incorrectly. It gives science a bad name.

3) You really don't think very highly of people. You treat them like they're not self-governing, self-aware entities with a will of their own and any more than a shred of personal responsibility.

You let them off too easily. You treat them like children who don't know any better. These are adults - Functional human beings. Expect no less of them than you do of yourself. If they fall short of those expectations, the fault is theirs and theirs alone.

If religion is dead and we still have illogical people voting, being elected into powerful positions, and making/judging laws, etc then they need to be controlled just as religion is controlling them now. I postulate that we'd trade one evil for another if religion were to die right now.

Education needs to grow before religion dies, otherwise I think we'd be in trouble.

All of the bolded here is Thunders post that I cut and paste after Kaylia got us mixed up.

If you think that is in anyway reminiscent of my posts I'm hurt.

[Greatguardian]

If religion is dead and we still have illogical people voting, being elected into powerful positions, and making/judging laws, etc then they need to be controlled just as religion is controlling them now. I postulate that we'd trade one evil for another if religion were to die right now.

Education needs to grow before religion dies, otherwise I think we'd be in trouble.

All of the bolded here is Thunders post that I cut and paste after Kaylia got us mixed up.

If you think that is in anyway reminiscent of my posts I'm hurt.

That makes a lot more sense actually. I didn't quite catch that. My bad~