Agent Monkeysee on 24/3/2006 at 02:34
Quote Posted by DarthMRN
I find it damn unlikely, and if true, equally surprising that religious people, who made up the general population back then if I'm not mistaken, wasnt pissing their pants in fear of the prospect that there might actually not be a God after all. The kick-start you speak of was likely made by the scientifically inclined people, yes?
Are you asking if the few people who were actively involved in scientific work in the 16th and 17th centuries were soley responsible for the technological, economic, political, artistic, religious, and otherwise cultural revolutions behind the Enlightenment?
Uh...
Quote Posted by DarthMRN
I imagine that with the diversity of belief (religiously or otherwise) we have today, if the media revealed to the masses that the one constant anchor point they and their governments have to rely on for answers and explanations about the world had been proven fundamentally mistaken, there would be mass hysteria.
What would that anchor point be? I'm having trouble discerning what you're even talking about. Most people don't actually spend much of their day pondering how things work. If tomorrow the government were to announce that quantum mechanics is actually the work of magical faeries of which we have proof, what would change exactly? Clearly these magical faeiries are a consistent bunch as causality is clearly here to stay. People's computers and tvs still work. Water still comes out of the taps. Gravity and electricity are reliable as ever. They still step outside their door and find themselves on their front porch instead of, say, Mars.
What changes?
Quote Posted by DarthMRN
People of today see very little difference between scientific fact and everyday logic, IMO, so what would happen if they all of a sudden began questioning their own sense of logic?
That's simply not true. Most people find the core scientific theories to be grossly counter-intuitive, difficult to understand, and largely irrelevant to their lives. Which is why, to some degree, it's so easy for so many people to outright reject them.
Rug Burn Junky on 24/3/2006 at 02:51
Quote Posted by DarthMoron
Do I sense some insecurity here? Seeing as you have Science and thereby the majority of the human race behind you, one would think you had enough backup that you wouldn't have to resort to ridiculing me to gain the upper hand. And don't give me any "ur so friggin st00pid, n00b, that I cant help it". There is a reason you bothered posting the stuff you did, and it can only be to discredit me and my line of argumentation further. The question is, why would someone on the majority's side need to do that if they didn't feel threatened?
OHOHOHO YOU HAVE UNMASKED MY NEFARIOUS PLOT AND CLEARLY I AM VANQUISHED BY YOUR SUPERIOR LINE OF ARGUMENTATION.
BUT THIS IS NOT YET OVER
HAIL DARK LORD XENU
Wyclef on 24/3/2006 at 03:03
Quote Posted by Jonesy
Nobody has said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" yet?
Shame on you, comchat. Shame on you. I thought you were better than this.
Actually, the entire passage is rather punchy:
Quote:
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.
It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.
Quote Posted by "Subj Eff"
The thing is Darth, most scientists I've spoken to - and this was when I was working at the Institute of Psychiatry in London ((
http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/)) - are vehement believers in the supernatural in some form or another. It seemed to me that their research was instrumental in this. Wasn't Newton religious, and didn't he believe the rules that govern our universe too elegant to be not have been be design or something.
Newton also spent a lot of time on alchemy. Hey, it was the 17th century.
However, atheism/agnoticism among "greater" scientists is (
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html) nearly complete.
fett on 24/3/2006 at 03:43
Quote:
OHOHOHO YOU HAVE UNMASKED MY NEFARIOUS PLOT AND CLEARLY I AM VANQUISHED BY YOUR SUPERIOR LINE OF ARGUMENTATION.
BUT THIS IS NOT YET OVER
HAIL DARK LORD XENU
Dude, you're clearly in the wrong thread. Try to keep up.
Jennie&Tim on 24/3/2006 at 04:55
It's interesting that he's arguing that religion makes people healthier, happier, etc. I know that I thought I might die at one time, and it didn't particularly stress me out; and I'm an atheist.
I have some fairly incoherent ideas about atheism, feel free to criticize. I think that evolution selects for a diversity of roles for people and that requires a diversity of personalities suited for those various roles. I think those various personalities greatly influence how we create our worlds. I greatly value knowing why things work and don't particularly value conformity; this has lead in many ways to my atheism. It is also a personality type that leads to (though not in my case) towards being a scientist, in that scientists have a drive to know why things work. They cannot be satisfied with an easy correlation, they want real data. Fuzzy or incomplete data creates a perceptible discomfort, which they strive to reduce by finding out complete and accurate results. For instance, if someone quotes some correlation that backs up my previously held world view, I still want to make sure the study was done right before I integrate it in and reinforce my previous convictions. I will look at it and ask questions about it. This drives my husband batty sometimes, as he'll say something along the lines of: But I thought you believed ... whatever it was. Well, yes, but that doesn't mean I won't think of the hard questions. Most people seem to me to be very easygoing about studies that back up their convictions, and they save the hard questions for ones that contradict them. This attitude is intrinsic to science and also contributes to atheism; I think the observed correlation between being a scientist and being an atheist is not because science contradicts religion; but because the type of person likely to become a scientist is much more likely to become an atheist than a non-scientist would be. I speculate that scientist-type personalities have a selective use, but not enough of one to ever be a majority of people; any more than the leader-type personalities will ever be a majority. Yet both are useful to humans as a species. I am not saying that scientists are leaders.
I also frequent an athiest discussion board and people have put up Briggs-Meyer polls, there is a great bias towards the INT types there. It's not universal, but there is definitely a higher percentage than the personality sites would predict. I do wonder about self-selection, and if the internet itself selects for INT's. But it's an interesting pointer to speculate about.
The_Raven on 24/3/2006 at 05:12
Well said. :thumb:
Stitch on 24/3/2006 at 05:42
Quote Posted by fett
Dude, you're clearly in the wrong thread. Try to keep up.
Christ, this is the second time in this thread you've tried to regulate only to have it backfire in your face.
Take up knitting or something and leave the guys playing along alone.
fett on 24/3/2006 at 06:10
Quote:
Christ, this is the second time in this thread you've tried to regulate only to have it backfire in your face.
I'm blissfully oblivious and I'm knitting as we speak. I'm also in a bossy mood today so fark off.
Ko0K on 24/3/2006 at 06:13
What are you knitting? Condom?
Seriously, I think I'm getting a picture as to what went on in the past 3 years. :> Good times...
