Religion: Why do you care?

[jakee 1,426]

Quote

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.

And here's where my earlier typo becomes relevant, I get the feeling that you think that because not all of the Bible deals with sciency type stuff that it doesn't matter that some of the Bible deals with sciency type stuff. Parts of the bible do explicitly deal with things generally considered to be under the purview of science. I don't see how anyone can argue against that.

Quote

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.

Errors in the bible invalidate it from being the inerrant word of God, and show it to be simply another work by humans. Newton's Principia is also a work by a human, errors and all. They should both be judged by the usefulness of their content, not by any special claims about their authorship.

Quote

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.

??

Science and religion are different, that does not mean that they do not contain elements that overlap! A fundamental part of many religions is a powerful supernatural being that created the universe and can diddle around with the laws of physics. How does this not overlap with science?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

Quote

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.

Not really. To take one of your earlier examples.

a - Joe is a carbon based organism whose phenotype is based on expression of the DNA he inherited from his parents, and modified by the environment he was raised in.

b - Joe is a devout catholic.

You say these two attributes are non-overlapping and for the most part you are right. However, there is one area where they do overlap. Namely, Joe's Catholicism and the environmental pressures he experienced during his formative years. So for this example, NOMA is of limited use.

Similarly, the Bible may not explicitly talk about electro-weak theory but on a fundamental level, a universe that is subject to the whim of an omnipotent being may be expected to look significantly different to a universe which is not. This is where religion and science overlap.

Quote

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.

If the Bible is just another fictional tome then you're right, it doesn't matter a jot. But as soon as you start to claim the Bible is not fiction, that it contains the truth about an omnipotent being who lords it over the universe then your claim breaks down. This is because the universe with this being will be fundamentally different to a universe without and that difference is a scientific difference.

Quote

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.

Depends what you're doing. If I'm working out the trajectory of a rock to lob over my neighbours fence to land on his yapping dog, then Newton is fine. If I'm looking at the structure of an accretion disk surrounding a white dwarf then Newton is not fine.

This is a completely flawed analogy though. I know the limitations of Newtonian mechanics, so I know specifically when they are valid and when they are not because it's all testable. With the Bible, everything I can test comes up wrong so how can I have any confidence in the untestable bits? NOMA just ignores the fact that the testable bits turn out to be rubbish and says that has no bearing on the truth of the rest. I say it does.

[JackC 0]

Quote

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

Take omnipotence. Can God create a rock that he can't lift? That is a logical impossibility and the only way around it is to say omnipotence means anything logically possible.

Take omniscience. Can God know what it is like to be ignorant? If he knows everything then he can't be ignorant of anything. If he knows what it's like to be ignorant then he must be ignorant of something and therefore can't know everything.

Everytime you come up against one of these oxymorons, and there are lots of them, you have to limit gods powers a bit to avoid a logical contradiction. So a truly omnimax god is a logical absurdity like a square circle.

So you have two alternatives, either God isn't truly omnimax or you abandon logic. Of the two, logic just seems more useful.

[Royd 0]

Quote

So you have two alternatives, either God isn't truly omnimax or you abandon logic. Of the two, logic just seems more useful.

The concept of logic requires borders and finite definitions.

Is the concept of infinity;i.e. worlds without end; logical?
If you say that there are worlds out there beyond what we can see through our current technologies, then you do so by faith, thus abandoning logic.

How can faith and logic exist within the same mind?

[JackC 0]

Quote

The concept of logic requires borders and finite definitions.

Not necessarily.

Quote

Is the concept of infinity;i.e. worlds without end; logical?

Infinity isn't necessarily ilogical but it can lead to some illogical conclusions if you're not careful.

Quote

If you say that there are worlds out there beyond what we can see through our current technologies, then you do so by faith, thus abandoning logic.

Or you can say "I don't know if there are worlds beyond we can see through current technologies, but it would be nice to try and find out".

Quote

How can faith and logic exist within the same mind?

Dunno. As far as I can see, faith (ie belief without, or inspite of the, evidence) is a undesirable trait and should be avoided.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Aren't you an atheists too?

Not anymore. I have converted to being a "none of the above."

MILITANT-ANTI-QUASI-AGNOSTO-BOBBO-DEISTICAL-REVELATIONISTIC-KARMAJOCKEY

...
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

[billvon 2,877]

> Namely, Joe's Catholicism and the environmental pressures
>he experienced during his formative years. So for this example, NOMA is
>of limited use.

That's exactly where it IS of use. I know several very devout catholics who do not believe the earth is 6000 years old, that God created women from spare ribs, or that all the land animals of the world once fit onto a boat.

You mention that you can use Newton's laws for ordinary dynamics, but not for matter approaching relativistic speeds. In other words, even though you know it contains serious flaws, and sometimes gives answers that are utterly, completely wrong, it has its uses - provided you understand what its limitations are.

Those catholics I mentioned above know they can use the bible for moral guidance but not for determining how the earth formed. They treat the bible the same way you treat the principia.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

MILITANT-ANTI-QUASI-AGNOSTO-BOBBO-DEISTICAL-REVELATIONISTIC-KARMAJOCKEY

Umm, something tells me people would read way too much into that word too.

[JackC 0]

Quote

That's exactly where it IS of use. I know several very devout catholics who do not believe the earth is 6000 years old, that God created women from spare ribs, or that all the land animals of the world once fit onto a boat.

A persons particular brand of catholicism is neither here nor there. The Bible does try to explain the beginnings of the universe, it's right there in black and white independent of someones ability to ignore it.

Maybe I got NOMA all wrong, I thought that given the name, it was about two different subjects actually not overlapping and therefore existing comfortably side by side. It turns out NOMA is all about conveniently ignoring the overlaps even when they are staring you in the face.

Quote

You mention that you can use Newton's laws for ordinary dynamics, but not for matter approaching relativistic speeds. In other words, even though you know it contains serious flaws, and sometimes gives answers that are utterly, completely wrong, it has its uses - provided you understand what its limitations are.

If you take the slow speed approximation to relativistic mechanics you get Newtonian mechanics. So applying NOMA here is equivalent to saying relativity does not overlap with the slow speed approximation of itself. That is obviously absurd.

Can I apply NOMA to the Bible and the idea of morality? I assume you don't condone the actions described in Leviticus 18:22 so I would say it's a fair bet that even though the Bible says that homosexuals should be put to death, you apply NOMA and ignore it.

NOMA isn't about two subjects not overlapping, it's about ignoring the one you don't like.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

MILITANT-ANTI-QUASI-AGNOSTO-BOBBO-DEISTICAL-REVELATIONISTIC-KARMAJOCKEY

Umm, something tells me people would read way too much into that word too.

Short for Anti-Bobbist, the formal Acronym is MAQAB DREKs, or M.D.'s

Though "MDs" tend to cause some confusion.
We have an outpost in the wilderness of Montana where we sing songs, hunt snipe and eat a lot of licorice.

The newletter is pretty cheap.

...
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

[CameraNewbie 0]

Quote

A lot of people read way too much into the word "atheist," so I find that it doesn't accurately describe my beliefs.

Which is exactly what you are doing. Atheists don't believe in religion. It's black and white as that. There's no gray line. There's no what if. It's plain and simple.

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

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

A lot of people read way too much into the word "atheist," so I find that it doesn't accurately describe my beliefs.

Which is exactly what you are doing. Atheists don't believe in religion. It's black and white as that. There's no gray line. There's no what if. It's plain and simple.

Actually, atheists don't believe in a divine being (or divine beings). Lots of people who might believe in god aren't too keen on religion.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[CameraNewbie 0]

Quote

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 appreciate the science lesson but this forum is about why do non-religious people spend time caring about religion.

Life is too short. I don't see any sense in spending a few minutes or hours discussing religious beliefs especially when I don't believe in it. It's senseless and it's a waste of time. I have a women in my life to spend time with, bills to pay, business meetings to go to, dropzones to visit, dinner meetings to go to, etc. I was compelled to reply to this post because Atheists here choose to debate, ridicule and test people of religion. If we don't believe in religion, why debate it? Our answer will always be "Gods don't exist". We've known it, we accepted it, we live it, leave those people be and discuss things here in SC that we can back up with facts and disccuss things here that are worth yapping about.

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

[CameraNewbie 0]

Quote

Actually, atheists don't believe in a divine being (or divine beings). Lots of people who might believe in god aren't too keen on religion.

You're reading too much into it. Religion and divine beings go hand in hand. One cannot exist without the other. Hence, Atheists don't believe in religion.

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

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Atheists don't believe in religion.

It's pretty obvious that religion exists. The definition of an atheist is one who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods. Religion exists whether god does or not.

[CameraNewbie 0]

Quote

Religion exists whether god does or not.

That's way too philosophical for me. Gods don't exist and I don't believe in religion because I don't believe that gods exists, which makes me an Atheist. It is what it is and I'm not going to be an open minded Atheist because that would no longer make me an Atheist. By all means, study and read about religions and gods. I choose to stand firm in what I believe in, which is nothing.

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

[Lindsey 0]

Not trying to make you open-minded. Just helping you with definitions.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[billvon 2,877]

>I don't see any sense in spending a few minutes or hours discussing
> religious beliefs especially when I don't believe in it. It's senseless and
>it's a waste of time.

Yet for some reason you do it.

>If we don't believe in religion, why debate it?

Something of a rhetorical question, no? You are debating it.

[CameraNewbie 0]

Quote

>I don't see any sense in spending a few minutes or hours discussing
> religious beliefs especially when I don't believe in it. It's senseless and
>it's a waste of time.

Yet for some reason you do it.

I've already answered why I replied to this post. --> my post

Quote

>If we don't believe in religion, why debate it?

Something of a rhetorical question, no? You are debating it

I was trying to say it's senseless to argue about something we don't believe in. All we're going to say is "It doesn't exist". There's really no challenging debate to put on the table here. That's the whole point of my argument.

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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I was trying to say it's senseless to argue about something we don't believe in.

best position there is

faith in or against both unprovable 'beliefs'

pointless to argue either side except to satisfy a need for useless conflict

("religion" has nothing to do with belief in a diety - religion is an existing practice which can be proved directly. Faith is a belief and the conflict of the thread. You should give up on that track - we know what you meant to say.)

...
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

[billvon 2,877]

>All we're going to say is "It doesn't exist".

Atheists have made hundreds of posts here saying far more than that! They have as much of a need to 'prove their beliefs' as many religious types. Which is fine; that's what this forum is for.

[jakee 1,426]

Quote

You're reading too much into it. Religion and divine beings go hand in hand. One cannot exist without the other. Hence, Atheists don't believe in religion.

Uhhh, 'scuse me?

God does not exist. The catholic church most assuredly does exist.

Allah does not exist. Islam most assuredly does exist.

Religions are man made organisations, they exist just as much as the Boy Scouts exist.

Gods are imaginary beings, they do not exist just as invisible pink unicorns do not exist.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[beowulf 1]

I saw an invisible pink unicorn yesterday. Just try and prove me wrong! I even have a book talking about the second coming of the pink unicorn.

[CameraNewbie 0]

Quote

Atheists have made hundreds of posts here saying far more than that!

I understand your point. However, think about what their bottom line point is - gods don't exist.

Quote

They have as much of a need to 'prove their beliefs' as many religious types.

Any Atheists here can be long winded or write a novel about proving their beliefs. The point that I'm trying to convey is, it boils down to one thing - gods don't exist. Why say it in so many words? Get straight to the point. Keep it short and sweet. Why bother going the distance in proving a belief when our only answer will be, gods don't exist?

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

[kallend 1,922]

Quote

> As long as a person keeps to themselves and doesn't interfere with me or other people, they can believe anything they want.

My thoughts as well when it come to Atheist.

In what negative way have atheists' beliefs interfered with your life?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.