catbarf on 7/4/2008 at 23:06
Can you imagine what would happen if this were a white woman screaming at a black man to leave? Or if the man were Jewish? But no, atheists continue to be the minority that can be targeted freely.
paloalto90 on 7/4/2008 at 23:38
The assumption seems to be that the damage that religion has done is caused because people are basing their actions on an imaginary being.(In the same way a kid looks up to a sports figure and probably imagines how his life is versus the reality of it ,he still uses it as an example to influence the way he acts).That somehow if we broke away from this fantasy we would somehow be more compassionate and loving.
Does the use of our intellect assure we will reach that destination.Isn't our intellect only a tool and a slave to our motivations and desires?It is philosophy and religion that has dealt with these.
The bigger question is why do some people choose to use their religion to injure life and some to aid life?The instruction for living from most religious beliefs contain numerous examples of a compassionate life.
Can science provide the answer?Can science alone provide me with any belief system toward how I should treat my fellow man?
Quote:
Science isnt about knowing everything; science is the quest for understanding, and it never stops
That would seem from a scientific point of view to limit scientists to say I don't know to the question of whether God exists or not.To say he doesn't is not following the scientific method.And if you tout the scientific method and conclude that God does not exist you are showing your prejudice for what you think religion has done to this world,narrowly negative and totally biased.
As to the simpleness of God,have you ever read any of St.John of the Cross?
Hardly simple in his describing the nature of God as percieved by him.
Also Buddhist tracts on the nature of suffering can be called simple.
We needed God to protect us from the heebee geebees of the night,but now we are all grown up.That seems to be the attitude. Science is not about belief.The scientific method alone has not brought one iota of compassion as the example of the life of Jesus or Buddha has, irregardless of how people have used religion to hurt others.Religion is a tool just as the scientific method is a tool.You can go from Natzi scientists to the Inquisition just as I can use a hammer to build a house or kill someone.
Science will not provide an answer to the power struggles of ego against ego,simply because we have a certain commonality of DNA.
catbarf on 7/4/2008 at 23:57
Quote Posted by paloalto90
That would seem from a scientific point of view to limit scientists to say I don't know to the question of whether God exists or not.To say he doesn't is not following the scientific method.And if you tout the scientific method and conclude that God does not exist you are showing your prejudice for what you think religion has done to this world,narrowly negative and totally biased.
Uh, no. You cannot claim 'Science protects me!' since it cannot be disproved. Rather, you have nothing to assert in the first place, seeing as you have no evidence or testable method on which to base a hypothesis.
jay pettitt on 8/4/2008 at 00:03
Quote Posted by paloalto90
Can science provide the answer?Can science alone provide me with any belief system toward how I should treat my fellow man?
Of course it can. The trick is to understand that we have evolved as a social species. Let's be clear, there is no higher benevolent intelligence providing otherwise clueless humans with a much needed a blue-print for acceptable behaviour. As an Atheist I develop my moral sense in much the same way you do.
Ben Gunn on 8/4/2008 at 00:14
But your (our, Im an atheist too- just a reminder) moral values do not necessarily stem from your atheism.
Meaning to say- you can use any scientific theory to justify your moral stance but your stance is not a logical conclusion of that particular theory.
I think that what he was saying- and not suggesting that atheists have no morals.
Renzatic on 8/4/2008 at 00:28
Quote Posted by catbarf
Can you imagine what would happen if this were a white woman screaming at a black man to leave? Or if the man were Jewish? But no, atheists continue to be the minority that can be targeted freely.
I'm sorry, but until you at least have a nasty standardized slur to call your own, I can't take your claims to victimhood seriously.
Tocky on 8/4/2008 at 02:42
Quote Posted by Ben Gunn
Meaning to say- you can use any scientific theory to justify your moral stance but your stance is not a logical conclusion of that particular theory.
But isn't one of the basic tennents of evolution the drive for survival and reproduction? The logical conclusion of being immoral is that the rest of the species, having that same drive to survive and reproduce, will ostrasize and possibly destroy you severly limiting your ability to survive and reproduce should you inhibit thier ability to do so. From that basis morality itself logically evolved.
Where I run into a wall is in what caused the drive for survival and reproduction. Was it inevitable that conditions would appear such that certain groupings of atoms would unite and replicate to produce life even there within the singularity that was before the big bang? Why are certain groupings of energy building on themselves and surviving? What purpose does survival serve beyond survival? Why is it fundamental? If the end result is complete dissipation through expansion and entropy then it ultimately has none. If that were the case then why was it to begin with? For that matter how was it to begin with if expansion and entropy are the natural order?
The_Raven on 8/4/2008 at 03:30
Quote Posted by paloalto90
That somehow if we broke away from this fantasy we would somehow be more compassionate and loving.
No, I doubt that. I'm sure we will be clubbing each other to death over retarded shit for years to come.
While religion can be used for good, I find that it creates a mentality that is far too easily abused. It no long becomes about the individual finding their own meaning in life, but having some higher being grand eternal paradise for good behavior.
Mingan on 8/4/2008 at 04:07
Quote Posted by Tocky
Where I run into a wall is in what caused the drive for survival and reproduction. Was it inevitable that conditions would appear such that certain groupings of atoms would unite and replicate to produce life even there within the singularity that was before the big bang?
It is not. Assuming current standard theories (quantum/relativity) are sort of correct, it is possible that, by changing some constants, it would produce a totally diferent universe, possibly devoid of life. It could also be that laws of physics in an alternate universe are different, producing wildly different effects (imagine, for example, that electromagnetic force at a distance, instead of being 1/r^2, is 1/r^3; that could change a lot of stuff)
Quote:
Why are certain groupings of energy building on themselves and surviving?
It appears that certain atoms have some sort of 'affinity', possibly due to electronic configuration and/or energy states. It is also a factor that certain atoms group themselves only because the chemical reaction only requires a small amount of energy(which could be provided by simple collision), or release energy as by-product.
Quote:
What purpose does survival serve beyond survival? Why is it fundamental? If the end result is complete dissipation through expansion and entropy then it ultimately has none. If that were the case then why was it to begin with? For that matter how was it to begin with if expansion and entropy are the natural order?
I have no answer to that, except that life's only purpose is life itself. It doesn't state though that YOUR VERY OWN life has no meaning. It only has that which you give it.
Ben Gunn on 8/4/2008 at 06:50
Quote Posted by Tocky
But isn't one of the basic tennents of evolution the drive for survival and reproduction? The logical conclusion of being immoral is that the rest of the species, having that same drive to survive and reproduce, will ostrasize and possibly destroy you severly limiting your ability to survive and reproduce should you inhibit thier ability to do so. From that basis morality itself logically evolved.
First of all there is no such thing as morality between species- only one species has (or has not) set of morals and thats us. There are animal right activisits which aspire to expand morality and include into it other species but AFAIK there are still monkeys being poked in the labs so I'd say that so far they had failed.
Secondly, you are confusing things. It's one thing to conduct a scientific study about the origins and the
raison d'etre of moral/political human ideologies- and Ive read some interesting essays about the evolution of love, the survival benefiets of altruism and the like- but it's an entirely different thing to come up with such an ideology, even if it's wholly based on scientifical facts.
The former may have some value (maybe not in the light of evloution but in its daughter- memetics) in telling us why the political/ideological current climate is the way it is- How did Christianity, from all the other countless sects and cults, have gained such dominance, why Plato's worthy attempt at founding a new religion never caught.... maybe all these things can be explained beautifuly in the light of Evolution. But that is all. It explains facts. Why things are the way they are.
When someone will come up with a new thing, new set of rules, a new moral stand toward the world- and he may claim that his new religion/ideology/moral system is based solely upon sound scientific theories- think about the stupid scientologies for example- but unlike scientology, his theory is really truely really based on science- you are still not forced to accept his way. You have a choice- you can embrace it or deny it, it's up to you. It is NOT up to you to embrace or deny the theory of evolution, which forces itself upon anyone who bothered to educate himself on this matter by sheer power of logic and reason.
Do you catch my drift now? Do you see the chasm between science and morals?
