Religion: Why do you care?

[JackC 0]

Quote

>Not really, the two quite obviously can't be reconciled.

Can you reconcile Shakespeare and the weak force? Can you reconcile thanksgiving and climate change? How about Britney Spears and the 11-year solar cycle? If not, which one is correct?

The Bible is not simply a sonet, it claims to hold actual truths about the universe we live in, just like electro-weak theory. Therefore science and religion overlap and should either be reconsiled or one must be revised. People actually try to foist creationism into science class so it's blatantly obvious that on a practical level at least, science and religion overlap. NOMA just denys that they do and that's why it's flawed.

[JackC 0]

Quote

I'm an atheist, but I think that trying to use the scientific method on the bible is missing the point, somehow.

So what method do we use to figure out if we should believe it? What method did you use? No science or analytical thought, that's cheating.

[billvon 2,913]

>Therefore science and religion overlap and should either be
>reconsiled or one must be revised.

Both are being revised all the time. Religion takes longer to change primarily because most people do NOT see them as overlapping. I know you believe they address essentially identical material, but 99.9% of the people out there do NOT think that the story of Noah's Ark is a construction blueprint, or that the creation story is an instruction book on how to make human beings out of spare ribs

Would you reject Netwon's Principia because it contains both factual errors (i.e. orbital mechanics uncorrected for relativity) and because it contains some references to religion many scholars consider incorrect?

[jakee 1,445]

Quote

>They are meant to be taken lierally.

Then you and I will always disagree. I do not take the "science" in religion any more seriously than I take the "morality" lessons in the lifecycle of the ichneumon wasp, or the mating habits of the Harris hawk, or the physics of nuclear reactors.

Oh come on Bill, you must be able to see why that is not a valid comparison!

None of those processes purport to tell you anything about morality. The Bible (and other religious works) does tell you about matters related to science. The authors of the Bible really did believe that there was a big sky-daddy who could (and did) tinker around at will with the fabric of the universe. This is a fundamental part of the religion.

If you discard this and and only focus on the moral philosophy (and only on the good parts of that) then you're not talking about religion anymore, just moral philosophy.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,913]

>None of those processes purport to tell you anything about morality.

What are you talking about?

The ichneumon wasp's lifecycle is the very definition of cruelty. The Harris hawk proves polygamy works. Nuclear reactors are the very epitome of "you get out of it what you put into it." If you choose to see them as lessons into morality, you could go on for days.

Of course, the only thing that those processes are TELLING you is how they work. You draw your own conclusions. Claiming that they "require" you to believe a certain way is silly.

Similary, the bible tells you a lot about morality through parables (stories.) It also tells a lot of stories about how the earth was formed, as imagined by the authors, and re-told literally hundreds of times through oral tradition before being written down. There are errors and just plain mistakes. They do not detract from the morality presented therein.

>The authors of the Bible really did believe that there was a big
>sky-daddy who could (and did) tinker around at will with the fabric of the universe.

Right. And Newton thought that the speed of light was not an absolute. Will you discard all of Newton's work based on this (and other) errors? After all, he was wrong!

>If you discard this and and only focus on the moral philosophy (and only
>on the good parts of that) then you're not talking about religion anymore,
>just moral philosophy.

And if you discard Newton's errors, you're not talking about science any more, just natural philosophy.

[jakee 1,445]

Quote

Of course, the only thing that those processes are TELLING you is how they work. You draw your own conclusions. Claiming that they "require" you to believe a certain way is silly.

To take an moral lesson from your examples would "require" you to creatively interpret them. You do not need to creatively interpret the bible to take a science lesson from it, you just have to read what was written.

Quote

They do not detract from the morality presented therein.

Well we certainly agree there, biblical morality does a perfectly good job of detracting from itself! Still, we aren't talking about that, we're talking about NOMA and how it applies to religion.

Quote

Right. And Newton thought that the speed of light was not an absolute. Will you discard all of Newton's work based on this (and other) errors? After all, he was wrong!

I honestly don't even know how this is supposed to make sense as a counter argument?

Science is just science, religions tend to be a mix of morality, ritual, mysticism and (bad) science. Clearly they are not non-overlapping.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,913]

>You do not need to creatively interpret the bible to take a science lesson
>from it, you just have to read what was written.

I have taken none of my science lessons from it, so you must be a little more creative than I.

>I honestly don't even know how this is supposed to make sense as a
>counter argument?

Simple. Have you disregarded the Principia since Newton made several fundamental errors in writing it?

[jakee 1,445]

Quote

I have taken none of my science lessons from it, so you must be a little more creative than I.

So you didn't notice any part of the bible which tried to tell you anything at all about how the universe works that would normally come under the purview of science? Nothing at all?

Quote

Simple. Have you disregarded the Principia since Newton made several fundamental errors in writing it?

How does Newton making physics mistakes in any way effect whether or not religion overlaps with science? Honestly, I don't understand why it's relevant to a discussion of NOMA!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,913]

>So you didn't notice any part of the bible which tried to tell you anything
>at all about how the universe works that would normally come under the
>purview of science? Nothing at all?

I notice several places where the bible tells stories which could not physically happen. I don't notice God making any dogmatic statements on the Weak Force though.

>How does Newton making physics mistakes in any way effect
>whether or not religion overlaps with science?

I didn't ask that. I asked if YOU disregard the Principia because of the obvious mistakes Netwon made. You seem to be of the opinion that the errors in the bible invalidate it; I am curious if you apply that opinion to all works, or just religious ones.

[jakee 1,445]

Quote

I notice several places where the bible tells stories which could not physically happen. I don't notice God making any dogmatic statements on the Weak Force though.

So if the bible doesn't comment on all of religion it comments on none of it?

Quote

I didn't ask that. I asked if YOU disregard the Principia because of the obvious mistakes Netwon made. You seem to be of the opinion that the errors in the bible invalidate it; I am curious if you apply that opinion to all works, or just religious ones.

They invalidate it from being the inerrant word of God. I know Newton was an arrogant bastard but I was unaware that he thought he was omniscient!

Again though, what does it have to do with NOMA, which is what I was under the impression we were talking about?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,913]

>So if the bible doesn't comment on all of religion it comments on none of it?

No.

>Again though, what does it have to do with NOMA, which is what I
>was under the impression we were talking about?

Nothing. I give up. You're right. There is nothing to learn from the bible.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Nothing. I give up. You're right. There is nothing to learn from the bible.

See? that wasn't so hard. All they demand is complete and utter submission.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

See? that wasn't so hard. All they demand is complete and utter submission.

Well, they're in luck since Bill loves being submissive.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Those who insist there is no God are relying on almost as much faith as those who insist there is.

Not necessarly. Square circles cannot exist by definition. Married bachelors cannot exist by definition. Onimax entities are similarly illogical.

You'll have to flesh that out a bit if you want it reasonably discussed.

Blues,
Dave

The concept is simple, an omnimax god (omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient) is a logical absurdity and like square circles cannot exist by definition.

How so? i.e. How are omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient at odds with each other?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[CameraNewbie 0]

Quote

Aetheists: You're all sheep if you believe in God with no proof.

Of course, where is the proof of God? If I can't see him, he doesn't exist, plain and simple.

Quote

why do YOU care what others believe?

Those are my feelings exactly. Us Atheists expend way too much energy disproving god and christianity or ridiculing them. Life is too freakin' short. Go out and skydive and let others believe whatever they want to believe in.

What do protesters want? Dead cops! When do they want it? Every 2 weeks!

[billvon 2,913]

>If I can't see him, he doesn't exist, plain and simple.

Does the center of the galaxy exist? How about the weak force?

[NJSkydiver 0]

Quote

why do YOU care what others believe?

We can't make fun of eachother because there is nothing to make fun of so who else better to make fun of?

- What do I owe beer for this time?

[CameraNewbie 0]

Quote

Does the center of the galaxy exist? How about the weak force?

Oh stop. You and I both know that we don't belive god exists. Atheists do not believe in God. There's no gray line there Bill. We believe in nothing. It cannot be proven and it won't be proven otherwise. As far as the center of the galaxy I'm sure scientists have proven that it does exist as well as it's weak force. I'll bank my money on them before I bank my money on a god that you and I believe don't exist.

What do protesters want? Dead cops! When do they want it? Every 2 weeks!

[billvon 2,913]

>As far as the center of the galaxy I'm sure scientists have proven that it does exist . . .

?? No, they've merely inferred it exists; they've never seen it.

>as well as it's weak force.

The weak force is not anything inherent to the center of the galaxy; it's a subatomic force that gives us beta decay (among other things.) I think it's interesting that you are willing to believe in something even when you're not quite sure what it is. Keep in mind that there are other people who are willing to believe in God the same way.

>I'll bank my money on them before I bank my money on a god that you
>and I believe don't exist.

I think I will keep my own counsel on my beliefs in that area.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

If I can't see him, he doesn't exist, plain and simple.

So if you can't see something, then that is proof to you that it doesn't exist?

[CameraNewbie 0]

Quote

So if you can't see something, then that is proof to you that it doesn't exist?

You know exactly what I mean. Aren't you an atheists too?

What do protesters want? Dead cops! When do they want it? Every 2 weeks!

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Aren't you an atheists too?

Not anymore. I have converted to being a "none of the above." A lot of people read way too much into the word "atheist," so I find that it doesn't accurately describe my beliefs.

[jakee 1,445]

Quote

>So if the bible doesn't comment on all of religion it comments on none of it?

No.

Whoops Rather important typo there, I meant to say science instead of religion!

Quote

>Again though, what does it have to do with NOMA, which is what I
>was under the impression we were talking about?

Nothing. I give up. You're right. There is nothing to learn from the bible.

And once more I have to ask, what the hell are you talking about! I am trying to have a discussion with you about the applicability of NOMA - you seem to be taking every opportunity you can to change the subject on me! Usually when that happens I'd decide that the person I'm debating knows they don't have a case, but I'd rather give you the benefit of the doubt.

Can you please explain to me this tangent you are on about me not thinking any of the bible is useful? It's mostly true, yet I honestly can't see why it's relevant!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[champu 1]

I see religion as a way in which man has attempted to come to terms with his own ignorance. Creationism et al to explain away his ignorance of the universe around him, and moral-ridden parables to explain away his ignorance of himself.

I see it as a comforting vice to those who choose to follow it. In turn, I liken my concern about its practice to those who wish not to breathe second-hand smoke.

[billvon 2,913]

>Can you please explain to me this tangent you are on about me
>not thinking any of the bible is useful?

OK, I will try one more time.

You seem to believe that there is no validity to NOMA - that the bible and science books actually deal with the same thing, and thus overlap. My argument is that they do NOT deal with the same thing at all, and that the failure of the bible to accurately describe the early formation of the solar system is fairly irrelevant.

I therefore wondered if you felt Newton's philosophical errors in his works invalidate them to the same degree that you believe the errors in the bible invalidate IT. (Or whether it is a good idea to draw moral lessons from the lifecycle of wasps and hawks.) If you do, then fine; I will accept that you see no difference, and that your worldview is consistent. If you do not, then you must see some inherent difference between a work like the principia (or the work on hawks and wasps) and the bible. That inherent difference can be summed up as a difference in magisteria.