Stop Shoving Christianity Down My Throat

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I would say the only need we get born with is to have a feeling to actually be important and loved and that in turn leads to religion.

What experiment did you perform that quantified that?

Absence of evidence != evidence of absence.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Hausse 0]

No experiments, just thinking about why anyone would make up something that satisfies all those needs.

It is impossible to prove that god does not exist. I personally like the unicorn comparison: It is impossible to prove that unicorns don't exist (unless you are omnipotent and can see every place on earth at the same time), but nobody actually believes in unicorns. That's also why you have to be proven guilty in court and not have to prove your innocence.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

No experiments, just thinking about why anyone would make up something that satisfies all those needs.

I thought you said that you work on logic and experiement? You're contradicting yourself, there.

Quote

It is impossible to prove that god does not exist.

Ah, NOW we get to the crux of the matter.

YOU don't believe in it, so it doesn't exist. That's fine - for you. That doesn't make YOU right and everyone else wrong, however - except in your unique viewpoint.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Hausse 0]

Okey to make that clear: I'm a 20 year old student so I do not have the funds to do any serious experiments, and I would actually use my time in a different way if I had the money. I never said it is true or fact but that is what I believe and all that does not stop me from thinking (in a logic fashion).

You still haven't grasped the proving thing. If you can prove that god exists, I'm gonna believe in it. Up to that point you have just a theorie (a pretty shaky one). And it's not my viewpoint, it's a scientific view point.

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

Absence of evidence != evidence of absence.

You're happy to admit an equal possibility of existance for god, allah, invisible pink unicorns and the FSM, then?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pirana 0]

Quote

I would say the only need we get born with is to have a feeling to actually be important and loved and that in turn leads to religion.

The 4 basic human needs:

1 - To survive
2 - To love and be loved
3 - To belong, or to feel important (closely related to but different than #2)
4- To experience stimulus (or variety as the spice of life.

You can do all of the above with or without religion. Only #1 is required to simply remain in existence, but all 4 are required to lead an effective life. It's usually very obvious when someone is missing one of them because they compensate incredibly somewhere else; usually resulting in addiction, abuse, or other ineffective behaviors.

Interesting mention of the link from needs to religion. Anybody here familiar with the studies indicating genetic predisposition to spiritual beliefs? I must have the atheist gene.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Okey to make that clear: I'm a 20 year old student so I do not have the funds to do any serious experiments, and I would actually use my time in a different way if I had the money. I never said it is true or fact but that is what I believe and all that does not stop me from thinking (in a logic fashion).

You still haven't grasped the proving thing. If you can prove that god exists, I'm gonna believe in it. Up to that point you have just a theorie (a pretty shaky one). And it's not my viewpoint, it's a scientific view point.

I'm playing Devils Advocate and poking holes in your outlook.

Ok... so, by your logic, the conversion of matter to energy was a 'pretty shaky theory' until Einstein proved it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[pirana 0]

Quote

How can you scientifically prove there is no god?

Interesting twist on the usual conversation. Tempting a scienctist (or scientific thinker) to step into that goo pit.

No scientist worth his weight in salt would claim to be able to do that. Just as no theologian should be using scripture to determine the age of the Universe.

The 2 can live in complete harmony as long as they stick to their realms.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Okey to make that clear: I'm a 20 year old student so I do not have the funds to do any serious experiments, and I would actually use my time in a different way if I had the money. I never said it is true or fact but that is what I believe and all that does not stop me from thinking (in a logic fashion).

You still haven't grasped the proving thing. If you can prove that god exists, I'm gonna believe in it. Up to that point you have just a theorie (a pretty shaky one). And it's not my viewpoint, it's a scientific view point.

(In Arnold's Voice):

It's naught a theory.

It's an idea, or a model, maybe a hypothesis. To be a theory it must be testable, or known to be testable in the future.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Absence of evidence != evidence of absence.

You're happy to admit an equal possibility of existance for god, allah, invisible pink unicorns and the FSM, then?

One of the DJs on the local rock station mentioned the FSM the other day. I had no idea FSMism was spreading so widely.

All hail His noodly appendage.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

So you're stating that all scientists must then be atheists?

Well, sicence is the developement of knowledge based on empirical observation and rational deduction whereas religion is revealed knowledge maintained in spite of empirical observation and rational deduction. It seems to be fairly obvious that if you adhere to one methodology, you'd have a difficult time adhereing to the other one simultaneously.

So I guess a scientist should also not believe in something such as having a monogamous relationship, since most evidence seems to indicate that humans are not biologically meant to be monogamous?

[Hausse 0]

Quote

Interesting mention of the link from needs to religion. Anybody here familiar with the studies indicating genetic predisposition to spiritual beliefs? I must have the atheist gene.

Hey yeah i thought it was pretty interesting too when I thought about it. It really explains why people are so desperately clinging to their religion altough it seems pretty obvious that there is no god.

Quote

I'm playing Devils Advocate and poking holes in your outlook.

Ok... so, by your logic, the conversion of matter to energy was a 'pretty shaky theory' until Einstein proved it?

No because conversion of matter has logic in it so it was just a theorie. Nothing shaky there.

What is FSM?

Monogamy has nothing to do with faith but with moral and standards set by society. Everybody can choose to live monogamous or not and it does not contradict any scientific facts so no problem there.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So you're stating that all scientists must then be atheists?

Well, sicence is the developement of knowledge based on empirical observation and rational deduction whereas religion is revealed knowledge maintained in spite of empirical observation and rational deduction. It seems to be fairly obvious that if you adhere to one methodology, you'd have a difficult time adhereing to the other one simultaneously.

So I guess a scientist should also not believe in something such as having a monogamous relationship, since most evidence seems to indicate that humans are not biologically meant to be monogamous?

Science, atheism, spirituality - none of these three things are mutually exclusive. Nor are any of them dependent on each other.

A scientist can believe in a diety, with no conflict whatsoever. It is only when you get into the details of certain dogmatic beliefs (which a person does not need to hold in order to believe in a diety) that conflict arises.

An atheist can be spiritual. You can believe in the connectness of the human spirit (and beyond) without the aid of organized religion, dieties, and so on.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Hausse 0]

I was talking about Christianity and that contradicts science and that makes fundamental Christians wrong. If we get more into spiritualism and I have never really thought about all those aspects so I won't argue around that, but as long as they don't think that carbon dating is wrong I at least say that there is a chance that they are right (altough I doubt it).

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

What is FSM?

flying spaghetti monster. its brought up in this thread

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=1803496;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[JackC 0]

Quote

So I guess a scientist should also not believe in something such as having a monogamous relationship, since most evidence seems to indicate that humans are not biologically meant to be monogamous?

Well, monogomy isn't a methodology used for gaining knowledge about the universe, so I don't see your point but I can't see a reason why monogomy shouldn't be completely acceptable even if our dim and distant ancestors might have liked a bit on the side. But, if you think a scientist will cheat on you, don't date one.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Everybody can choose to live monogamous or not and it does not contradict any scientific facts so no problem there.

It does contradict the evidence that shows that we were not designed to be monogamous.

[Shotgun 1]

Perhaps I misunderstood what you guys were getting at, but it sounded as if you were saying that a scientist should approach all aspects of his/her life from a scientific perspective and throw out any beliefs that can not be upheld with empirical evidence... or something like that? In which case something like monogamy wouldn't make sense, since research shows it to be unnatural for humans (just a product of society, similar to religion).

Quote

But, if you think a scientist will cheat on you, don't date one.

Not believing in monogamy does not mean that someone will cheat on me. They would only be cheating on me if they lied to me about it.

[Hausse 0]

I was just saying that believing in something that contradicts science and believing it is true is wrong. Monogamy doesn't really have anything to do with it.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Perhaps I misunderstood what you guys were getting at, but it sounded as if you were saying that a scientist should approach all aspects of his/her life from a scientific perspective and throw out any beliefs that can not be upheld with empirical evidence... or something like that? In which case something like monogamy wouldn't make sense, since research shows it to be unnatural for humans (just a product of society, similar to religion).

Sorry, you lost me.

All I said was that science being the pursuit of knowledge through empiricism and rationality seems incompatable with faith which is held inspite of evidence to the contrary. I can't see how someone can both rationally go where the evidence takes them and simultaneously ignore where the evidence takes them.

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

even if our dim and distant ancestors might have liked a bit on the side.

Dim and distant? Say what's the divorce rate again?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

even if our dim and distant ancestors might have liked a bit on the side.

Dim and distant? Say what's the divorce rate again?

With the outlook that today's society has on values? pfeh. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

With the outlook that today's society has on values? pfeh. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yeah, 'cos when society was all devout and pious stuff there was no affairs, no spousal abuse, the gutters weren't full of prostitutes and the Pope almost never had illegitimate kids.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

With the outlook that today's society has on values? pfeh. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yeah, 'cos when society was all devout and pious stuff there was no affairs, no spousal abuse, the gutters weren't full of prostitutes and the Pope almost never had illegitimate kids.

Ah, yes, and everything is perfect and idyllic today...especially that divorce rate, right?

Hardly unsurprising - with the 'me me me generation', they should change the vows to "until the next person comes along"

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Hausse 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

With the outlook that today's society has on values? pfeh. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yeah, 'cos when society was all devout and pious stuff there was no affairs, no spousal abuse, the gutters weren't full of prostitutes and the Pope almost never had illegitimate kids.

Ah, yes, and everything is perfect and idyllic today...especially that divorce rate, right?

Hardly unsurprising - with the 'me me me generation', they should change the vows to "until the next person comes along"

What's wrong with that?