Support NeoGAF

[Hotspurr]

Yes, I've read it. See the wikipedia link E-Cat posted above for citations.

.
In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]

1. Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of Carl Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100%. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50% but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50% but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a "6", though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested "6.9" to be more accurate.

Sorry I might be misreading something. Do you mind pointing out where he states that he is a weak atheist/agnostic? I posted the text so it's easier.

 

[MiyazakiHatesKojima]

You caught that, didn't you?

 

[GAMETA]

It is much, much less preposterous to suggest that an advanced civilization created our Universe rather than a God. Why? Because that advanced civilization itself, if located in Base Reality and not itself a part of yet another simulation, would have evolved late into the Universe as a part of a slow, gradual process of evolution.

God, an infinitely complex being borne out of nothing as a prime mover, is a completely different proposition with no respectable scientific hypothesis behind it.

Why? Maybe God is an acestor basement stinky nerd creating The Sims.

How can you tell? You can't. Hence "we don't know". That's it, we don't know

 

[Xaero Gravity]

You caught that, didn't you?

I'm on to you

 

[Ornlu]

If science can entertain the idea of the Simulation Hypothesis, I don't see how a higher being, divine or not, is completely out of the question..

The simulation itself requires a higher being, so why all this fuckery?

I really don't understand why God is such a taboo.

It's the dirty little secret at the base of science. All of the theories make more sense if "God" (YMMV) is in the equation:

The Big Bang: What was before the Bang? What set it off?

Simulation: Who runs the simulation? Even if waved off as an advanced civilization, at what level of "advancement" does that = "God"?

Evolution: The theory only explains minor mutations over time; what is the impetus for major, complex changes in creatures? Why does the timeline not match with the vast theorized times required for minor mutations to "stack up" into major complex changes?

 

[MiyazakiHatesKojima]

Faith is by definition irrational because your belief in god cannot be proven by rational and/or scientific means. Religion has shown throughout history, that their dogmatic worldview is incompatible with scientific progress and empirical facts. Your choice to believe in a higher being is merely an emotional decision, not a rational one because the existence of a god cannot be proven through reason.

Are you Christopher Hitchen's bastard son by any chance? Because both of you have the same retarded argument for faith being irrational. Your faith in scientific reasoning is by definition irrational because it's self-defeating. If science declares tomorrow that the possibility of God existing is very much real, would you start to believe in a GOD?

Everyone has a belief system whether you like it or not. You are not enlightened by rationality, you are just another person who firmly believes in their epistemology which happens to be that only scientific reasoning is the answer to the truth, just like Ricardo Dickens was saying on that AlJazeera video that I posted in this thread.

You are not special, frenchie. You are no Descartes, you're just another NPC that happens to fall under the New Atheist umbrella, which is the dumbest breed of atheists to come by in centuries.

 

[Hotspurr]

Are you Christopher Hitchen's bastard son by any chance? Because both of you have the same retarded argument for faith being irrational. Your faith in scientific reasoning is by definition irrational because it's self-defeating. If science declares tomorrow that the possibility of God existing is very much real, would you start to believe in a GOD?

Everyone has a belief system whether you like it or not. You are not enlightened by rationality, you are just another person who firmly believes in their epistemology which happens to be that only scientific reasoning is the answer to the truth, just like Ricardo Dickens was saying on that AlJazeera video that I posted in this thread.

You are not special, frenchie. You are no Descartes, you're just another NPC that happens to fall under the New Atheist umbrella, which is the dumbest breed of atheists to come by in centuries.

You are absolutely right, everyone has a belief system. But some beliefs are better than others. Science gave us roads, bridges, phones, medicine, and you know, everything else responsible for the progress of humanity. Religion gave us wasted time on Sunday, fun stories, gropey priests, and the stagnation of science for decades. Which team do you want to batt for?

 

[Ornlu]

You are absolutely right, everyone has a belief system. But some beliefs are better than others. Science gave us roads, bridges, phones, medicine, and you know, everything else responsible for the progress of humanity. Religion gave us wasted time on Sunday, fun stories, gropey priests, and the stagnation of science for decades. Which team do you want to batt for?

If we're going down the snarky road, we could be real and say that religion--->beer--->civilization--->science--->modern amenities.

 

[E-Cat]

Sure, fair enough.

There's a few questions there, so I'll answer in order.

1. I don't believe in Omniscience or Predestination. I don't believe that God is perfect, and I don't believe that our lives follow a pre-determined path. I'd be willing to expand why I believe what I do, if you want. If you have examples of vile and nonsensical orders from the Bible in particular, I could answer my thoughts to that as well.

2. Well, by being humans, we fail constantly, even when we try our best. Are you asking if there are things I fail at following, then I would have to say of course. I can't think of anything I intentionally do that goes against God.

3. I can't think of anything that is applicable to me (Not an Israelite) that I pick and choose from. There's modern interpretations that I don't agree with at all, and live my life accordingly.

1. Ok, so you don't believe in God as described in the Bible.

Vile and/or nonsensical things from the Bible:

- Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of fabrics, do not shave off the hair around the temples and behind the ears, do not boil a kid in its mother's milk, etc.
- "When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand." Deuteronomy 25:11-12
- "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves." Numbers 31:17-18
- "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." Ephesians 6:5 NLT
- "You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
- "If a man has sex with an animal, he must be put to death, and the animal must be killed. "Leviticus 20:15 NLT
- "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die." Deuteronomy 21:18-21
- "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD." Deuteronomy 23:1 NRSV

2. No, I am asking if there are orders that you find so objectionable that you would not follow them, such as the ones I have listed above.

3. Ahh, so certain Biblical rules only apply to Jews. Would that include the things I have listed above?

 

[MiyazakiHatesKojima]

You are absolutely right, everyone has a belief system. But some beliefs are better than others. Science gave us roads, bridges, phones, medicine, and you know, everything else responsible for the progress of humanity. Religion gave us wasted time on Sunday, fun stories, gropey priests, and the stagnation of science for decades. Which team do you want to batt for?

Why are we pretending that science didn't exist in religious societies as well? Is there some weird Mandela Effect going on with the New Atheist movement? History speaks for itself and anyone who has a decent amount of honesty in themselves should look up that history from BOTH perspectives. There is a lot of bullshitters in that field of history so you will come across borderline liars who try to manipulate history to make it seem like Religion wasn't the breeding ground for science.

There was definitely some periods in history where science was being suppressed due to the irrational fear that people would lose faith in their religion, but this didn't happen for ALL major religions. Read about the Golden Islamic Age of Science and tell me how was that not linked to those scientist's firm belief in their religions?

I find it disappointing to see some of these childish arguments still existing in today's Information Age. But again, not surprised since things like Anti-Vaxxers exist despite the evidence that contradicts their false narrative regarding vaccine.

If one would stumble on this thread and read my posts, they'd think I'm just some religious doofus who hates atheists. I may have to just make a thread in the near future and have a more civil debate about this matter and speak about the things that I've learned over the past years.

Explaining to someone why they believe in God and their religion is far more challenging than someone explaining why they don't. My lack of patience and wanding memory led me to act like an impatient jackass, just for the record. I'll take responsibility to rectify some of the damage I did here on this thread.

 

[E-Cat]

It's the dirty little secret at the base of science. All of the theories make more sense if "God" (YMMV) is in the equation:

The Big Bang: What was before the Bang? What set it off?

Simulation: Who runs the simulation? Even if waved off as an advanced civilization, at what level of "advancement" does that = "God"?

Evolution: The theory only explains minor mutations over time; what is the impetus for major, complex changes in creatures? Why does the timeline not match with the vast theorized times required for minor mutations to "stack up" into major complex changes?

What was before God? What set if off? (Answer: God transcends all logic and comprehension, so... SYKE!)

If the runners of the Simulation are technological (no matter how advanced), they would by definition not be God, who is defined as being supernatural.

Homeotic gene mutations, that is, genes which regulate the development of anatomical structures in various organisms, can lead to the rapid creation of even new phyla within a single generation:

Homeotic gene - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What is the impetus for thousands of sequential, minor mutations to center around a "Platonic ideal" genotype amid constant directional selection pressure? Macroevolution is just a series of microevolutions, because there is no such impetus. It appears to me that you do not understand how biologist think evolution works (whether you agree with it or not). If you are genuinely interested in the subject, I recommend Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth.

 

[Tesseract]

there's no need for one to stamp out the other

there's no conflict between them, only for dogmatic twats who try to sideline one for the other

 

[MiyazakiHatesKojima]

Here is a question that I want to ask the proponents of Ricardo Dickens:

Can evolution explain to us why human beings have the capacity to 'believe'? I find it really fascinating that human beings are all born with this inescapable ability to believe in something and develop an internal belief system. This is NOT about developing religion; this is about the fact that every human being believes in something. No one can say they don't believe in anything, because that in itself is belief in the possibility of not believing in something.

Food for THOUGHT.

 

[E-Cat]

there's no need for one to stamp out the other

there's no conflict between them, only for dogmatic twats who try to sideline one for the other

What about George W. Bush banning federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research, potentially delaying cures to spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's, cancer and heart disease? Is that not a direct conflict between science and religion?

 

[Tesseract]

What about George W. Bush banning federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research, potentially delaying cures to spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's, cancer and heart disease? Is that not a direct conflict between science and religion?

nope

 

[Ornlu]

1. Ok, so you don't believe in God as described in the Bible.

Vile and/or nonsensical things from the Bible:

- Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of fabrics, do not shave off the hair around the temples and behind the ears, do not boil a kid in its mother's milk, etc.
- "When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand." Deuteronomy 25:11-12
- "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves." Numbers 31:17-18
- "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." Ephesians 6:5 NLT
- "You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
- "If a man has sex with an animal, he must be put to death, and the animal must be killed. "Leviticus 20:15 NLT
- "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die." Deuteronomy 21:18-21
- "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD." Deuteronomy 23:1 NRSV

2. No, I am asking if there are orders that you find so objectionable that you would not follow them, such as the ones I have listed above.

3. Ahh, so certain Biblical rules only apply to Jews. Would that include the things I have listed above?

1. Yes, I do believe in God. Omniscient God = no free will. I believe in free will.

Then you have in order:

a. Rules during a dispute (don't interfere and grab the other mans dick yo)
b. Moses ordering his tribe to take revenge on another tribe
c. Telling slaves that they will be rewarded for their hardships (you cut the rest off)
d. Many forms of slavery were practiced in those times; including among the Israelites
e. Ok, beastiality is not good; got it
f. Oldschool desert people don't have room for people who refuse to contribute (no 10 year college students plz)
g. Rules for whom is allowed to serve in leadership positions

2. I can't think of any orders that are applicable to me that I don't follow. There are definitely things I fail at.

3. I'm not of the tribe of Israel, so of course I'm not required to follow rules given to the Jews.

 

[E-Cat]

nope

What possible reason was there for banning the funding, other than the religious belief that embryos have souls?

 

[Ornlu]

What was before God? What set if off? (Answer: God transcends all logic and comprehension, so... SYKE!)

If the runners of the Simulation are technological (no matter how advanced), they would by definition not be God, who is defined as being supernatural.

Homeotic gene mutations, that is, genes which regulate the development of anatomical structures in various organisms, can lead to the rapid creation of even new phyla within a single generation:

Homeotic gene - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What is the impetus for thousands of sequential, minor mutations to center around a "Platonic ideal" genotype amid constant directional selection pressure? Macroevolution is just a series of microevolutions, because there is no such impetus. It appears to me that you do not understand how biologist think evolution works (whether you agree with it or not). If you are genuinely interested in the subject, I recommend Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth.

I absolutely do understand how biologists think evolution works, and I am pointing out the flaws in the Theory of Evolution that have been present and glaringly apparent since the Theory was first proposed.

 

[Tesseract]

What possible reason was there for banning the funding, other than the religious belief that embryos have souls?

george bush isn't a working scientist, he's a politician

i was mainly speaking of greats like newton, euler, so on who achieved great things with (so called) conflicts of interest

your point is well taken, but i'd add that bush's ban had more to do with infantile technology than lost souls

 

[E-Cat]

a. Rules during a dispute (don't interfere and grab the other mans dick yo)
b. Moses ordering his tribe to take revenge on another tribe
c. Telling slaves that they will be rewarded for their hardships (you cut the rest off)
d. Many forms of slavery were practiced in those times; including among the Israelites
e. Ok, beastiality is not good; got it
f. Oldschool desert people don't have room for people who refuse to contribute (no 10 year college students plz)
g. Rules for whom is allowed to serve in leadership positions

a. It is ok to cut off a woman's hand for grabbing a man's dick?
b. It is ok to revenge kill another tribe and take their virgins as sex slaves?
c. It is ok to have slaves?
d. Again, it is ok to have slaves? Why did the Bible not forbid it?
e. It is ok to kill a man for having sex with an animal?
f. It is ok to kill your offspring who refuse to contribute?
g. Men without a penis or testicles are unfit to serve in a leadership position?

You find nothing objectionable about these?

 

[E-Cat]

your point is well taken, but i'd add that bush's ban had more to do with infantile technology than lost souls

"In 2001, President George W. Bush restricted federal funding for research on stem cells obtained from human embryos because the technology required the destruction of human life. 'At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science,' Bush said."

"My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs," he said. "I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator."

George W. Bush and the Stem Cell Research Funding Ban | ‘Legitimate Rape’? Todd Akin and Other Politicians Who Confused Science | TIME.com

Missouri Rep. Todd Akin bungled science when he claimed that women who are raped are naturally protected from pregnancy. But he's not the first politician to have a shaky relationship with scientific fact

healthland.time.com

 

[Tesseract]

"In 2001, President George W. Bush restricted federal funding for research on stem cells obtained from human embryos because the technology required the destruction of human life. 'At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science,' Bush said."

"My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs," he said. "I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator."

George W. Bush and the Stem Cell Research Funding Ban | ‘Legitimate Rape’? Todd Akin and Other Politicians Who Confused Science | TIME.com

Missouri Rep. Todd Akin bungled science when he claimed that women who are raped are naturally protected from pregnancy. But he's not the first politician to have a shaky relationship with scientific fact

healthland.time.com

yes but if you dig a little deeper you'll see multifaceted reasoning, the surface level being that yes he wanted to ensure an unstable technology wouldn't be abused
by black labs

i believe he made the right decision for the time

 

[Hotspurr]

Why are we pretending that science didn't exist in religious societies as well? Is there some weird Mandela Effect going on with the New Atheist movement? History speaks for itself and anyone who has a decent amount of honesty in themselves should look up that history from BOTH perspectives. There is a lot of bullshitters in that field of history so you will come across borderline liars who try to manipulate history to make it seem like Religion wasn't the breeding ground for science.

There was definitely some periods in history where science was being suppressed due to the irrational fear that people would lose faith in their religion, but this didn't happen for ALL major religions. Read about the Golden Islamic Age of Science and tell me how was that not linked to those scientist's firm belief in their religions?

I find it disappointing to see some of these childish arguments still existing in today's Information Age. But again, not surprised since things like Anti-Vaxxers exist despite the evidence that contradicts their false narrative regarding vaccine.

If one would stumble on this thread and read my posts, they'd think I'm just some religious doofus who hates atheists. I may have to just make a thread in the near future and have a more civil debate about this matter and speak about the things that I've learned over the past years.

Explaining to someone why they believe in God and their religion is far more challenging than someone explaining why they don't. My lack of patience and wanding memory led me to act like an impatient jackass, just for the record. I'll take responsibility to rectify some of the damage I did here on this thread.

Religious societies definitely used science as a tool for progress, but saying that religion was its birthplace is like saying Brittany Spears invented pop music. The idea of science is reaching convictions through experimentation and repetition, constantly challenging current beliefs. Religion seems to do the exact opposite by giving you a prepckaged deal that is not meant to be questioned, and then often threatening you will prospects of ending up in hell if you don't comply. Thankfully when science advances it seems religion is the one that backtracks by making yet another passage a 'metaphor" that shouldn't be taken literally. You may think religion is beneficial to society, you may must at the possibility at there being a higher power, but I don't see how one can argue in good faith that religion somehow birthed science and the two are compatible. It's quite the opposite.

 

[Ornlu]

a. It is ok to cut off a woman's hand for grabbing a man's dick?
b. It is ok to revenge kill another tribe and take their virgins as sex slaves?
c. It is ok to have slaves?
d. Again, it is ok to have slaves? Why did the Bible not forbid it?
e. It is ok to kill a man for having sex with an animal?
f. It is ok to kill your offspring who refuse to contribute?
g. Men without a penis or testicles are unfit to serve in a leadership position?

You find nothing objectionable about these?

If I were an Israelite living the desert? Hell no! I'd probably be thinking "Wow, this is some enlightened shit. The Baalites fuck you to death, and the Assyrians keep your skulls as bowls". I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.

The only one you chose that isn't directed at ancient Israelites is from Ephesians, which has the opposite message from what I assume you are trying to say. Telling a servant or slave "Even if you remain a slave in life, you will be free and rewarded in the hereafter" and telling his master "Treat your servants/slaves well or you shall be punished in the hereafter" isn't the same as saying "Slaves! Bow to your Master! Masters! Whip them harder!".

 

[E-Cat]

yes but if you dig a little deeper you'll see multifaceted reasoning, the surface level being that yes he wanted to ensure an unstable technology wouldn't be abused
by black labs

i believe he made the right decision for the time

Yes, but I feel like you're digging waaay to deep to justify what is basically a religion-inspired ban on promising research.

I see your larger point about Newton and Euler, and if you go back a couple of pages, you see me making the point that before Darwin it was more logical to believe in a higher power (in lieu of a credible theory to explain our origins).

My point is that scientific progress can, and often will be, cockblocked by religion.

 

[MiyazakiHatesKojima]

Religious societies definitely used science as a tool for progress, but saying that religion was its birthplace is like saying Brittany Spears invented pop music. The idea of science is reaching convictions through experimentation and repetition, constantly challenging current beliefs. Religion seems to do the exact opposite by giving you a prepckaged deal that is not meant to be questioned, and then often threatening you will prospects of ending up in hell if you don't comply. Thankfully when science advances it seems religion is the one that backtracks by making yet another passage a 'metaphor" that shouldn't be taken literally. You may think religion is beneficial to society, you may must at the possibility at there being a higher power, but I don't see how one can argue in good faith that religion somehow birthed science and the two are compatible. It's quite the opposite.

I think you should read my post again. I never claimed that science was birthed by religion, but the notion that religious civilizations shunned science is a false narrative.

There needs to be a distinction made here regarding science making progress and religion making progress. Both of them made significant progress for humanity in their own ways. Without the Major Religions, we would not have laws and ethics that protected human life and rights. Without Science, we would not have technology and knowledge about how to cure diseases, build cities, improving human life in terms of health, etc.

Why make it seem like you need to batt for one team or another?

 

[Tesseract]

Yes, but I feel like you're digging waaay to deep to justify what is basically a religion-inspired ban on promising research.

I see your larger point about Newton and Euler, and if you go back a couple of pages, you see me making the point that before Darwin it was more logical to believe in a higher power (in lieu of a credible theory to explain our origins).

My point is that scientific progress can, and often will be, cockblocked by religion.

fair enough, i'm just giving you my experience with the issue as a saw it (at the time)

to my mind it wasn't just a religious issue / decision, but it was shaped by his faith as he said

the white house laid out clear technical specifications that couldn't be overcome

the rest i agree with, trust me dude i'm no friend of religion when it comes to scientific progress

 

[E-Cat]

If I were an Israelite living the desert? Hell no! I'd probably be thinking "Wow, this is some enlightened shit. The Baalites fuck you to death, and the Assyrians keep your skulls as bowls". I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.

The only one you chose that isn't directed at ancient Israelites is from Ephesians, which has the opposite message from what I assume you are trying to say. Telling a servant or slave "Even if you remain a slave in life, you will be free and rewarded in the hereafter" and telling his master "Treat your servants/slaves well or you shall be punished in the hereafter" isn't the same as saying "Slaves! Bow to your Master! Masters! Whip them harder!".

What I'm trying to get at is, that is some vile shit that makes me question the morality of God and, indeed, his existence. God can supposedly inhabit all the dimensions simultaneously, so he sees the future as well as the past. So, why should the Israelites of today not follow those same commandments?

Incidentally, I am also starting to question YOUR morality...

 

[Bolivar687]

So, why should the Israelites of today not follow those same commandments?

Because they're no longer recently-liberated slave laborers nomadically wandering the Sinai peninsula while being alternately attacked and seduced by the surrounding pagan city-states.

 

[E-Cat]

Because they're no longer recently-liberated slave laborers nomadically wandering the Sinai peninsula while being alternately attacked and seduced by the surrounding pagan city-states.

So, allow me to repeat the question that I originally asked Ornlu: If the Bible was written principally for nomadic slave laborers who lived thousands of years ago, by what criteria do you choose which parts to follow and which parts to disregard in the modern era?

 

[Ornlu]

What I'm trying to get at is, that is some vile shit that makes me question the morality of God and, indeed, his existence. God can supposedly inhabit all the dimensions simultaneously, so he sees the future as well as the past. So, why should the Israelites of today not follow those same commandments?

Incidentally, I am also starting to question YOUR morality...

Question away. I'm an open book. According to you all morality is relative, so I think I'll be ok.

 

[Hotspurr]

I think you should read my post again. I never claimed that science was birthed by religion, but the notion that religious civilizations shunned science is a false narrative.

There needs to be a distinction made here regarding science making progress and religion making progress. Both of them made significant progress for humanity in their own ways. Without the Major Religions, we would not have laws and ethics that protected human life and rights. Without Science, we would not have technology and knowledge about how to cure diseases, build cities, improving human life in terms of health, etc.

Why make it seem like you need to batt for one team or another?

I disagree. You don't need religion to form morals and ethics. Humanism and utilitarian views can just as effectively come up with a moral system that leads to functional civilizations. Some of these concepts go back to the time of Socrates. Also which religion and which sets of ethics? There are literally thousands and they are all somewhat different in many regards.

On the flip side, religion has given us some terrible "morals" that have caused countless lives being lost. The suffering associated for homosexuality alone is enough, and I'm not even taking about Islamic religions which are by far the worst. Or what about the holocaust, which manipulated Christian's to kill Jews based on an old feud about their "Jesus" being killed. Where was religion when countless black slaves were robbed of their freedom in America? The majority of modern moral and ethical advancement has been made despite religion, not because of it.

At the heart of morality and ethics is basically one word: empathy. Evolutionarily we derive strategies to guarantee our survival, and that generally manifests as cooperation and some degree of fairness (but nothing is perfect). It has even been shown that morality exists in animals, do they too have a religion?

Religion serves no other purpose in the modern world than to give people some peace of mind and to avoid grappling with hard questions. A world without permanent existence is one that is devoid of meaning for many people, and they will not accept it. Perhaps this is also an evolutionary adaptation for our psyches, we do everything we can to preserve our bodies, and once the mind figures out that death is inevitable we create gods and afterlifes to guarantee our continued survival.

 

[Tesseract]

oh hell yeah, totally agree that god's existence isn't a necessary ingredient for establishing a philosophical framework of morality

i'm putting the bat signal up for someone right now

sorry for stealing your words, Rentahamster

 

[MiyazakiHatesKojima]

I disagree. You don't need religion to form morals and ethics. Humanism and utilitarian views can just as effectively come up with a moral system that leads to functional civilizations. Some of these concepts go back to the time of Socrates. Also which religion and which sets of ethics? There are literally thousands and they are all somewhat different in many regards.

On the flip side, religion has given us some terrible "morals" that have caused countless lives being lost. The suffering associated for homosexuality alone is enough, and I'm not even taking about Islamic religions which are by far the worst. Or what about the holocaust, which manipulated Christian's to kill Jews based on an old feud about their "Jesus" being killed. Where was religion when countless black slaves were robbed of their freedom in America? The majority of modern moral and ethical advancement has been made despite religion, not because of it.

At the heart of morality and ethics is basically one word: empathy. Evolutionarily we derive strategies to guarantee our survival, and that generally manifests as cooperation and some degree of fairness (but nothing is perfect). It has even been shown that morality exists in animals, do they too have a religion?

Religion serves no other purpose in the modern world than to give people some peace of mind and to avoid grappling with hard questions. A world without permanent existence is one that is devoid of meaning for many people, and they will not accept it. Perhaps this is also an evolutionary adaptation for our psyches, we do everything we can to preserve our bodies, and once the mind figures out that death is inevitable we create gods and afterlifes to guarantee our continued survival.

If this is the narrative you want to believe in, then more power to you. Its seems you've made up your mind already so I hope we both find peace with our respective truths.

 

[E-Cat]

Question away. I'm an open book. According to you all morality is relative, so I think I'll be ok.

Touche. ; ) That is, according to my relative morality you may or may not be immoral (I have not decided yet). I cannot speak to how you see yourself.

 

[E-Cat]

Here is a question that I want to ask the proponents of Ricardo Dickens:

Can evolution explain to us why human beings have the capacity to 'believe'? I find it really fascinating that human beings are all born with this inescapable ability to believe in something and develop an internal belief system. This is NOT about developing religion; this is about the fact that every human being believes in something. No one can say they don't believe in anything, because that in itself is belief in the possibility of not believing in something.

Food for THOUGHT.

Of course it can, the capacity to believe must be a trait that is highly beneficial for survival. Whether it is that thing exactly ("the God gene") that is being passed on, or whether religiosity is a kind of side effect of some other highly beneficial trait, or whether it's due to genetic linkage during meiosis, etc. can be debated. I am by no means an expert on the subject, but I am sure there have been studies on it.

 

[Bolivar687]

So, allow me to repeat the question that I originally asked Ornlu: If the Bible was written principally for nomadic slave laborers who lived thousands of years ago, by what criteria do you choose which parts to follow and which parts to disregard in the modern era?

The Bible wasn't written for nomadic slave laborers. What you describe are instructions that were given to them to overcome specific challenges at unique moments in their history (which they then successfully did). Different instructions were later given when they formed permanent settlements and then a kingdom.

I can't speak for Rabbinic Judaism, although I will observe that, much like Protestant Christians, their Bible seems to have been compiled according to which books best politically and theologically justify their worldview. The Catholic Bible mostly retains the Hebrew canon as it had existed for hundreds of years, and I can only answer from this perspective.

The New Testament provides that Jesus Christ restored the law originally given to Moses. Helping people on the sabbath is now okay. Divorce is not. The Ten Commandments are still in effect. All morality derives from the prime command to love the Lord with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, as well as the commandment that naturally and immediately derives from the first, to love your neighbor. The Acts of the Apostles recounts the Council of Jerusalem, where the Church agreed that gentile converts should follow the Old Testament's dietary and hygienic proscriptions on sexual morality and only an enumerated few with respect to food.

These things are intuitable from exegesis, guided by logic and reason, and many Saints like Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, who left their mark on Western philosophy as well, have written volumes on this stuff. Don't fall for the Protestant/Atheist folly that nothing is knowable outside of natural science. Because that ultimately leads to the denial of natural science itself, as we're currently seeing at the upper echelons of academia with respect to sexuality and gender.

 

[MiyazakiHatesKojima]

Of course it can, the capacity to believe must be a trait that is highly beneficial for survival. Whether it is that thing exactly ("the God gene") that is being passed on, or whether religiosity is a kind of side effect of some other highly beneficial trait, or whether it's due to genetic linkage during meiosis, etc. can be debated. I am by no means an expert on the subject, but I am sure there have been studies on it.

Has there been anything conclusive about this? Even the Selfish Gene theory has its flaws. For me, this capacity to 'believe adds more explanatory power to the theory that God instilled in all of us this capacity in order to fulfill our ultimate purpose: to worship the Creator of this universe and beyond it.

 

[MiyazakiHatesKojima]

I truly believe that Cosmology is the only field in science that can sufficiently provide the arguments for God and against God on behalf of the scientific community. It's ludicrous to think that Biologists can even answer the ultimate question of God existing or not.

 

[Rentahamster]

oh hell yeah, totally agree that god's existence isn't a necessary ingredient for establishing a philosophical framework of morality

i'm putting the bat signal up for someone right now

sorry for stealing your words, Rentahamster

No worries, my good dude.

It's true, after all.

 

[Rentahamster]

Additionally . . .

Today I learned that there are things such as cargo cults.

Cargo cult - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A cargo cult is a belief system among members of a relatively undeveloped society in which adherents practice superstitious rituals hoping to bring modern goods supplied by a more technologically advanced society. These cults, millenarian in nature, were first described in Melanesia in the wake of contact with more technologically advanced Western cultures. The name derives from the belief which began among Melanesians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that various ritualistic acts such as the building of an airplane runway will result in the appearance of material wealth, particularly highly desirable Western goods (i.e., "cargo"), via Western airplanes.[1][2]

Since approximately 1950, most cargo cults have disappeared.[citation needed] However, some cargo cults are still active including:

• The John Frum cult on Tanna island (Vanuatu)
• The Tom Navy cult on Tanna island (Vanuatu)
• The Prince Philip Movement on the island of Tanna, which worships Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, husband of Queen Elizabeth II.
• The Turaga movement based on Pentecost island (Vanuatu)
• Yali's cargo cult on Papua New Guinea (Madang-region)
• The Paliau movement on Papua New Guinea (Manus island)
• The Peli association on Papua New Guinea
• The Pomio Kivung on Papua New Guinea[17][18]

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult#cite_note-18

 

[strange headache]

If science can entertain the idea of the Simulation Hypothesis, I don't see how a higher being, divine or not, is completely out of the question..

A hypothesis is an assumption based on incomplete evidence. No scientist regards it as fact, contrary to religious people and the existence of a godly creator.

So yes, it can exist because we can create it. Just like God. Or mathematics. Just like us in a simulation...

Exactly, god is a human invention. It exists as a fantasy product, nothing more.

If science declares tomorrow that the possibility of God existing is very much real, would you start to believe in a GOD?

If science gave me convincing and irrefutable proof that god exists, I certainly would change my mind. Unsurprisingly so far, no evidence has cropped up though.

Everyone has a belief system whether you like it or not. You are not enlightened by rationality, you are just another person who firmly believes in their epistemology which happens to be that only scientific reasoning is the answer to the truth, just like Ricardo Dickens was saying on that AlJazeera video that I posted in this thread.

There must be a reason why people always feel so insecure about their religious beliefs and think that non-believers think of themselves as better. I'd say it's because deep down they know that what they believe isn't true. Not every belief system is equally as valid or would you consider the belief system of a Jihadi terrorist to be on par with your own? Of course not.

Scientific and rational belief systems have the advantage that they are universal, because they are based upon our fundamental rules of thought. Hence why they are accessible by everybody and can be shared by everybody contrary to religious belief systems who ask of you to make a blind leap of faith for no particular reason at all.

You are not special, frenchie. You are no Descartes, you're just another NPC that happens to fall under the New Atheist umbrella, which is the dumbest breed of atheists to come by in centuries.

Funny that you mention Descartes, because he was poisoned with a communion wafer by a catholic priest for postulating reason (cogito sum) over the existence of god (which was merely his second innate truth).

Here is a question that I want to ask the proponents of Ricardo Dickens:

Why is it so hard to spell his name correctly? Is Dawkins your kryptonite, like what "Drumpf" is to the regressive left?

Can evolution explain

I'm glad that we agree that creationism is total bunk.

to us why human beings have the capacity to 'believe'? I find it really fascinating that human beings are all born with this inescapable ability to believe in something and develop an internal belief system. This is NOT about developing religion; this is about the fact that every human being believes in something. No one can say they don't believe in anything, because that in itself is belief in the possibility of not believing in something.

Humans are social beings and from an evolutionary perspective their ability to hold commonly shared beliefs has a positive impact on their social coherence. From the vast spectrum of different beliefs that have emerged over time, particular religions spread and persisted because their deities and rituals promoted cooperation among practitioners. Unfortunately this also comes at the cost of being more ill-equipped to cooperate between different groups of believers. Hence why, religious people prefer to socialize with people from their own belief system, while having a harder time coexisting with believers of another faith.

Secondly, the ability to believe in something is a prerequisite for human creativity. God is nothing more than an imaginative product, like superheroes or dragons. That being said, you wouldn't presuppose the existence of superheros simply because evolution gave us the ability to imagine them.

 

[MiyazakiHatesKojima]

Humans are social beings and from an evolutionary perspective their ability to hold commonly shared beliefs has a positive impact on their social coherence. From the vast spectrum of different beliefs that have emerged over time, particular religions spread and persisted because their deities and rituals promoted cooperation among practitioners. Unfortunately this also comes at the cost of being more ill-equipped to cooperate between different groups of believers. Hence why, religious people prefer to socialize with people from their own belief system, while having a harder time coexisting with believers of another faith.

Secondly, the ability to believe in something is a prerequisite for human creativity. God is nothing more than an imaginative product, like superheroes or dragons. That being said, you wouldn't presuppose the existence of superheros simply because evolution gave us the ability to imagine them.

The first paragraph can explain the development of religions, cults, traditions, etc. I agree with this explanation, but it doesn't necessarily answer my question that I proposed. Also, that first paragraph doesn't explain it in evolutionary terms, but rather from a sociological perspective which is also an important lens to look through.

The second paragraph is where my issue is: you explained that human beings can imagine things and abstract concepts such as God, superheroes, etc. However, this begs the question: How did Human Beings develop this extraordinary ability to think about abstract concepts? Furthermore, was there an evolutionary mechanism that triggered this extraordinary ability to switch on inside a human being's brain compared to the ancestors who had a brain but never exhibited abstract conceptualization (i.e. consciousness capable of allowing a person to believe in something). This isn't the same as human beings being able to evolve in physical form, but rather evolving (or transforming) in a way that transcends evolutionary explanation.

 

[E-Cat]

The Bible wasn't written for nomadic slave laborers. What you describe are instructions that were given to them to overcome specific challenges at unique moments in their history (which they then successfully did). Different instructions were later given when they formed permanent settlements and then a kingdom.

I can't speak for Rabbinic Judaism, although I will observe that, much like Protestant Christians, their Bible seems to have been compiled according to which books best politically and theologically justify their worldview. The Catholic Bible mostly retains the Hebrew canon as it had existed for hundreds of years, and I can only answer from this perspective.

The New Testament provides that Jesus Christ restored the law originally given to Moses. Helping people on the sabbath is now okay. Divorce is not. The Ten Commandments are still in effect. All morality derives from the prime command to love the Lord with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, as well as the commandment that naturally and immediately derives from the first, to love your neighbor. The Acts of the Apostles recounts the Council of Jerusalem, where the Church agreed that gentile converts should follow the Old Testament's dietary and hygienic proscriptions on sexual morality and only an enumerated few with respect to food.

These things are intuitable from exegesis, guided by logic and reason, and many Saints like Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, who left their mark on Western philosophy as well, have written volumes on this stuff. Don't fall for the Protestant/Atheist folly that nothing is knowable outside of natural science. Because that ultimately leads to the denial of natural science itself, as we're currently seeing at the upper echelons of academia with respect to sexuality and gender.

Don't you find it the least bit odd that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator of the Cosmos would pick sides with ancient tribes fighting over some petty shit, cheering them on in their infanticidal, genocidal raping pillages (however 'successful' they might have been)? It's some weird, weird stuff.

If the Old Testament contains specific instructions on how to form settlements and what foods to eat, then why did God not hand down new commandments for, e.g., how to tackle gay marriage in the 21st century? Or, more generally, why does the Bible adapt the moral zeitgeist of the time when it was written, when it is supposed to be a book that transcends culture and time? As it stands, it reads exactly as you would expect a document to read that was written without divine intervention.

If God were smart, he would have jacked the human visual cortex to install an instant-access FAQ floating in every person's field of view at all times for quick glancing. This way, there would be no reasonable doubt as to its divine origins vs all the other dusty tomes that were written in the past that also claim to be "The One True Faith". How can you love God with "all your heart" when you know he will send all those people to be tortured for all eternity simply for being born into the wrong religion? Just because he was too lazy to point out definitively which was the right book to follow? To be tortured for an eternity? Really? How does that not give you pause?

 

[Airola]

If I were an Israelite living the desert? Hell no! I'd probably be thinking "Wow, this is some enlightened shit. The Baalites fuck you to death, and the Assyrians keep your skulls as bowls". I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.

Yeah, it should not be forgotten that the people were savage as fuck even without religion (and perhaps especially without religion) back then. It's not an odd thing to think that these people back in the day didn't necessarily understand how to behave without harsh punishments.

Besides, these rules surely felt harsh for them back then. Even more than what they feel to us today, because they actually lived in that world. It wasn't an odd thing for them to have faith in the goodness of God even while getting shit from armies, enemies, friends and from God. So I'm not sure why we shouldn't be able to have faith in the goodness of God today.

If we are to believe the harsh rules existed and if we are to blame God for them and hold them against God, we should also then realize that in that same book it was said the world was filled with people who only did bad things in the days of Noah. It's said that people only did evil things back then. And human nature didn't really change much from that after the flood happened, so it might've been so that when doing bad things the only thing people understood was physical punishment.

However, I always find it fascinating to think that even with people being savages and major asses towards each other and receiving tough punishments for transgressions, there still were people who understood love and goodness, and loved God, and wrote absolutely beautiful poems and super enlightened things (all the while most people even were illiterate!).

 

[Atrus]

That's just false, in my opinion. Turning water into wine or walking on water are nothing compared to what is in those texts. Labeling it "mythology" only seeks denouncement and ad-hominem, without any real insight or "proof", only our mere opinions. I definitely disagree that they're unbelievable, because so many "supernatural" things in history have been unbelievable (like how I find polytheism to be unbelievable) but, yes, I do find that Judeo-Christian beliefs aren't "mythology" because at least most of it aligns well with history in my opinion, you may disagree and that's fine, respectfully.

Believing in angels and demons must mean you also believe in any kind of spirit. I'll ask you this too; if you believe in multiple dimensions and universes then how is the notion of the afterlife not believable?



Not sure what irony you're trying to point out here, when it's just my opinion. I do believe that I have an arrogant position when I say that polytheistic religions are mythology and not Abrahamic "religions", nor will I argue that it's fair.

What you're implying is that it doesn't take logic nor reason to be spiritual or religious, and that Abrahamic religions have as much going for it as polytheistic religions... and I just don't see how you came to that conclusion. If you ask me, Christianity is the most recent, and it has the advantage when it comes to gathering evidence and observation.

I could just be overreacting to the word "mythology", and find it to be more denouncing than you do.

Christianity certainly isn't the most recent religion even amongst Abrahamic religions.

Most people tend to be bias toward the religion they're born into or the ones they convert to in order to attend to some personal need

A child born to Jews adheres to a Jewish worldview, a Hindu has their worldview as does various religions and sects. Even among supposedly secular people we find religious thinking among the political views they hold.

Is the story of Noah and Utnapishtim all that different? What makes one truth and the other myth? The Bible and Talmud are full of references to Mesopotamian deities and myths, even to the recognition of other Gods and Pantheons. It has some history or pseudo-history intermixed, but it has a great deal of mythology.

I'm not saying it is illogical or unreasonable to believe in religions, it's perfectly understandable why a set of indoctrinated philosophies might be valuable to people, especially ancient people.

I'm just saying that it should be recognized for what it is and no more. Pointing to stories as some sort of fact book or believing that the philosophical framework that comes out of those stories must impose itself on the autonomy of others is something that exceeds its usefulness.

Biblical science in classrooms, illegality of homosexuality, forced ideological indoctrination etc. are all unnecessary and wholly problematic behaviours.

 

[Thurible]

Keep in mind that in a world where religion was gone, those people who were indoctrinated into their religion since childhood would be long dead. It is a gradual process of secularization.

I'm not exactly a fan of your word usage. Indoctrination implies coercion and being taught not to be critical of certain beliefs. Many religious people do question their own faith and to not do so at least once is irrational. Many people aren't fideists who take things as face value. It is always important to question.

Again, wishing a way of life to be over even non-violently or gradually is still a horrible sentiment.

If you need religion to bring charity and love into your life, you are not really a good person. It can bring hope, I suppose

You could argue that. There are atheists who act with civility and are generally good people. But you need to know that at the very least religion can help people and encourage them to think outside of themselves.

Dawkins is not really concerned with those harmless forms of faith

He wants religion to be gone. If he had his way my community and place of worship wouldn't exist.

Most faiths are harmless and helpful. Are you saying he is only concerned with religious extremists?

but religion often comes with nasty side effects where it is used to suppress women's rights, stifle scientific progress, inspire bigotry, sectarian violence, terror attacks, the labeling of little children as "Muslim" or "Christian", abusing them with stories of Hell, etc.

The heck? How does religion supress women's rights, stifle scientific progress, inspire bigotry and violence, and abuse children?

I assume by "women's rights" you mean abortion. The pro-life movement is not a religious movement, though that being said a large amount of them are religious. But there are many secular arguments against abortion and not all pro-lifers are religious people. There are atheist pro-lifers and christian pro-choicers.

I don't understand what you mean by stifling scientific progress, but I assume you are referring to young earth creationists and the like? Those people don't make up the majority of religious adherents.

Do you have statistics on religious violence, bigotry, and abuse?

I can absolutely see why some people would be offended, yes. Dawkins is not concerned with what is comforting or polite, only with what is true.

Often what he says about religion isn't true though, and that needs to be called out. The truth needs to be held to a high standard and he generally does not get the facts right when he debates on this subject.

Faith is defined as belief without evidence, so it is by definition contradictory to science.

Faith means to have a deep trust in something. I can have faith in something other than God. I have faith in the scientific method for example.

What you mean is a religious faith, or faith in the supernatural often revolving around God, correct? I can believe in God and have trust that He is real while also reasoning the world around me. I don't have to choose one or the other as they both are two different things that relate in the why and the how.

To the extent that people can be both scientists and theologians, which does happen, he attributes that to compartmentalization, where you are an astrophycicist by day, but pray to God at night - different criteria applied to different areas of your life.

One can both be an astrophysicist and a theologian at the same time. These are two different subjects that relate on the reality of the world and don't conflict with each other. While I gaze upon the stars I can be thinking of their placement and what is going on while at the same time believing God put them there in my heart.

The former requires a rigorous, evidence-based analysis, the latter is like therapeutic self-suggestion, abandoning your rational faculties. It is not an amalgamation, but a walled co-existence of sorts.

Here lies the heart of the issue that you do not get. Some people are religious NOT because of some weird fideistic belief that defies self reflection, but rather they REASON their religious belief. A theologian DOESN'T go, "Well this is true simply because it is true", instead they reflect and study and try to look at the whole picture.

And if you think Dawkins presumes all religious people are fundamentalists and creationists, you have not really studied his position carefully. It does not even need to be a majority to warrant his distaste, though.

Perhaps I don't know his position enough, and I agree maybe I should read more of his material. However he has made some very untrue statements regarding the beliefs of others without giving the proper research.

I am fine with people disliking Dawkins, but it always seems like they are using strawmen, either out of ignorance, laziness, or bad faith, to exaggerate how horrible he is.

I think he is a smart guy, but he doesn't put in enough effort. He doesn't dig at try to get at the meat of the subject. I want his arguments to be stronger.

 

[Jon Neu]

It's ridiculous to think that a God exists and that also happens to be the one you believe in.

There isn't a question of God existing or not, there's a rhetorical question of when is religious people going to prove the existence of any God.

 

[MiyazakiHatesKojima]

It's ridiculous to think that a God exists and that also happens to be the one you believe in.

There isn't a question of God existing or not, there's a rhetorical question of when is religious people going to prove the existence of any God.

Okay, that's it. I've had enough of this, you stupid crow!

 

[MiyazakiHatesKojima]

It's ridiculous to think that a God exists and that also happens to be the one you believe in.

There isn't a question of God existing or not, there's a rhetorical question of when is religious people going to prove the existence of any God.

On a serious note, my journey started out as blindly following the religion I grew up with ---> becoming an atheist in my early 20's ---> delving deep into philosophy ---> studying the arguments for and against God ---> concluding that the arguments for God existing have the stronger explanatory power from both philosophical and cosmological perspective ---> studying which religions are the most correct ---> Abrahamic Religious scriptures ---> Islam being the final revealed Abrahamic religion with the acknowledgement of the previous scriptures being the Word of God.