Teaching science to the religious? Focus on how theories develop

Vicious, winner-take-all competition in nature is an essential pillar of evolutionary theory, but it frequently describes the mindset people have about how, or whether, to teach the subject. Religious students sometimes come to class thinking that science and religion are in deliberate opposition, like two lionesses fighting over a kill. When Brown University biologist and practicing Catholic Kenneth Miller teaches evolution, he also teaches that such a zero-sum mindset just isn't warranted.

"I think it's really unnecessary," Miller said. "What's extremely unfortunate right now is that, not just , but whole areas of have been sucked into the culture wars argument and it's been taken for granted, therefore, that science takes a particular position in the left-right spectrum."

Because Miller is a leading textbook author and a frequent contributor to the , he takes flak from partisans on both sides who disagree about evolution but share the view that religion and science are intellectually incompatible. In the classroom, however, Miller and thousands of other educators are still left with a more pragmatic challenge. Evolution will be taught to millions of who are religious — 75 percent, according to a recent Pew survey of college students. At the AAAS conference, Miller will speak about how he teaches science to religious students.

Miller's basic approach is to help students trace the development of a scientific theory, rather than to present it as some kind of finished doctrine that must be believed because it has evidentiary support.

"I don't ask students to believe in education because I don't ask them to believe in DNA either," Miller said. "To me the word 'believe' means to accept something beyond question. In science there are no facts or theories that are beyond question. What I do urge students to do is to learn about the evidence and understand why the scientific community finds it persuasive."

Explaining science, such as evolution, as a process can help religious students accept science in two ways, Miller said. First of all, it's often important to point out that religious people have long been instrumental in driving the scientific process. A scientist's goal is to better understand the natural world, not to destroy religious faith, Miller said. History is replete with examples of religious people who carried out the goal of exploring nature in entirely scientific ways — from Copernicus, to Mendel, to Francis Collins.

"The birth of the scientific revolution was in large measure funded by the church because early universities, early scientific investigations, almost universally were done by individuals who thought that exploring nature was a way of praising God," Miller said. "It was and is philosophically consistent to be a person of faith and also a scientist."

Secondly, when science is presented as a rational process, rather than as doctrine to be accepted, students can consider its logic and its evidentiary support, before feeling pressure to reconcile the complete idea's philosophical implications.

Darwin himself laid out the theory of evolution in The Origin of Species this way. Before he presents the bottom line, his first four chapters offer the series of observations about species diversity and the struggle to survive that led him to the theory.

"The best way to approach deeply religious students on a scientific issue is to develop the scientific background, to show that science doesn't grow out of some sort of anti-theological or political perspective, but out of a very human drive to understand ourselves and the world around us," Miller said. "They see that it is not an a priori cultural and social conclusion for which you are trying to find a justification but rather the logical outcome of being curious about nature and trying to find out how it works."

There is good news about how effective evolution education can be in the research of Roger Williams University Professor Avelina Espinosa. She's found that whether students are religious or not, politically conservative or liberal, their acceptance of evolution increases the more science classes they take, Miller said. That doesn't mean that all religious students come to accept the theory, though.

Early in his teaching career at Brown, Miller delivered a biology lecture to his class on Ash Wednesday — this year it's Feb. 22 — and then headed off to Brown's Manning Chapel to pray. On his way out of services he ran into one of his students, who looked amazed to see the evolutionist lecturer emerge with ash on his forehead.

He recalled, "She waited for me and came up to me and said, 'Hi, Professor Miller, what are you doing here?' My answer was 'I'm doing the same thing you are.' And she said, 'But, you can't. I'll give you a book tomorrow that explains why no person who accepts evolution can possibly be a person of faith.'

"That, to me, was a shock," Miller said.

The student brought the book and the two met and talked, but never came to a philosophical agreement. Mindsets are not easy to change, but teaching methods can create the right conditions for reasonableness to evolve.

"There are ways to reach religiously oriented students with respect to science," Miller said.


Explore further

There is 'design' in nature, Brown biologist argues at AAAS

Provided by Brown University
Citation: Teaching science to the religious? Focus on how theories develop (2012, February 19) retrieved 21 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2012-02-science-religious-focus-theories.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 19, 2012
Religion and science are not at odds. As the article notes, the science we all accept grew out of the efforts of religious individuals and religious institutions.

It is the worship of nature as god which is resisted by Christians.

Allow natural processes to be studied as natural processes and allow god to be studied as god.

There is no rational reason to invest belief in any theory. But many theories have proven to be quite useful.

Feb 19, 2012
To begin with, the very premise of religion keeping students from learning science is a lie at best. The most religious students can pick up mathematics, mechanics, electromagnetics, chemistry as well as anyone else. The article is deliberately painting religious students as morons! It is not science that is the sticking point. It is evolution. And the only question there is how soul arises. How can the alteration of a few physical genes create soul? How can a blind, physical process be credited with the Will of God expressing itself?
But, note, the so-called open minded, scientific "defenders of freedom" pointedly refuse to admit this and, instead, calculatedly characterize all religious people as imbeciles! A premise that needs to be promoted with a lie is a lie itself! They disprove "eviolution" by their own machinations!

Feb 19, 2012
As iuf any other evidence was necessary to prove that those promoting "science" as the only truth and religion an obstruction, consider the unnatural tendency of all such defenders of "science" to refer to God using a lower case "g". dogbert is only one in an all but infinite list. Every time they refer to God, the Allmighty, they insist on using the word with a lower case "g". they will say it's because they don/t believe, but the fact is, God is a name applied to a particular individual as a concept. It is a proper name! They refer to the individual as a concept, so they are obligated, at least linguistically, to use the capitalized name! They are illiterate in that respect, if nothing else. Nothing justifies arbitrarily using a lower case initial for a proper name. Consider that this machination achieves nothing in the end and you can see what limited mentality such defenders of "science" display.

Feb 19, 2012
Logic and evidences of sciences over thousands of years of investigation and discoveries of mortal, ordinary beings against "I was told to believe so" propaganda, brainwasing crap from a nobody. I rest my case against human stupidity.

Feb 19, 2012
It is the worship of nature as god which is resisted by Christians.
Naw if you think about it dog you may realize that it is the acceptance of what is real, which is resisted by you guys. Nature is not the pleasant compliant environment which god modifies for your own edification. It is firstly indifferent to either believer or unbeliever and doesnt care whether you or I worship it or not. And it exists only of what is; no hidden refuges, no etherial planes, no place to go on living after you cease to live.

Nature is cold, unmoving, resolute. It does what it will do no matter how much you beg. No matter what your priests and books tell you. But therein lies our salvation; unlike your gods, nature is fully dependable and understandable. We can learn to use it to our advantage if we can only resist the temptation to believe it is anything other than what it IS. This takes maturity, patience, and hard work. And the courage to discard your comfortable superstition.

Feb 19, 2012
Religion and science are not at odds. As the article notes, the science we all accept grew out of the efforts of religious individuals and religious institutions.
Science has disproved all the fantastical lies described in your books. Archeology has shown that most of what they describe never happened. Physics says that your miracles didnt occur. Evolution disproves creation. Etc. Scientific revelation diametrically opposed to religious revelation. Science reveals the artifice in religious dogma.

How could you be more wrong?

Further, science shows us exactly how religions endanger peace in the world today by explaining the dangers of unrestricted population growth, and by showing us that religion-mandated overgrowth is the worst. Statistics show a direct correlation between regions in the throes of religions and endemic violence, starvation, and misery.

Feb 19, 2012
It was the religious who taught the science in the first place.
Gregor Mendel's genetics.
And prior to Mendel, monks kept meticulous records to improve their grape yields.
"Father Cyprian found that, historically, many of the people involved in early stem-cell research and regeneration were, in fact, priests.

Some of the people who did the earliest experiments on the regeneration of limbs in frogs were Italian priests in the Middle Ages, he said. There were many ordained priests who worked in science. "
http://archive.th...051/144/

"In science there are no facts or theories that are beyond question."
Except for AGW.

Feb 19, 2012
Faith is the idea that we should allow our hopes to affect our beliefs and science is the idea that we should design our exploration of the world such that they absolutely cannot affect our results. All religious books make many testable claims, many of which are contrary to eachother; science is the merciless arbiter of truth. I have allowed it to shatter my delusions, and I will use it to silence yours.

Feb 19, 2012
Gregor Mendel's genetics.
And prior to Mendel, monks kept meticulous records to improve their grape yields.
"Father Cyprian found that, historically, many of the people involved in early stem-cell research and regeneration were, in fact, priests.
And yet religious dogma directly contradicts the scientific method, which has no room for faith in god within it whatsoever. Just consider the absurd idea of scientists praying for an experiment to function properly.

The more science teaches us the sillier religion looks.

Feb 19, 2012
Faith is the idea that we should allow our hopes to affect our beliefs and science is the idea that we should design our exploration of the world such that they absolutely cannot affect our results. All religious books make many testable claims, many of which are contrary to eachother; science is the merciless arbiter of truth. I have allowed it to shatter my delusions, and I will use it to silence yours.

Don't know much about quantum mechanics?
Faith and belief DO affect the results.
Some have called it the Blind Spot.

This is what Max Planck said:
"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."

Read more: http://www.brainy...mrovmsLL

Feb 19, 2012
It was the religious who taught the science in the first place. Gregor Mendel's genetics.
On a related note, the first men were monkeys. /s

Feb 19, 2012
Again, notice the lemming like insistence of the anti-religious to refer to God with a lower case "g". They claim to respect intelligence and free will, yet all march in absolute lock step to the unavailing and therefore "scientifically" insipid tactic of misspelling the name of God. So much like C. S. Lewis' "That Hideous Strength", where the "scientist" orders the man to spit on a crucifix to prove it has no meaning. But, if it has no meaning, why is it significant to spit on it? Why not focus on the supposed meaning in the "science" and achieving all the great marvels instead of engaging in a gratuitous act of derision?
Because the anti-religious are not automatically in favor of science. They are all hate filled, spiteful individuals who cannot abide the thought of real contact with others.

Feb 19, 2012
To be fair, the issue of proof and evidence has meaning. The problem is that, to receive evidence of the presence of God, you have to deserve it. It doesn't necessarily present itself the way simple physical laws do. And, to be worthy of receiving evidence of God's presence acting outside automatic physical law, you have to undergo the sea change, of foregoing life as devotion to just aimless, self defined diversions, of embracing life which appreciates meaning, with meaning including improving the world for all, not just a few, and to do it without fear or the desire to be rewarded, but because you know it's right. Then, you will be afforded manifestations unseen to those who are absolutely self-absorbed. The proof is there, it's just that many refuse to do what's necessary to see it. There is no absolute experiment you can perform in a mine that proves the existence of the sun, but climbing out gives you the proof.

Feb 19, 2012
@julianpenrod Romans did not employ a crucifix to punish criminals. Criminals in Rome were strung to trees. What you xtians call a cross is actually a tropihome (sp?), which is a wax casting of the Roman emperor with two shields. Of course lunatic early xtians high on opium and a diet of locusts could hallucinate a wooden cross out of a wax figure, I guess. Like the rays of the setting sun form a penis, which became the obelisks you keep at the Vatican and anywhere xtians colonized. That's why you give all your prayers to "Amen" aka Amun Ra, the shape-shifting son of Atun who created your universe by masturbating.

Feb 19, 2012
Just give up on the religiously indoctrinated children as lost and concentrate on the rest.

There will be enough jobs for unskilled labor.

Either they will figure it out for themselves at some point or not. But that's not something that can be taught.

Science, as opposed to religion, doesn't work by indoctrination. It can't - as that would be self defeating for the purposes of fostering an inquisitive mind.

It was and is philosophically consistent to be a person of faith and also a scientist

Nope. Because a religious person says that god(s) have or had some effect upon the world/universe at some time - while science says that this is no so. Any in depth study of ANY subject will sooner or later get to the point where the two clash.

Feb 19, 2012
"to show that science doesn't grow out of some sort of anti-theological or political perspective"
Good luck with that.
From what I read here, most are anti-theological. But maybe that is because they are socialists? Lenin stated all communists must be atheists.

Any in depth study of ANY subject will sooner or later get to the point where the two clash.

Like how the universe was created? It seems those who are studying the origins of the universe are more open to the theological.
For some reasons those in the biology field are very closed to such concepts.

Feb 19, 2012
From what I read here, most are anti-theological. But maybe that is because they are socialists? Lenin stated all communists must be atheists.
And notice that he was replaced by a true communist? A catholic jesuit-trained student who went on to kill 100million? Lenin's failing was that he believed in enterprise, not outright catholic fascism.
Like how the universe was created?
By what? A selfish god that created a crazy whore on welfare and her child-molesting/murdering spouse as the prophets of robber-baronism?

Feb 19, 2012
From what I read here, most are anti-theological. But maybe that is because they are socialists? Lenin stated all communists must be atheists.
And notice that he was replaced by a true communist? A catholic jesuit-trained student who went on to kill 100million? Lenin's failing was that he believed in enterprise, not outright catholic fascism.

Weren't you a communist Koch? You claimed to be from the USSR? If so don't you bear the guilt of Stalin? If not, how are Catholics responsible for Stalin?
It is the socialist that eschews the individual and absolving him from personal responsibility.
In my faith, individuals are responsible for their actions and to seek and accept absolution of their sins.
But blaming others for their problems is exactly what Obama and the immature do everyday.

Feb 19, 2012
It seems those who are studying the origins of the universe are more open to the theological.
For some reasons those in the biology field are very closed to such concepts.

Because tehy are scientists?

It's not really a matter of being closed to a concept. It's that even the most ludicrous crank theory is more plausible than 'god did it'. So before we consider the god hypothesis we should first exhaust all these possibilities (like unicorn farts and Santa Clause)

But basically considering 'god is it' is where inquisitiveness stops. All skepticism, experiment, falsifiability, indpendent repeatability...basically anything that makes science science stops.

A mind that considers faith a viable alternative is a closed mind.

Feb 19, 2012
A mind that considers faith a viable alternative is a closed mind.

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'"
"Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it.

Read more: http://www.brainy...msHHClLK

Feb 19, 2012
Because tehy are scientists?

Because they are biologists.

But I am not the only one who has made this observation.

The author of "The Demon and the Quantum: From the Pythagorean Mystics to Maxwell's Demon and Quantum Mystery" made the same observation.

http://www.wiley....883.html

Feb 19, 2012
Don't know much about quantum mechanics?
Faith and belief DO affect the results.
Some have called it the Blind Spot.
NO they DONT. This is just another lie the religious tell each other in order to try to make themselves believe they are relevant. They are irrelevant no matter what they think.
This is what Max Planck said:
"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature.
The ultimate mystery of nature. The Ultimate Mystery of Nature -? What do you think he meant by this? Certainly nothing scientific.

Planck 1944: "We must assume behind [the atomic] force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

-So Planck believed in intelligent design.
cont

Feb 19, 2012
Planck also said: "the knowledge of nature... has made it utterly impossible for a person possessing some training in natural science to recognize as founded on truth the many reports of extraordinary contradicting the laws of nature, of miracles which are still commonly regarded as essential supports and confirmations of religious doctrines...The belief in miracles must retreat step by step before relentlessly and reliably progressing science and we cannot doubt that sooner or later it must vanish completely."

-So while this intelligent designer can create the laws of nature which science elucidates daily, he is not able to alter those laws to create the miracles which lie at the foundation of all religions. Planck retreats to the safety of the Ursache, leaving his chosen field intact and preserving his hope in an afterlife.

Typical. Religionists create god in whatever image it takes to make him believable. Immortality is THAT important.

Feb 19, 2012
A muslim and a catholic walked into a nursery.

Feb 19, 2012
Religious base their belief in God on a feeling, like indigestion ... Unfortunately, there is no antacid medication for stupidity...

Feb 19, 2012
To be fair, the issue of proof and evidence has meaning. The problem is that, to receive evidence of the presence of God, you have to deserve it.
In other words it doesnt work unless you believe it does.
Again, notice the lemming like insistence of the anti-religious to refer to God with a lower case "g".
Ha! Naw its just easier to use lower case. Besides how can you respect something that isnt there?

And if you sir had the proper respect for your deity you would spell his name G_d. Because you know even electronic letters can get discarded in some fashion.
The proof is there, it's just that many refuse to do what's necessary to see it.
Indeed it is. The epiphany and the release from fear and guilt are quantifiable phenomena and wholly explainable in physiological terms.

One can completely understand the effects of religious belief, of 'letting go and letting god'. Scientifically that is. It is like any other addiction.

Feb 19, 2012
Note, again, the need for the haters of God to use illegitimate non-arguments to promote their case. TheGhostofOtto1923 mischaracterizes my statement by saying, "In other words it doesn't work unless you believe it does." Only the delusionally devoted would describe my statements as that it doesn't work unless you believe it does. In fact, I didn't require belief! I said you would receive proof! The very demand that the ilk of TheGhostofOtto1923 makes I tell them they would receive. Proof. But I didn't say you had to believe first. I said you had to make the decision to live accepting the idea of scrupulous honor, not devoting youself to self-centered diversions, but working to improve all the world. And that you do it because you consider it right. But, as with all who promote lies, TheGhostofOtto1923 can't fight what I say, they have to fabricate an "argument" and oppose that!

Feb 19, 2012
Weren't you a communist Koch? You claimed to be from the USSR? If so don't you bear the guilt of Stalin? If not, how are Catholics responsible for Stalin?
Anyone who wasn't a communist under Stalin was a corpse. So you are stating that citizens of CCCP are the guilty party? How does that mesh with the prodigal son of communism being raised catholic by jesuits? How do most communists like Castro, Mao etc happen to be jesuit schooled? Jesuits invented communism in Paraguay, yet you wonder why their form of economics, utterly right-wing in implementation, can be later traced to them? Well I take some solace in the fact that, like them, you're not human but merely a posting robot that puts up links from google.
@julianpenrod Note, again, the need for the haters of God to use illegitimate non-arguments
Which god are you referring to? Amun-Ra, to whom you deliver your prayers? Son of Atun, the Amen is "the beginning of the creation of god" to quote your bible.

Feb 19, 2012
Typical. Religionists create god in whatever image it takes to make him believable. Immortality is THAT important.
Notice ryggesogn2 tells tales of some biblical god, then gushes on about his godess Ana Rand which is at the diametrically opposite end of the theological spectrum, besides being an atheist. Psychosis is at the heart of christianity.

Feb 19, 2012
"And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globethe belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."
http://www.bartle...s56.html

And are still at issue in the USA.

What happened the democrats?

Feb 19, 2012
mischaracterizes my statement by saying, "In other words it doesn't work unless you believe it does."
No, again, it REALLY doesnt work unless you BELIEVE it does.
I didn't require belief! I said you would receive proof!
-As in 'proof!' Is this proof something tangible? Something outside your own experience I mean? Besides a flushing of the face, a discernible twitching, speaking in tongues perhaps?
scrupulous honor, not devoting youself to self-centered diversions, but working to improve all the world. And that you do it because you consider it right.
And people dont need your religion to do these things. Religions work to ruin the world by emphasizing differences between each other and by insisting their adherents try to outreproduce the competition.

These things are dishonorable in the extreme.

Then you all turn to the nasty chapters for explicit instructions on just who is responsible for your resulting misery and exactly what you should do about it.

Feb 19, 2012
"In 1763, The Reverend James Manning, a Baptist minister and an alumnus of the College of New Jersey (predecessor to today's Princeton University), was sent to Rhode Island by the Philadelphia Association of Baptist Churches in order to found a college."
"The college's mission, the charter stated, was to prepare students "for discharging the Offices of Life with usefulness & reputation" by providing instruction "in the Vernacular and Learned Languages, and in the liberal Arts and Sciences.""
http://en.wikiped...iversity

Maybe Brown needs to study its history.

Feb 19, 2012
I never said you need to believe in order for what I said about God to work. The GhostofOtto1923 did misquote me, saying that's what I said. I accused them of it, and they reply, "No." They will deny it, but TheGhostofOtto1923 is desperate for excuses to condemn what I say.
And the proof that will come when you make the sea change will be tangible and not something which can be explained away as something else. Benefits outside the realm of what others obtain, what would be considered at variance with the defined physical form of things. But they will include real things.
And TheGhostofOtto1923 can prate illiterately that "people dont [sic] need your religion" to act in the honorable way I described, but there is no sign that any are motivated toward this by "science". TheGhostofOtto1923 wouldn't be constantly misquoting me if "science" led them to act honorably.
And The GhostofOtto1923 says God "isn't there". What is their "proof" of that?

Feb 19, 2012
Maybe Brown needs to study its history
Maybe you do?

"The Taiping Rebellion was a widespread civil war in southern China from 1850 to 1864, led by heterodox Christian convert Hong Xiuquan, who, having received visions, maintained that he was the younger brother of Jesus Christ, against the ruling Manchu-led Qing Dynasty. About 20 MILLION people died, mainly civilians, in one of the deadliest military conflicts in history."

-Brought to you by Baptist missionaries.

Feb 19, 2012
I never said you need to believe in order for what I said about God to work.
So youre [sic] saying that I can be an atheist and still 'make the decision to live accepting the idea of scrupulous honor, not devoting youself to self-centered diversions, but working to improve all the world. And that you do it because you consider it right.'

Great! Then we can dispense with all the nonsense about miracles and wish-granting and immortality and chosen people and all, and concentrate on what is actually possible?

Uh do all your buds down at the mission know you think this way? Some of you hold a dim view of apostasy you know.
but there is no sign that any are motivated toward this by "science".
This is because you dont know science and refuse to learn.
cont>

Feb 19, 2012
"There can be no doubt that a tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to give aid to each other and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection" (Darwin, 1871)

-You see we were selected for moral strength. Morality is biological, just as immoral actions toward perceived enemies is entirely moral. This is described in your book.

"So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." judges10

-Many many more as you know. Jesus fulfills the law.

"34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

-And we have seen the results.

Feb 19, 2012
link for the above darwin quote
http://rechten.el...RID2.pdf

-This paper shows what science can explain where religion can only fabricate. Happens a lot.

Feb 19, 2012
not devoting youself to self-centered diversions, but working to improve all the world.


Yet science is the ultimate altruistic enterprise, devoting a lifetime to discovery and exploration, and publishing your findings away for all the world to use. Accepting you are giving them away to the industries that profit from them even though they would pay you far more to work in their R&D Departments.

Einstein summed it up:

"Concern for man and his fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavors. Never forget this in the midst of your diagrams and equations."

Science cures cancer. It saves millions ever day. It has saved you multiple times already. What have you given back?

Feb 19, 2012
How much were the Soviet scientists paid for their discoveries?
If Tesla hadn't been paid, quite well, for his R&D, how long would it have taken for someone else to have 'donated' them to the world?

Feb 19, 2012
insistence of the anti-religious to refer to God with a lower case "g"


We use the word with a lowercase, not to spite you but because discussions with your kind are never about God, but about your god.

We write it like that because we refuse to participate in your delusion that You're Special, Somehow Gifted and Utterly Superior.

This is the mother of all divisive ideas, one that has led to war throughout history. It all starts with your vengeful insistence that it's not god but God, despite all the dictionaries we have saying it ain't so.

Feb 19, 2012
All atheists stand by "science", including the requirement for proof. No atheist has ever provided proof there is no God. All atheists insist there is no God. Therefore, atheists, by their nature, violate the very principles they claim to respect and follow. Therefore, no atheists are honorable or ever will be.
TheGhostofOtto1923 insisted that God "isn't there", yet still refuses to provide their proof of that statement.
What is the proof that individuals ever were motivated toward such abiding concern and compassion for others by "science". "Scientists" devote their lives to, for them, the fun of sitting in a laboratory, funded from the outside, taking readings, writing notes. To say that they work "altruistically", "for the good of mankind" is as laughable as that corporations are in business only to improve people's lives. Corporations want to make money and they don't make money selling people things to ruin their lives!

Feb 19, 2012
If Tesla hadn't been paid, quite well, for his R&D, how long would it have taken for someone else to have 'donated' them to the world?


Quite possibly forever: Tesla ended up losing his financial backing because he refused to orient his research exclusively towards profit-making. See wiki about how JP Morgan killed funding Wardenclyffe Tower because it undermined existing electrical distribution industries.

Tesla died a destitute because he put all his money back into his science. Talk about altruism.

Never forget: Electricity could just as well have ended up in an industrial monopoly. This problem endures today, and there is a reason so many scientists fight tooth and nail against the patenting of genes. You could be a bit more appreciative.

Feb 19, 2012
Yet more provable lies from those who are against God. animah "explains", "We use the word with a lowercase, [sic] not to spite you but because discussions with your kind are never about God, but about your god". animah says I am claiming I am "Special, Somehow Gifted and Utterly Superior". I said any others could attain the same! That's not necessarily elevating myself. With the fact that those promoting "science" anoint themselves as the only ones with reason, they seem more guilty.
Add the old atheist lie that all wars are started through religion. Monetary and political greed started all the wars, but don't expect atheist liars to admit that.
And no God hater ever phrased it as "your god", they always used the lower case word as a contemptuous substitute for God's name! animah is a liar.

Feb 20, 2012
No atheist has ever provided proof there is no God (...) Therefore, no atheists are honorable


Russell's teapot - disproved as a bogus argument 150 years ago!

http://en.wikiped...s_teapot

This is formally known as "negative proof" or evidence of absence and is a known impossibility, just as Julian can't prove UFOs don't exist:

http://en.wikiped..._absence

What can and has been demonstrated many times however, is that the existence of your particular brand of god (or UFOs) is so statistically improbable as to be safely ignored.

Feb 20, 2012
God hater


Consider the flood and the book of revelations. Genocide against the human race. Twice. The ultimate crime against humanity.

Even if your particular god existed, he would still be the Callous Enemy of Man. Thank god he doesn't :-)

Feb 20, 2012
animah says I am claiming I am "Special, Somehow Gifted and Utterly Superior". I said any others could attain the same!


Thank you for confirming my point then, that you believe Xian believers are "Special, Somehow Gifted and Utterly Superior".

Do you? Because that's a scientifically testable assertion.

Feb 20, 2012
Another bogus non-argument. Atheists state unequivocally, with no qualification whatsoever, that God does not exist. That is what "atheist" means. That means, if they respect the idea of proof, that they must state a proof of this or admit they are dishonorable and liars. And, of course, they always back up their cravenness with "excuses". animah invokes the idea of a "negative proof" or the hoary claim, "you can't prove a negative". Among other considerations, proving a negative of a statement is the same as proving the positive of the opposite of the statement. You can prove a chair is not blue by proving it is red, white, black, green, purple, orange, yellow, brown or a combination. And the atheists do not say you can't prove a positive. So they say God definitely does not exist, but worm around what proves it by saying you can't prove it. And that is the height of cravenness.

Feb 20, 2012
juli, your argument is weak, and your argumentation more so.

Feb 20, 2012
animah invokes the idea of a "negative proof" or the hoary claim, "you can't prove a negative" - pulianpenTard

Well then tardboy, why don't you have a go at proving a negative? Prove that three breasted unicorns don't exist.

Among other considerations, proving a negative of a statement is the same as proving the positive of the opposite of the statement - pulianpenTard

Poor, clueless tard.

Feb 20, 2012
If someone simply wants to keep an argument going, to pretend they have something worthwhile to say, there are any of a number of ways to do it. Some can be as simple as just saying, "But how do you really, really, really know?", or even just, "I still don't believe you." Just plain nattering. Offering nothing of value, talking just to hear themselves talk. A characteristic of the New World Order God haters, to get the last word, since the dull witted they see as their target audience can be convinced that just getting the last word "proves" you're right. If someone lived at the bottom of a mine and refused to come out, they could raise any number of objections to the claim there is a sun. They could keep an argument going by nattering, but they wouldn't be right.

Feb 20, 2012
Teaching science to the religious? Focus on how theories develop.


You run into a paradox.

Did God create science?

At which point the two aren't at odds.

Maybe God wants humans to know a different story than the real one of the universe. Maybe God has been molding the universe, refining it, evolving it.

Maybe the God of man is a subset of a higher dimensional multiverse?

Science has already proved that life can be synthesized from inorganic matter.

There is a difference between science and religion. They don't come at odds as one is based on faith and belief and the other is based on proof, logic and reason.

The only conclusive way of proving God's existence would be proof positive. It is impossible to prove God doesn't exist.

The only way of bringing God into Science is by reproducing Godly things. If we can create life with selfevolving, or non-selfevolving features we prove the possibility (and increase probability) of us being created.

Feb 20, 2012
And you always run into another unprovable.

The direct translation from God. All ink is mans.

You can't prove that God didn't give them the information he did. Maybe God was playing with them?

I can't say God doesn't speak to other people just because he doesn't to me.

So yeah, either make a date with God...

Or live and let live.

Feb 20, 2012
Add the old atheist lie that all wars are started through religion. Monetary and political greed started all the wars, but don't expect atheist liars to admit that.
So explain the sacking of Constantinople and the other crusades

Feb 20, 2012
Offering nothing of value, talking just to hear themselves talk. A characteristic of the New World Order God haters - julianpenTard

Nope, it's a characteristic of cranks of all persuasions that don't have a chance in hell of making a contribution to scientific literature (coz they is stupid), so instead they get their jollies by blighting science based fora.

Feb 20, 2012
If we can create life with selfevolving, or non-selfevolving features we prove the possibility (and increase probability) of us being created.


Or it increases the probability that god is not necessary to the process. I think it's the other way around: Only by proving it is absolutely impossible to create life from inorganic matter could you then maybe justify invoking the supernatural.

Only we know we can, and creating life doesn't require breaking the laws of mundane physics at all. A perfectly natural process, no magic required.

That said, I agree with live and let live. So let science textbooks contain no magic. And I would add science forums, but then Physorg posted this article about religion in the first place...

Feb 20, 2012
On second thoughts, I am more than a little conflicted about the "live and let live" thing. Believers and atheists alike should read this little section of article:

http://en.wikiped...Genocide

I would be genuinely interested in what Xians have to say about it (assuming they are capable of confronting it at all).

Feb 20, 2012
You run into a paradox.

Did God create science?

At which point the two aren't at odds.

Maybe God wants humans to know a different story than the real one of the universe. Maybe God has been molding the universe, refining it, evolving it.

Maybe the God of man is a subset of a higher dimensional multiverse? - TurritopsisTard

Maybe your brain was replaced with leprechaun's from the Mystical Charms multiverse? Poor tard, chasing his own tail, ta be sure, ta be sure.

Feb 20, 2012
A muslim and a catholic walked into a nursery.


I know how this ends, someone gets blown.

Feb 20, 2012
On second thoughts, I am more than a little conflicted about the "live and let live" thing. Believers and atheists alike should read this little section of article:

http://en.wikiped...Genocide

What to atheist socialists think of this:
"Governments have murdered hundreds of millions of their citizens and those under their control. "
http://hawaii.edu...RDER.HTM
I would be genuinely interested in what Xians have to say about it (assuming they are capable of confronting it at all).

Feb 20, 2012
As for Rwanda, why did the UN fail to get involved? Where was the almighty govt to save the people?
"Responsibility for the failure to halt the 1994 genocide in Rwanda lies with the UN system, "
http://www.un.org...eac2.htm

Feb 20, 2012
Where was the almighty govt to save the people?


Where was the almighty god to save people.

There. Fixed it for you.

(Note: People make mistakes. Governments are made up of people. Gods, supposedly, make no mistakes -so there is no way to get them off the hook on that one)

Feb 20, 2012
Science and religion are two different ways of thinking.

Yes. One tells you: just read the bible long enough - the answers ae in there
The other one tells you: use your own head and come up with new answers if you have a new problem.

How anyone can say that these two approaches don't exclude one another is beyond me.

If you feel like a smile: Here's what John Cleese has to say on this (sit through it: the last comment makes it worthwhile)
http://www.youtub...fv3U_ysc

Feb 20, 2012
Teaching science to the religious? Focus on how theories develop
The same approach I'm using often for teaching of dense aether model, because the proponents of mainstream science are quite religious and they do believe often, many connections are following directly from underlying theories (compare the recent misinterpretation of cosmological constant with dark energy). So they tend to ignore many mistakes and conceptual reversals, which lead into acceptance of contemporary theories throughout the history.

Feb 20, 2012
Religion and science are not at odds.

They are fundamentally at odds. Religion teaches dogma, to remain rigid in your beliefs in the face of new evidence that contradicts it. Science abhors dogma, it is the antithesis of dogma.

As the article notes, the science we all accept grew out of the efforts of religious individuals and religious institutions.

Everyone was "religious" not too long ago, this doesn't mean anything.

It is the worship of nature as god which is resisted by Christians.

So you don't like pantheists or panentheists? Great, I'll keep that in mind if I ever meet one.

Allow natural processes to be studied as natural processes and allow god to be studied as god.

God cannot be studied. There is no evidence of god, there is no physical reality to god.

There is no rational reason to invest belief in any theory. But many theories have proven to be quite useful.


It is rational to believe in theories, theories are supported by evidence.

Feb 20, 2012
It is not science that is the sticking point. It is evolution.


Evolution is science, it is one of the best supported ideas in modern science... Evolution is the epitome of science.

And the only question there is how soul arises. How can the alteration of a few physical genes create soul?


There is no such thing as a soul... "soul" is a concept used to refer to a collection of traits that exist physically as distinct entities.

How can a blind, physical process be credited with the Will of God expressing itself?


It isn't by anyone who's opinion matters.

But, note, the so-called open minded, scientific "defenders of freedom" pointedly refuse to admit this and, instead, calculatedly characterize all religious people as imbeciles! A premise that needs to be promoted with a lie is a lie itself! They disprove "eviolution" by their own machinations!


Now you've gone full retard, or are we playing count the non-sequiturs?

Feb 20, 2012
There is no rational reason to invest belief in any theory. But many theories have proven to be quite useful.

That's what theories are supposed to be: useful. It is rational to believe in things which are demonstrably useful.

This is why it's not rational to believe god(s). they are not useful. Unless you count the fact that they allow certain psychological escape mechanisms (E.g. projection of own fault ont an invisible friend by claiming that it's 'his' will. Escapism from fear of death. Inability to cope with not being in full control of ones' life. Inability to come to grips with the size of the universe and the relative insignificance of an individual therein. Etc. )

Feb 20, 2012
As iuf any other evidence was necessary to prove that those promoting "science" as the only truth and religion an obstruction, consider the unnatural tendency of all such defenders of "science" to refer to God using a lower case "g". dogbert is only one in an all but infinite list. Every time they refer to God, the Allmighty, they insist on using the word with a lower case "g". they will say it's because they don/t believe, but the fact is, God is a name applied to a particular individual as a concept. It is a proper name! They refer to the individual as a concept, so they are obligated, at least linguistically, to use the capitalized name! They are illiterate in that respect, if nothing else. Nothing justifies arbitrarily using a lower case initial for a proper name.


I am an atheist and I always capitalize God... but what kind of ridiculous point did you think you were making?

*edit* oops, actually I didn't in my last post, but that was an accident, I *usually* do.

Feb 20, 2012
kochevnik offers "the sacking of Constantinople and the other crusades [sic]" as examples of wars supposedly not cause by economical or political greed. "Sacking" means "plundering", to steal riches and property. And it is generally taken the the Crusades were inspired by Western concern over Muslim monopoly of many lucrative trade routes and their holding of significant tracts of land. Yes, it was aimed at Muslims, but not based on their religion, but because they were a group, separate from the European nations, that exercised control over valuables.
And a point about atheist machinations to weasel out of applying their demand for proof to their core tenet that God does not exist. They always fall back on the hoary "excuse", "you can't prove a negative". They never say you can't prove a positive. In fact, papers generally refer to one phenomenon implying another without qualification. So what is their proof that non-living, discompassionate laws control everything?

Feb 20, 2012
All atheists stand by "science", including the requirement for proof.


Science does not, cannot, and does not try to prove anything. "Proof" is only meaningful relative to a context derived from initial assumptions.

You really have no idea what you are babbling on about.

No atheist has ever provided proof there is no God.


In light of what I said above, proving God, even if that proof is only relative to certain initial assumptions, is impossible due to the ill-defined nature of God. If you assert that God is omnipotent, then God could always perfectly obscure itself from detection, and therefor be impossible to find evidence for. Even if it were not omnipotent, the entity can exist anywhere in the universe, or not even be corporeal... such a thing CANNOT be disproven, and that is a weakness in terms of it's credibility, not a strength.

Feb 20, 2012
Way too many ignorant claims in this discussion for me to quote.

Religion is at odds with science and history is littered with examples from the past to the present.


Feb 20, 2012
Tesla died a destitute because he put all his money back into his science. Talk about altruism.

Tesla wasted his money living well.

Feb 20, 2012
This is why it's not rational to believe god(s). they are not useful.

They are for millions of people.
That's the challenge for the scientist. How to objectively measure yourself.
Napoleon Hill, with the support of Andrew Carnegie, spent 20 years interviewing successful people and wrote a book about it, Think and Grow Rich.
Science really can't explain gravity, but we observed and use its effects.
Whether science can explain the power of positive thought and faith in God is immaterial if it works.
Should the physicians use the placebo effect when it has been demonstrated to be effective?
Atheists must have as much faith,or more, in their beliefs as a Christian in his. The only honest position for an atheist is to be agnostic, if he really questions the existence of God.
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist"
http://www.christ...pd/45619

Feb 20, 2012
That's what theories are supposed to be: useful
This is one of reason, why some ideas are refused to being considered a theories - they cannot help the physicists in the same way, like the cold fusion finding. The fact, such a models can help many other people doesn't mean very much for close selfish community of physicists, which has different utilitarian criterions. For physicists the useful things are only these, which bring another grants and formalism into their community, i.e. which enables to generate another publications. Instead of it, the cold fusion can just marginalize many research positions dealing with alternative research, so its ignored heartily.

So that the utilitarian criterion is essentially correct, but we should always ask "useful? useful for whom"? What is useful for physicists may not still useful for the rest of society and vice-versa.

Feb 20, 2012
"Under the Treaty of Versailles the former German colony of Rwanda-Urundi is made a League of Nations protectorate to be governed by Belgium. The two territories (later to become Rwanda and Burundi) are administered separately under two different Tutsi monarchs.

Both Germany and Belgium turned the traditional Hutu-Tutsi relationship into a class system. The minority Tutsi (14%) are favored over the Hutus (85%) and given privileges and western-style education. The Belgians used the Tutsi minority to enforce their rule. "
"1926 Belgians introduce a system of ethnic identity cards differentiating Hutus from Tutsis."
pbs frontline
Looks like the problem lies at the doorstep of the 'progressives' discrimination for the purposes of dividing and conquering and controlling the population.

Feb 20, 2012
The only honest position for an atheist is to be agnostic, if he really questions the existence of God.
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist"
http://www.christ...pd/45619


Twisting what the word Atheist means is not a good way to make a point. An atheist is anyone who does not believe in God, period. There is nothing more to it than that.

So much nuttery on this site...

Feb 20, 2012
No atheist has ever provided proof there is no God.

No atheist has also proven that unicorns don't exist.

The onus of first proof is always on the one making the claim.
Otherwise you must agree that Santa Claus exists because I say he does and you haven't disproven him. See how ridiculous that would be if any unfounded statement would have to be considered true until proven false?

Feb 20, 2012
No atheist has ever provided proof there is no God.

No atheist has also proven that unicorns don't exist.

The onus of first proof is always on the one making the claim.
Otherwise you must agree that Santa Claus exists because I say he does and you haven't disproven him. See how ridiculous that would be if any unfounded statement would have to be considered true until proven false?

Those who believe in God have no need to prove God exists to anyone. He exists in their lives.
It is like Jodi Foster's character in Contact. She had direct communications with an alien but had no way to document that communication. Others had to believe her, or not.
Maybe that is God's purpose in promoting faith. In order for humans to join the universe we will have to have faith that some may be able to communicate with other intelligences in a way 'modern' science can't explain or understand.

Feb 20, 2012
Those who believe in God have no need to prove God exists to anyone. He exists in their lives.


Yet they try to all the time... if you can't show me tangible evidence for God then don't proselytize yourself to me.

It is like Jodi Foster's character in Contact. She had direct communications with an alien but had no way to document that communication. Others had to believe her, or not.
Maybe that is God's purpose in promoting faith. In order for humans to join the universe we will have to have faith that some may be able to communicate with other intelligences in a way 'modern' science can't explain or understand.


That was a crappy movie and faith is always irrational.

Feb 20, 2012
Yet they try to all the time... if you can't show me tangible evidence for God then don't proselytize yourself to me.

I have a right to speak.
You don't have to listen.
But it is interesting how some atheists are so evangelical in their faith. Maybe their faith may be a bit weak?

Feb 20, 2012
Those who believe in God have no need to prove God exists to anyone. He exists in their lives.

If they can't put up then they should shut up. If they only know him in their hearts then that's a personal thing and should have no bearing on anyone else (least of all should they try to push their way of thinking on societies)

No problem with people groveling on their knees at home (except that it's a shame about all the children having to live with nutcases as parents - and that's what these people are. Hearing voices that you can't demonstrate makes you a medical nutcase).

But thinking that what they can't demonstrate has any bearing on, well, anything real? That's a contradiction in terms.

Feb 20, 2012
The people on here discussing the existence of God are being ridiculous.

You can't have rational discussions about matters of faith.

It is just stupid.

Choose to believe whatever you like and drop these stupid unanswerable discussions.

There is no place for God in science. The two fields are polar opposites.

Religion is based on belief and faith (an atheist has a bias towards no God, a theist has a bias towards God).

Science is supposed to be unbiased.

A true scientist (an unbiased individual) will alway take an agnostic stance.

Neither theism or atheism has any place in science.

Feb 20, 2012
I suspect the evangelical atheists motivation is the same as Lenin's when he stated that all communist party members must be atheists.
There can be no power higher than the state.
A faith in God, or a higher power cripples the socialist's quest for power over his fellow humans.
The Declaration of Independent stated the axiom that human rights are inherent and unalienable and the govt is derived from the consent of the governed.
Socialists can't accept that axiom as it is the govt that grants rights to individuals with or without consent.

Feb 20, 2012
Science is supposed to be unbiased.


Thus agnostics are the true scientific answer, not atheists or theists.

Feb 20, 2012
Lenin's when he stated that all communist party members must be atheists.

No, he banned the practice of religion. He never said you can not believe in god. And in fact this makes much sense.
I bet the only reason you are "religious" is because you get tax exemption and other rewards. I doubt you have faith in god, either way it perfectly explains all of your shit posts.

Feb 20, 2012
Science is supposed to be unbiased.


Thus agnostics are the true scientific answer, not atheists or theists.


Atheists simply do not believe in God... Why can't people get this through their thick skulls? Atheist and Agnostic are not mutually exclusive labels.

Feb 20, 2012
A true scientist (an unbiased individual)

Such a creature, an unbiased individual, cannot exist.
The challenge for the true scientist is to identify and understand his bias.
"The Blind Spot reveals why our faith in scientific certainty is a dangerous illusion,"
http://books.goog...13r0IgYC

Feb 20, 2012
I have a right to speak.
You are a posting robot. You have no rights at all, except the right to be unplugged should your associate professor have better things to do.

Feb 20, 2012
"The Blind Spot reveals why our faith in scientific certainty is a dangerous illusion"


Who has faith in scientific certainty? I know I don't... Furthermore, science is not certain, ever, that is one of it's primary attributes, that anything it says can be overturned with new evidence.

No, faith and (unfounded) certainty describe rigid religious dogma, not science.

Feb 20, 2012
Science is supposed to be unbiased.


Thus agnostics are the true scientific answer, not atheists or theists.


Atheists simply do not believe in God...


Precisely Deathclock. Atheists simply do not "believe" in god.

Which make atheism a belief system.

A religion in its own right.

Antireligious belief. Religious antibelief.

Atheism is just a form of religion. An antireligion.

Feb 20, 2012
Atheists simply do not "believe" in god. Which make atheism a belief system.
Non-belief isn't a belief. Basic set theory, people.

Feb 20, 2012
Lenin:
"Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. "
http://www.marxis...c/03.htm
Lenin proclaimed the socialist is, by definition, an atheist.

Feb 20, 2012
Theism can't be proven.

Atheism can't be proven.

You can place the onus of proof on whomever you like, the fact remains: neither side can prove either claim.

The theist can't prove the claim.

The atheist can't prove the anticlaim.

Drop the nonsense.

Why is this article on PhysOrg anyways?

Feb 20, 2012
I have a right to speak.
You are a posting robot. You have no rights at all, except the right to be unplugged should your associate professor have better things to do.

Again, a typical socialist response, censorship.

Feb 20, 2012
Thus agnostics are the true scientific answer, not atheists or theists.

No. Agnostic WERE the stance if gods were even an issue. Atheism is the stance that gods are not even an issue (much like a-Santa Clausism is the natural stance - not Santa Claus-agnosticism).

Until there is any indication that gods are an issue whatsoever (i.e. until there is a reasonable chance that gods exist.)

That there are two alternatives does not mean that the alternatives are automatically 50/50. And in this case there aren't even two alternatives - only some people who say that there are.

Feb 20, 2012
"Precisely Deathclock. Atheists simply do not "believe" in god. Which make atheism a belief system."


Are you hearing yourself? You just said that the lack of a belief is a belief system?

There are infinite things that I do not believe in, like the loch ness monster or leprechauns, are these also belief systems? Good to know I have infinite belief systems based on my infinite non-beliefs.

Do you realize how ridiculous your statement was now?

Feb 20, 2012
Well the issue has been brought up. It's here. It is real.

I can't prove whether God does or doesn't exist.

Maybe you can:

Provide proof for either claim below.

Feb 20, 2012
Hey Rygg - let me give some cognitive dissonance - I am an athiest - and I am not a socialist! Chew on that one for a while...


Same, I am also an agnostic :zomg:

In fact, I am very conservative on matters of fiscal policy and very much support free market capitalism and doing away with social services and entitlements.

Feb 20, 2012
Well the issue has been brought up. It's here. It is real.

I can't prove whether God does or doesn't exist.

Maybe you can:

Provide proof for either claim below.


1. You can't prove anything in the general sense. Basic epistemology. Your entire perception of reality MAY be illusory and you would have no way of knowing.

2. An entity defined to be omnipotent cannot be dis-proven, because that property of omnipotence allows it to perfectly occlude itself from all efforts of detection.

3. An entity that can exist anywhere in the universe in any form or no form (non-corporeal) cannot be dis-proven.

4. The fact that God is defined such that it is impossible to disprove its existence is not a strength, it is a great weakness. The strength of a scientific theory is based on how easy it is to falsify if it were to be incorrect. Something that is non-falsifiable cannot be a theory, or it is an infinitely weak theory.

5. Stop being moronic, these are simple concepts, learn them.

Feb 20, 2012
"Precisely Deathclock. Atheists simply do not "believe" in god. Which make atheism a belief system."


Are you hearing yourself? You just said that the lack of a belief is a belief system?

There are infinite things that I do not believe in, like the loch ness monster or leprechauns, are these also belief systems? Good to know I have infinite belief systems based on my infinite non-beliefs.

Do you realize how ridiculous your statement was now?


Wrong. A lack of belief is not synonymous with antibelief.

Zero belief resides between at the zero point of the axis.

Antibelief can be visualized as the negative side of the belief axis. Belief is found on the positive side of the axial point.

Neutrality is found in the middle (neither belief nor antibelief).

An agnostic is neutral on the matter he has no proof of.

Agnosticism lies between theism and atheism.

Feb 20, 2012
Wrong. A lack of belief is not synonymous with antibelief.


Anti-belief does not describe all atheists, only some. Atheist simply means a lack of belief in God.

Agnosticism lies between theism and atheism.


No, it doesn't. Gnosticism refers to knowledge of God, Theism refers to belief in God, knowledge and belief are two different things.

I am an Agnostic, I am also an Atheist.

You are welcome for the free education.

Feb 20, 2012
An atheist doesn't believe in theism.

An atheist doesn't say that God may/may not exist, but takes a firm stance in the belief that there is no God.

Atheism is nothing more than a belief system without any proof.

Agnostics may have theistic or antitheistic beliefs but they understand the limitations of their belief.

You can be agnostic and be a believer in atheism.

You can be agnostic and be a believer in theism.

There is no proof for either claim, but one is free to believe whatever one chooses.

Feb 20, 2012
Furthermore, when it comes to believing something, you either do or you do not... it is a dichotomy, there is no third option.

It is false to claim that there is positive and negative belief. The word belief has meaning, and either that meaning describes your opinion of something or it does not.

If you don't believe something then you simply do not believe it. Believing the opposite of it is something completely different.

Atheists do not believe that God does not exist, that is not what the word means. Atheists simply do not believe that God exists.

Feb 20, 2012
Don't you understand the absurdity of a religious person forcefully telling an Atheist what the word Atheist means?

That's like a straight person arguing with a homosexual about what the word gay means.

You are wrong. I am an Atheist because I do not believe in God. I cannot say that God does not exist, because it is fundamentally impossible to know that, but as a matter of knowledge that refers to gnosticism, which is why I am ALSO agnostic.

Stop being arrogant.

Feb 20, 2012
I am an Atheist because I do not believe in God.


There. You don't "believe" in God.

Belief is a faith based system. You don't know, but you have faith in there being no God.

That's your religion. Your belief system. You are entitled to believe whatever you like.

And, exactly at which point in time did I say that I'm not an atheist?

Feb 20, 2012
I am an Atheist because I do not believe in God.


There. You don't "believe" in God.


You're right, I don't believe in God... I have maintained this throughout the discussion.

Belief is a faith based system. You don't know, but you have faith in there being no God.


What the hell are you talking about? Faith is a subset of belief, specifically faith is belief without or in spite of evidence.

That's your religion. Your belief system. You are entitled to believe whatever you like.


A non-belief is not a belief. A non-belief is not a belief system. It is not even close to a religion. It's almost as if you do not speak this language.

And, exactly at which point in time did I say that I'm not an atheist?


It's obvious. If you are, you are the least rational, least intelligent Atheist I have ever met.

Feb 20, 2012
Hey Rygg - let me give some cognitive dissonance - I am an athiest - and I am not a socialist! Chew on that one for a while...
Rygg's heroine godess Ayn Rand claimed to not be a socialist yet was an atheist. Rygg clearly has gone into christ psychosis and may get a schizoid embolism (or the posting robot equivalent) if he keeps it up.
Neutrality is found in the middle (neither belief nor antibelief).
Yes, commonly known as the origin. That's why doing maths at such a point will yield a singularity, meaning your mapping is non-sequitor. It means you have to look for another classification for non-believers.

Feb 20, 2012
Belief is a faith based system. You don't know, but you have faith in there being no God.
A lack of something does not posit that something. You are caught within a Hegelian dialectic and have not properly identified the antithesis.

Feb 20, 2012
Therefore, no atheists are honorable or ever will be.
TheGhostofOtto1923 insisted that God "isn't there", yet still refuses to provide their proof of that statement.
Sorry julia the god in your books doesnt exist - that has been demonstrated scientifically time and again. No moses, no exodus, no genocidal joshuan rampage, no parting of the sea of reeds, no great solomonic/davidic kingdoms, despite what josephus the myth-perpetuator says. Science says these things did not happen.

Therefore the god character present in these myths doesnt exist either and never did.

Not to mention the flood. There was none. And as you know your mythical account of it was actually stolen verbatim from far earlier storybooks.

And your godman? You know, the mithras/dionysus/horus/heracles/robin hood retread? Watch this and weep:
http://www.youtub...pp_video

-So pray/beg all you want. I guarantee you are doing it all wrong.

Feb 20, 2012
You're meeting at the cross.

X axis is faith based religion [positive x value is belief in theism, negative is atheism]

Y axis is knowledge based science [positive y value is Gnosticism, negative is Anti-Gnosticism (knowledge that God doesn't exist, not to be confused with agnostic which is as you say a singularity)]

Anti-Gnosticism is always a hidden variable, a negative y value is always imaginary.

The belief system only interacts with the knowledge system at point zero.

Science and religion don't mix.

Feb 20, 2012
I think you don't understand atheism. To an atheist god isn't an issue. It's a NON-issue. It's completely irrelevant. It's not worth being AGAINST because it is nothing worth thinking about.

Atheism is not the stance against god. It's the absence of a stance on gods. There's no belief involved just like when you have zero ice cream cones there is no ice cream involved.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is the stance that gods MIGHT be real but no decision will be made until evidence rolls in one way or the other. An agnostic acknowledges that gods MAY be an issue.

Feb 20, 2012
Science and religion don't mix.
From strictly formal perspective the transverse and longitudinal waves are of the dual nature and as such completelly different. But real waves at the water surface are always mixture of boths. This is just a difference between formal (low-dimensional) and realistic (hyperdimensional) approach. In reality most of mainstream theories relies on postulates like on the subject of belief. For example the Big Bang theory is based on belief in initial singularity containing the mass of th whole Universe in a single point - such a thing cannot indeed exists, but the physicists are apparently believe it can. From dense ather model follows, the more we are extrapolating from our everyday reality, the more the ratio of rational and religious approach in science converges to 1:1 ratio in similar way, like the CMBR noise, which is 1:1 mixture of transverse waves of light and longitudinal gravitational waves.

Feb 20, 2012
The connection between religion and science is always a singular point.

You can have a positive value for x and a positive value for y but at that point you're at an imaginary point, one not directly corresponding to either axis.

You cannot blend the two axis.

Feb 20, 2012
The longitudinal waves correspond the holistic religious approach in dense aether model. The transverse waves are of deterministic nature and they correspond rational approach. Note that you can never have transverse wave of finite amplitude, which wouldn't penetrate the underwater at least a bit. And vice versa: every underwater longitudinal wave manifests itself at the water surface at least a bit. So you can never have pure transverse or longitudinal wave. This approach can be formalized easily with implicate topology, where postulates (religious conjenctures) correspond the scalar, i.e. zero-rank tensors in causal space, the deductions (logical implications) correspond the vectors (higher-rank tensors). You can never have predictable theory composed of fully consistent postulates, or you could substitute one postulate with another one and you would get a singular tautology. In this sense, every formally logical theory must remain inconsistent a bit for to remain predictable.

Feb 20, 2012
I wish I could hide posts based on keyword, I would ignore all posts with the word "aether".

Feb 20, 2012
The deterministic theories are evolving in similar way, like the ripples at the water surface. At the beginning the human understanding of reality is fuzzy and chaotic and it corresponds the Brownian noise at the short scale. With increasing distance from origin the character of surface waves changes into transverse one, the character of which is the most pronounced at the 2 cm distance and it corresponds the physics of the last century based on the duality of two deterministic, yet mutually incompatible theories. But when the wavelength of surface ripples increases even more, then their character becomes longitudinal again. It corresponds the situation in contemporary physics, where the number of deterministic theories increases (L-theory, K-theory, F-theory, M-theory..), so that their decision becomes just a matter of subjective belief again. What we need to do is to find the common aspects of all theories and reduce their number again.

Feb 20, 2012
I would ignore all posts with the word "aether"
But the particle model is the simplest, if not the only way, how to reconcile two dual concepts, views and/or perspectives: transverse and longitudinal waves, relativity and quantum mechanics, matter and energy, religion and rational stance, socialism and capitalism, female and male principle, yin and yang etc. We recognized these dualities in nearly all aspects of life and science. The mutual geometry of these two dualities is always the very same and it can be imagined easily. You're not required to call it an aether, if you don't want to.

Feb 20, 2012
Atheism is not the stance against god. It's the absence of a stance on gods.
And how can any atheist have an absence of a stance on gods? Especially when religionists hate them most of all?

"Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience."
Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

"Who are your favorite heroines in real life? The women of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran who risk their lives and their beauty to defy the foulness of theocracy. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Azar Nafisi as their ideal feminine model."
Christopher Hitchens, Hitch-22

Take a stand.
http://en.wikiped...religion

Feb 20, 2012
Yup. After reading (and eyes glazed) over the steadfast posts of believers in God, I can summarize their stand points:
1- God exists, no if, no but, and non-disprovenable.
2- They believe and follow God's words. No ifs, no buts.
3- "Exemplary" Faithful Followers ' words are to be followed as God's words themselves.
4- Grabbing land for yourselves, or to kill all infidels in the name of God, that's all fine. Human moral judgements are all irrelevant.
5- Wars are the fastest mean to sort out the faithful from the non-believers, the surest, to honor the glory, the power, and the righteousness of your God over the enemies'

And so over the eons, countless humans ( or infidel dickheads???) have died for The Just Cause. Their sinful bodies are recycled into the earth, to grow mor food for the next generations to die the same way. That's the way of religions.

Feb 20, 2012
The dense aether model is hidden behind the dialectical Hegelian transition from quantity to quality. The scientific theories evolve through phase transform of random empirical knowledge during which the number of empirical insights increases to the point, from which the deterministic patterns, i.e. theories can be postulated. Later the new insights are collected, which fragment the existing theories, introducing subtheories and their mutations up to the point, when new phase transform occurs and new level of metatheory emerges. This is apparently a mechanism of nested condensation of droplets inside of dense particle environment. The computer programming or internet protocol evolved in similar hiearchical way: the machine code programming condensed into assembly language, assembly languages condensed into higher level functional programming (C, Pascal..), which evolved further into OOP and intepreted languages (Java), later into scripted environments.

Feb 20, 2012
atheism is not the stance against god. It's the absence of a stance on gods
The atheists tend to deny the existence of God. The absence of stance is agnosticism. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."
The dense aether model is unpleasant for science in the same way, like the deism in its assumption of deeper underlying reality, which could be equated to God. But science converges to this view too (I mean all these parallel universes, quantum vacuum, hidden dimensions, holograms, etc..). So I presume, the concept of aether will become more palatable even for formally thinking people soon. It's simply the model of the hidden underlying reality based on nested fluctuations of Boltzmann particle gas. Many people are believing in quantum vacuum, string net fluids and fabric of space - so why not in the dense particle fluid? Such a fluid even contains the space-time foam and strings assumed with another popular theories.

Feb 20, 2012
The atheists tend to deny the existence of God.
They deny it when asked about it.

But ask yourself this: What were people before the first guy invented gods? Gods were a non-issue. That's EXACTLY what it would be like if all the religious people would disappear tomorrow and only the former 'atheists' remained. No one would actively go around proclaiming "gods don't exist". No one would try to disprove gods. It would just not be pushed on them as a false dichotomy (the false dichotomy being: "you either believe gods exist or you believe that they don't exist")
It's one of the most basic philosophical/logical fallacies.

Feb 20, 2012
My opinion is, the evidence of hidden underlying reality may change our understanding of God too. In AWT the God manifests with CMBR noise like the abstract omnipresent, omnipotent and infinitely dimensional, i.e. complex and possibly intelligent existence. It's extrapolation of our everyday knowledge into pure randomness, which is representing the space-time at the extreme small and large scales. Such an environment may be formed with whatever. For example, here you can read about spontaneous evolution of cooking recipes in abstract environment of cooking books or sharing networks. These recipes evolve here like memes or genes inside of living bacteria. If we would create a sufficiently large sharing network and got enough time, these recipes could evolve into independent intelligent virtual creatures. At this level of abstractness the nature of evolutionary environment is irrelevant.

Feb 20, 2012
I think you should take your meds. That is the most incoherent set of jumbled ideas I have ever heard.

Wow. Just ...wow.

Feb 20, 2012
To an atheist god isn't an issue. It's a NON-issue. It's completely irrelevant. It's not worth being AGAINST because it is nothing worth thinking about.

Lenin thought it worth thinking about.
Wonder why?

Feb 20, 2012
The important aspect of AWT geometry is, every duality becomes blurred at the extreme limit of observable reality. For example, at the sufficient distance from source of all ripples at the water surface converge into fuzzy mixture of transverse and longitudinal waves, similar to CMBR noise, which mediates the most distant areas of Universe for us.

Now, the cars of planes are apparently a products of intelligent design, but they evolved gradually too as a product of natural selection at free market. The older objects we handle, the more the influence of random selection is apparent into account of intelligent design. So, if we extrapolate our experience to evolution of whole Universe, we could get easily into conclusion, that the probability of the creation of Universe and its spontaneous evolution is indistinguishable each other and essentially fifty-fifty. Until we get some smarter idea, than the AWT and its analogies with water surface waves, of course.

Feb 20, 2012
Lenin thought it worth thinking about.
Wonder why?

Religious people are an (unfortunate) reality. It always pays to deal with reality. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away.
Maybe one day we'll find a cure. Education and adequate quality of living seems to do the trick.

Feb 20, 2012
That is the most incoherent set of jumbled ideas I have ever heard
For our animal pets most of our intelligent sentences would probably sound as an incoherent babling as well: the difference in intelligence is simply too high here. After all, heavily negentropized, i.e. effectively packed computer program of high information density wouldn't differ from random sequence of bytes even for qualified computer professional. My point therefore is, the highest possible intelligence is indistinguishable from pure randomness and the higher difference in intelligence and information density between speaker and listener is, the more some intelligent idea would appear like mumbo jumbo for low-dimensional primitive creatures. So that until we find the way, how to decipher such a randomness, then the CMBR noise can be the manifestation of God as easily, like the randomly packed bytecode can be source of your operating system.

Feb 20, 2012
Note that the quantum mechanics is not based on the absence of hidden variables because these variables don't actually exist, but because they're effectively unmeasurable. This is indeed a difference. You can believe in existence of hidden variables or not, but until you cannot decipher the quantum noise, you have no other option, than just a statistical description. So that the belief in God is substantiated as well, like the Einstein's belief in existence of hidden variables or belief of string theorists in the existence of strings. For me all these interpretations are extrapolations of the same category.

After all, as Isaac Asimov once said, every sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic. Doesn't it imply, a lotta magic can be based on technology, which is too advanced for our contemporary understanding? You may say, you don't believe in magic anyway - but which experimental evidence do you actually have for your stance?

Feb 20, 2012
What were people before the first guy invented gods? Gods were a non-issue.
Humans are one of the first animals to become aware of their own demise. Most animals simply expire and turn back into soil without undue commotion. But sapiens are crazy apes. They can't deal with the stark naked inevitability of their demise. There is an impetus in everyone to reason out the injustice of it all to their egos. Great minds of their day think up philosophies and platitudes, and pen these metaphors. Then inferior beings who take things literally, known as conservatives or priests, distill this collected wisdom into a set of pious rules. They establish penalties and enemies who don't abide by these rules. Then war and genocide are a simple decision for the unwashed masses to obey unquestioningly, which they call 'faith.' In peacetime the priests proclaim the enemy to be within, whereby inquisitions and "wars on terror" ensue. Regardless how they go out, humans return to dirt.

Feb 20, 2012
My point therefore is, the highest possible intelligence is indistinguishable from pure randomness and the higher difference in intelligence and information density between speaker and listener is,

You might wanna revisit an introductory course on information theory. A completely random signal (noise) carries no information.

Man, you are a poster-boy for the Dunning-Kruger Effect. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Feb 20, 2012
Education and adequate quality of living seems to do the trick.

How does that heal a soul?
Many are well educated and make a good living and are miserable resorting to drugs, alcohol and other escapes.

Feb 20, 2012
To an atheist god isn't an issue. It's a NON-issue. It's completely irrelevant. It's not worth being AGAINST because it is nothing worth thinking about.

Lenin thought it worth thinking about.
Wonder why?
Because Lenin was capable of reason and saw the good side of man. He understood the value of commerce and progress. He didn't kill orthodox heretics of the Vatican the way Stalin would. Stalin did little more than lead the Vatican's Inquisition in Russia, collecting the single largest body of heretics for the Pope. It was the Vatican's follow up to the sacking of Constantinople. We see this even today with the oppressive austerity disproportionately targeting orthodox Greece.

Feb 20, 2012
The dodecahedron used as the symbol fifth element, aether or Universe brings the resemblance of structure of dark matter (Poincare dedecahedral space) and heteorotic condensation of quantum foam into hiearchical space-times. It would point to cosmological origin of many symbols of sacred geometry. In connection to newly revealed rectangular shape of Milky Way galaxy the following question arises: wasn't the swastika used as a "wheel of suns", i.e. cosmic symbol in eastern countries?

http://en.wikiped...Swastika

Ouroboros archetype has a good connection to cyclic Universe models, described with Klein bottle topology. The Kaballah numerology has many connections to hyperdimensional geometry of Lie group. The notion of God can serve as an allegory of CMBR noise. My point is, the religion and mysticism contain many insights of supermodern physics, which aren't fully accidental.

Feb 20, 2012
"The central scientific focus of Theology and Science is on developments in physics, cosmology, evolutionary biology, and genetics, with additional topics in the neurosciences, the environmental sciences, and mathematics. "
http://www.ctns.o...nce.html


Feb 20, 2012
A completely random signal (noise) carries no information
This is just an tautology: the random signal is recognize just by its absence of apparent information. But we could construct such a random signal from byte code of computer language. How could you distinguish it from random noise after then if you would have no decompiler? It's information is still there, despite you have the key for it or not. This principle has a good application in steganography, for example.

Feb 20, 2012
You're saying, the CMBR noise has no information, but you have no evidence for it. Briefly speaking, until you have no reliable proof for exclusion all possible sources of information in the random noise, then this noise can be computer program in the same way, like the omnipresent God lurking from vacuum fluctuations. Maybe it contains all information for intelligent design of our reality in the same way, like genetic code of DNA (which appears random at the first or even second sight too).

The purpose of this approach is to demonstrate, that the evolutionary principle is not actually superior to intelligent design at the very general scales. They're both dual observational perspectives, which are indistinguishable each other with the same relevance.

Feb 20, 2012
Education and adequate quality of living seems to do the trick.

How does that heal a soul?
Many are well educated and make a good living and are miserable resorting to drugs, alcohol and other escapes.
Who, you mean these guys?
http://en.wikiped...ristians

Bodies can be healed, souls dont exist. Religionists waste time while people suffer. This is why educated people invent things like 12 step programs. Because religions FAIL to heal.

And AS YOU KNOW, many more religionists in prison.

Feb 20, 2012
ryggesogn2 on Lenin and communism


ryggesogn2, I share your hatred of dictatorships. I really do.

But dictators rarely pick up a gun. It's the millions of their people who make the horror happen - in Russia as in Germany and Rwanda, the people are responsible and no one else.

These countries are peppered with churches. So after centuries of faith, the Germans somehow forgot their faith in Sept. 1939 and then found it again in Aug. 1945? No, these people had it all along. Religion stopped nothing, it made no difference. It is clearly not the rampart you think.

Regardless, your cold war vision is old. Nazism is dead and communism is dying - with China changing rapidly, only a few (e.g. Cuba and North Korea) are still holding out and probably not for long.

In today's world, the rising threat is the proliferation of rogue religious regimes.

And your belief is not immune. Christian militias are on the rise worldwide.

Feb 20, 2012
the people are responsible and no one else.


"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

And Christians are responsible for changing laws banning slavery.


Feb 20, 2012
So I showed your faith is fanning the flames of war worldwide, *today*, and is part of the problem, not the solution.

Meanwhile in the developed world:

The G10's least religious country, Japan (85% atheists) has the 2nd lowest murder-per-capita rate in the world.

http://en.wikiped...in_Japan

The G10's most religious country, the US, ranks in murder-per-capita with... Lebanon!

Psychosis? Absolution too easy? I don't know but never mind past history, facts demonstrate that in today's world religion increases violence.

Feb 20, 2012
facts demonstrate that in today's world religion increases violence.

I guess this depends upon the religion.
The religion of socialism is quite violent in DPRK, in China, etc.

"thousands die each year and where prison guards stamp on the necks of babies born to prisoners to kill them. "
"Mervyn Thomas, chief executive of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, said: 'For too long the horrendous suffering of the people of North Korea, especially those imprisoned in unspeakably barbaric prison camps, has been met with silence "
http://www.guardi...rthkorea

Feb 20, 2012
"First they came for the Communists, but I was not (...)


You make my point: "they" is also the people.

And Christians are responsible for changing laws banning slavery.


Err... in the US that would be 100 years after everybody else. I believe Southern cotton lords were very religious indeed. They used bible verses justifying slavery as State justification till the very end.

Feb 20, 2012
And Christians are responsible for changing laws banning slavery.
Xtians created modern slavery by makeing it inheritable. Earlier slaves could earn their way out of servitude and their children were free, at least until their town was sacked by invaders. The Pope turned his own Irish people into slaves by diverting all foods away from Ireland, and readying ships to a promised land for the price of indentured servitude. The US slave states are by far the most frenetically xtian: The so-called bible belt.

Feb 20, 2012
The religion of socialism is quite violent in DPRK, in China


As I said, I agree. But you missed the rest of the argument. The cold war is over. Communism has been receding worldwide for decades.

Today the rising global threat clearly is religious violence. Just switch on a TV and open your eyes.

Feb 20, 2012


Err... in the US that would be 100 years after everybody else. I believe Southern cotton lords were very religious indeed. They used bible verses justifying slavery as State justification till the very end.

It was Christians in UK that led the effort and Christians in the USA persisted for decades to end slavery.


Feb 20, 2012
Communism has been receding worldwide for decades.

Not in DPRK.
The theocracies in the middle east are little different than communists.
Syria and Iraq were/are Stalinist regimes.
Socialism is expanding around the world, not receding.

Feb 20, 2012
The theocracies in the middle east are little different than communists.


LOL theocracies are atheistic? OK now you've just lost the entire argument. Without recourse.

Feb 20, 2012
The theocracies in the middle east are little different than communists.


LOL theocracies are atheistic? OK now you've just lost the entire argument. Without recourse.

Authoritarian dictators use whatever ideology works to keep them in power.

Feb 20, 2012
Authoritarian dictators use whatever ideology works to keep them in power.


Therefore communist dictatorship has nothing to do with atheism. Thank you for further undermining your own argument!

Feb 20, 2012
It was Christians in UK that led the effort and Christians in the USA persisted for decades to end slavery.
Your points are pathetic. The Roman Catholic Church invented the very concept of the "serf", from 560 to the reformation. More recently until 1975 the Catholic Church forced women to live and work as virtual slaves in various church enterprises for profit including the Magdalene Laundries and Magdalene asylums. Over 20,000 women were deliberately and consciously enslaved by the Catholic Bishops of Ireland and their clergy. Many hundreds of these women were systematically tortured, raped and sometimes murdered as mere sex slaves for many of the local priests and leaders of the church. Neither the Church of Ireland, nor the Vatican have apologized or compensated families for this medieval barbarism.

Feb 21, 2012
The atheists tend to deny the existence of God. The absence of stance is agnosticism. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."


What do I have to do to make people understand that this is wrong?

Gnosticism refers to KNOWLEDGE of God, Theism refers to BELIEF in God. An Agnostic would say "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you.", you are right about that, BUT SO WOULD AN ATHEIST.

An Atheist would say the same thing, because that statement speaks to the persons KNOWLEDGE OF GOD (I cannot KNOW...). Theism refers to a persons BELIEF in God. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing.

I am an Atheist, I am also an Agnostic. I am Atheist because I do not BELIEVE in God, I am an Agnostic because I do not claim to have KNOWLEDGE of God.

I explain this over and over and over again...

T.H.I.S I.S N.O.T C.O.M.P.L.I.C.A.T.E.D

Feb 21, 2012
Koch:
"On Sunday 28 October 1787 Wilberforce wrote in his diary: God Almighty has set before me two great objects: the suppression of the slave trade and the Reformation of society. "
"Abolishing the slave trade became for William the grand object of my parliamentary existence to be the instrument of stopping such a course of wickedness and cruelty asdisgraced a Christian country. "
http://www.reform...very.htm

"Studying the Old Testament story of the tribes of Israel and their liberation from slavery in Egypt, as well as the teachings of Jesus Christ, both Finney and Weld came to a common conclusion: slavery was sin. Therefore, it had to be rooted out and destroyed immediately. It could not be tolerated, not even temporarily. Slavery, according to Finney and Welds view, must be attacked and overthrown by the power of Gods Holy Spirit in the believers life."
http://www.foreru...0537_Chr

Feb 21, 2012
Authoritarian dictators use whatever ideology works to keep them in power.


Therefore communist dictatorship has nothing to do with atheism. Thank you for further undermining your own argument!

Except for the fact that communist dictators required party members to be atheist.

Feb 21, 2012
Lenin thought it worth thinking about.
Wonder why?
I don't know if anyone ever pointed this out to you, but communism in Eurasia was essential in ending the medieval religionist cultures which would have prevented what was to follow.

Religionist-enforced aggressive population growth based upon 2000 year-old attrition rates, were at that point causing continuous war among cultures. The only reason for the relative quiet in europe in the early 1800s was the horrendous bloodletting of revolution and the napoleonic wars. This alone enabled the industrial revolution to occur.

But revolution and war followed immediately as medieval repro rates caused pops to swell yet again. This conflict did not cease until after the world wars when the northern Eurasian cultures had finally been destroyed, and family planning efforts including abortion, could be employed.

Enduring peace would not exist in northern Eurasia had not Stalin and Mao and yes hitler been Allowed to do their Work.

Feb 21, 2012
Except for the fact that communist dictators required party members to be atheist.
That was the Vatican's move to destroy Orthodox Christianity, in furtherance of the sacking of Constantinople.

Feb 21, 2012
ONE BILLION ABORTIONS worldwide in the last 100 years, mostly in china and the soviet union. Upwards of half of all russian pregnancies are aborted, countless more prevented through contraception. All those people and their descendants to 3 gens and more never existed to grow up hungry, angry, and willing to fight to survive.

No religionist culture existing before ww2 and Designed to maximize growth, would have allowed this. This is why they had needed to be destroyed at all costs. World wars with nuclear weapons was NOT an option; but religions would have made this Inevitable.

The same conditions exist today throughout southern Asia and Africa. What do you think will be Done in order to save the world from religion AGAIN?

Feb 21, 2012
"On Sunday 28 October 1787 Wilberforce wrote in his diary: God Almighty has set before me two great objects: the suppression of the slave trade and the Reformation of society. "
"Abolishing the slave trade became for William the grand object of my parliamentary existence to be the instrument of stopping such a course of wickedness and cruelty asdisgraced a Christian country. "
Ha. It was about time that xians came out against slavery as they had condoned, and encouraged, and participated in the practice for centuries.
"Studying the Old Testament story of the tribes of Israel and their liberation from slavery in Egypt, as well as the teachings of Jesus Christ, both Finney and Weld came to a common conclusion: slavery was sin.
Except that the god in your book condones and encourages and REQUIRES slave ownership for it's chosen people, as you well know. As always, thanks for the opportunity to point these things out.

Feb 21, 2012
The bible and slaves:
http://etori.trip...ses.html
http://www.evilbi...very.htm

And even while euro xians were condemning slavery, euros like cecil rhodes and king leopold were buying them from chieftans in eastern and south Africa. And Moslems were gleefully gathering them up in eastern Africa. Because their god condoned, encouraged, and REQUIRED the practice in their books.

Feb 21, 2012
From the article:
"In science there are no facts or theories that are beyond question. "
This appears to be in dispute among those claiming to be atheists/ scientists/AGWites posting here.

Feb 21, 2012
Religion doesn't enslave people, people enslave people.

Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

Everytime you say that religion started wars and killed people, you take the guilt away from the people responsible.

Religion is what the religious use as a scapegoat.

Why are the non-religious using it as a scapegoat as well?

When you start placing blame on religion, the people that commit evil acts are absolved.

Feb 21, 2012
Why are the non-religious using it as a scapegoat as well?


To absolve the evil acts committed by statists/socialists/'progressives'.

Feb 21, 2012
Religion doesn't enslave people, people enslave people.

Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

Everytime you say that religion started wars and killed people, you take the guilt away from the people responsible.

Religion is what the religious use as a scapegoat.

Why are the non-religious using it as a scapegoat as well?

When you start placing blame on religion, the people that commit evil acts are absolved.


What the hell are you talking about?

If someone commits an atrocity DUE to a religious tenet then both the person AND the religion were responsible for that atrocity. No one is saying only ONE person or thing can be responsible for something...

You don't have an ounce of sense in that head of yours do you?

Feb 21, 2012
Your God commands you to kill anyone who works on Sunday... It is written in black and white, I have read it. Suppose someone starts going around murdering everyone he finds working on Sunday, you wouldn't blame the ridiculous religion AS WELL AS the individual for those murders?

I really hate it when people try to paint things as if they were black or white or falsely dichotomous. One or MANY things can be responsible for an action. The person ultimately pulled the trigger, but they did so because of what was written in their holy book as the word of their God. The blame is on the religion as well as the individual.

What makes me angry is that I don't think you're being an idiot... ignorance and irrationality are excusable, I think you're being a weasel and intentionally painting things in a favorable light even though you know your arguments are ridiculous.

Feb 21, 2012
Religion doesn't enslave people, people enslave people.

Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

Everytime you say that religion started wars and killed people, you take the guilt away from the people responsible.

Religion is what the religious use as a scapegoat.

Why are the non-religious using it as a scapegoat as well?

When you start placing blame on religion, the people that commit evil acts are absolved.
No, religions create the very conditions which make conflict inevitable. ALL surviving religions are those which were best at outgrowing their rivals and overrunning them. ALL relegate women to producing and raising children.

Religions ALL say they are the rooting of good, and that their rivals are exactly the opposite. But ALL are responsible for the overpopulation which makes evil inevitable. ALL. Including yours.

And when evil becomes necessary your books tell you exactly how to go about it in service to your god.

Feb 21, 2012
What the hell are you talking about?
And what the hell are you talking about?
Gnosticism refers to KNOWLEDGE of God, Theism refers to BELIEF in God. An Agnostic would say "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you.", you are right about that, BUT SO WOULD AN ATHEIST.
You tend to ramble on with little substance, and make stuff up, as Ethelred tried to tell you. Gnosticism is just another religion. It doesn't MEAN anything either way.
http://en.m.wikip...osticism

-Do a little research before wasting space and time.
What makes me angry is that I don't think you're being an idiot... ignorance and irrationality are excusable, I think you're being a weasel
Who cares?

Feb 21, 2012
No. Religious tenets are used by religious people to justify their actions.

Religion is not a living thing, it commits no acts, it has no responsibilities.

No one commits atrocities due to religion. They commit atrocities because they're atrocious.

There are bad people everywhere (some religious, some not).

If they say that their killing was necessary and allowed by their God, and you believe them, their actions become Gods will.

Bad people do bad things. Religion does nothing at all.

Religion is responsible for nothing.

Feb 21, 2012
You tend to ramble on with little substance, and make stuff up, as Ethelred tried to tell you. Gnosticism is just another religion. It doesn't MEAN anything either way.
http://en.m.wikip...osticism


"Gnosticism, from the Greek word for KNOWLEDGE"

Thank you and goodnight.

Gnosticism WAS a sect of Christianity that claimed to KNOW God... Hence Gnostics claim to KNOW God. Agnostics, where the prefix a- means not or the negation of, means that you don't claim to KNOW God.

You are wrong, you have always been wrong, and I have explained this to you many times now.

Who cares?


I do.


Feb 21, 2012
No, religions create the very conditions which make conflict inevitable.


True. But so do country borders.

Religions cause secularization, separation.

Any time people are divided they fight.

Different villages. Different cities. Different countries. Different religions. Different whatever...

The problem is division.

Feb 21, 2012
No. Religious tenets are used by religious people to justify their actions.

Religion is not a living thing, it commits no acts, it has no responsibilities.

No one commits atrocities due to religion. They commit atrocities because they're atrocious.

Bad people do bad things. Religion does nothing at all.

Religion is responsible for nothing.


This is just stupid... If I write a book that urges people to commit atrocities and then a bunch of people do so I, as the author of the book, WILL be held liability in a court of law.

The authors of your ridiculous book, the book that tells people to murder anyone working on Sunday, share the culpability for the atrocities committed in the name of that religion. Since the author is supposed to be God, then your God is responsible, and since your God exemplifies the religion they are one in the same.

Feb 21, 2012
Now the people of the atheist religions are waging a war on the people of the theist religions.

Same shit, different pile.

Feb 21, 2012
The problem is division.


And religion creates, then reinforces divisions. Religion does more to polarize groups of people than anything else.

Feb 21, 2012
Now the people of the atheist religions are waging a war on the people of the theist religions.

Same shit, different pile.


Atheism is not a religion you lunatic, everything you say is painfully ignorant.

Let's go through this again in case you missed it on the last page:

- God wrote the bible (supposedly, through the hands of man)

- God wrote that people who work on sunday should be put to death

- Man reads the bible

- Man obeys God (as he was trained to do) and puts someone to death for working on Sunday.

Your God (and thus your religion) are MORE responsible for that murder than the man who pulled the trigger was, it's called coercion. Threat of eternal damnation in Hell qualifies as coercion.

Feb 21, 2012
If you don't know that God doesn't exist (agnosticism), but still believe he doesn't (aka atheism), then that is your religious belief.

Feb 21, 2012
If you don't know that God doesn't exist (agnosticism), but still believe he doesn't (aka atheism), then that is your religious belief.


Atheism is a LACK of belief... you keep trying to assert that a lack of a belief is a belief.

If a lack of money were money I would be rich. If a lack of pie was pie I would be obese... If a lack of sense were sense you would make some.

Feb 21, 2012
This is just stupid...
Typical insightful eloquence.
"Gnosticism, from the Greek word for KNOWLEDGE"
So fucking what? Bible is Greek for book -? How many more Greek words do you know?
Any time people are divided they fight.
No, any time they come into contention over resources they fight. Overpopulation causes conflict over resources. Religions demand reproduction rates which cause overpopulation. They are all Designed to make conflict inevitable.

"Be fruitful and fill up the earth (with more of us and fewer of them)."

The 5 pillars of Islam are expressly configured to maximize growth. Etc.

Feb 21, 2012
"Religions demand reproduction rates which cause overpopulation."

Yeah, because people wouldnt have sex if religion wasn't forcing them to. Lol.

Religion is the excuse for not using condoms (scapegoat), but we all know sex feels better without them.

Feb 21, 2012
Religion is the excuse for not using condoms (scapegoat), but we all know sex feels better without them.


Christianity TEACHES people to not use them...

You are in denial and not worth any more of my time.

Feb 21, 2012
Religion is the excuse for not using condoms (scapegoat), but we all know sex feels better without them.


I want to believe you're just a really committed troll, and not actually this retarded. Religion isn't the excuse, religion demands you NOT use contraceptives or you'll spend an eternity in misery. Religion threatens the ultimate punishment for not reproducing.

Feb 21, 2012
This is just stupid...
Typical insightful eloquence.


Couldn't care less.

"Gnosticism, from the Greek word for KNOWLEDGE"
So fucking what?


Conveniently don't respond to the rest of what I wrote...

The Gnostics were a sect of Christianity that claimed to have KNOWLEDGE of God. They claimed to KNOW God, to have personally experienced the presence of God. Agnostics are anyone who is not a Gnostic... since the only defining quality of Gnostics is that they claim to KNOW God then Agnostics are those that don't claim to KNOW God.

Notice that in that description I did not use the word BELIEF. Belief is not the same as knowledge.

Feb 21, 2012
But atheists 'believe' there is no God.

Or are you trying to say that atheism is agnosticism? Because its not.

If you're willing as an 'atheist' to say that God may or may not exist then what you are is an agnostic.

An atheist doesn't believe in God.

Your clock is running too slow.

Feb 21, 2012
No, religions create the very conditions which make conflict inevitable.


True. But so do country borders.

Religions cause secularization, separation.

Any time people are divided they fight.

Different villages. Different cities. Different countries. Different religions. Different whatever...

The problem is division.


Good fences make good neighbors.

As for populations, you atheist had better start having children as the Catholics, Mormons and Muslims have not stopped.
and/or, you had better stop promoting socialism, which kills economic growth. Prospering people tend to have fewer children.

Feb 21, 2012
But atheists 'believe' there is no God.


So what? I do not believe in God, that doesn't mean I claim that God does not exist. I don't KNOW whether or not God exists, but I don't BELIEVE in any God.

KNOWLEDGE and BELIEF are very different things. You are confusing them as so many people do.

Feb 21, 2012
Good fences make good neighbors.


No. Good neighbors make good neighbors.

Feb 21, 2012
Religion is belief in the absence of proof.

Atheism is a religion.

Feb 21, 2012
Religion is belief in the absence of proof.

Atheism is a religion.


Where did you get that stupid definition?

There is no such thing as proof... I've explained this dozens of times. "Proof" of ANYTHING is ALWAYS relative to a context defined by initial assumptions.

The concept of proof in the general sense (not relative to assumptions) is USELESS, because it is IMPOSSIBLE. You cannot prove that your entire perception of reality is not illusory, so you cannot prove anything objectively in the general case.

EVIDENCE is what is important, not proof.

Rational belief is belief in accordance with the evidence. Irrational belief (aka faith) is belief in the absence of (or in opposition to) the evidence.

Feb 21, 2012
All right.

As long as you realize that your religion -Atheism- is based on proofless suppositions.

Feb 21, 2012
You cannot prove that your entire perception of reality is not illusory


Maybe a delusional schizophrenic such as yourself can't.

To me, reality is what it is.

Feb 21, 2012
Proof is very much a real thing.

When you build a car you put it through tests to prove that it works.

If experiments show positive results you have proved that the car works.

Feb 21, 2012
Proof is very much a real thing.

When you build a car you put it through tests to prove that it works.

If experiments show positive results you have proved that the car works.


http://en.wikiped...c_method

Just......fucking read -_-

This argument has devolved to the same trite nonsense which always happens with creationists. Your biggest problem is a lack of education in definition...it's realy no different than those who say evolution is "only a theory, not a law", without any idea of what those words mean.

It's always easier to argue when you keep your arguments vague, and religion is very damn good at that.

Feb 21, 2012
Proof is very much a real thing.

When you build a car you put it through tests to prove that it works.

If experiments show positive results you have proved that the car works.


You can't objectively prove that the car exists, you can't objectively prove that it is not a figment of your imagination. You have no understanding of epistemology or likely any other branch of philosophy and you play fast and loose with your definitions. You are unequipped and ill prepared to have this discussion.

As long as you realize that your religion -Atheism- is based on proofless suppositions.


Atheism is patently not a religion, by all coherent definitions of the word.

Atheism is not concerned with proof, since the meaning of the word is anyone who does not hold a belief in God... I don't see where that definition has anything to do with proving anything or not proving anything...

Feb 21, 2012
Maybe this will help you understand...

The last 14 some odd billion years of gravity functioning as it does is not PROOF that it will function tomorrow.

The fact that my brain interprets electrochemical signals from my sensory organs and tells me that I am holding an apple is NOT PROOF that I am holding an apple.

You are using the word "proof" loosely, without regard to the importance of it's meaning. Proof means something IS. You can't tell me what is, because you are INHERENTLY subject to the limitations of the mechanisms by which you perceive reality... what you perceive may not be reality, it may have never been reality, you have no idea.

Is this a far out concept? Of course. Does this have any practical bearing on day to day life? No... but it is important to keep in mind when you go throwing around the word "proof" as if it meant little more than observation.


Feb 21, 2012
"what you perceive may not be reality, it may have never been reality, you have no idea."

LOL!

You, sir, need help!

Whatever the underlying mechanics are is irrelevant.

Reality is what it is.

Go see a professional.

Feb 21, 2012
"what you perceive may not be reality, it may have never been reality, you have no idea."

LOL!

You, sir, need help!

Whatever the underlying mechanics are is irrelevant.

Reality is what it is.

Go see a professional.


Epistemology, ever heard of it?
University, ever been to one?

You laugh at a concept that has been considered for hundreds of years, and that which the scientific method itself is based.

You're ignorant, luckily for you are too ignorant to understand the level of your own ignorance.

Feb 21, 2012
You state that 'reality may not be reality'

Are you high?

Feb 21, 2012
You state that 'reality may not be reality'

Are you high?


I didn't state that.

I stated that what you perceive may not be reality. The concept is illustrated in the movie The Matrix, but it has been well understood for millenia. I don't BELIEVE that what I perceive to be reality is an illusion, but I respect the fact that it MAY be. The primary practical result of this is that you cannot know something to be true with 100% certainty, which means there is no such thing as objective proof. The scientific method takes this into account, never relying on proof but merely the support of evidence. Science doesn't proof things, it creates explanations that fit the evidence. If new evidence doesn't fit with a previous explanation that explanation is re-examined and revised.

Feb 21, 2012
Even if you ignore the possibility of illusion, the concept of proof is still almost useless. If you say it is proven that something is the case, what happens when we find out you were wrong? The word proof loses all meaning if there is any possibility at all for you to be wrong... but how do you know if there is a possibility for you to be wrong? You don't. You can think that something is the case 100% and be as certain of it as you are your hand in front of your face and still wind up being wrong... so when you said you had proven that thing that ended up being wrong anyway you destroyed the value of the word "proof". There is no getting around this. The only way "proof" is a meaningful concept is when it is used relative to a set of initial assumptions in the form of "If X then Y".

Feb 21, 2012
If your Deathclock runs out tomorrow and you meet God, would His existence be proven?

If you take that apple and let it go mid air, have you proven attraction?

Gravity is a theory of attraction (theories aren't certainties). The attraction is proven when that apple falls to the ground (experiment).

Feb 21, 2012
If your Deathclock runs out tomorrow and you meet God, would His existence be proven?


Nope, could I not be dreaming or hallucinating? Could I not be subject to an illusion produced in my brain by a superior intelligence?

If you take that apple and let it go mid air, have you proven attraction?


No, the apple might not exist... do you know how perception works?

Gravity is a theory of attraction (theories aren't certainties). The attraction is proven when that apple falls to the ground (experiment).


You aren't understanding this at all, I suspect you simply are incapable of thinking on a deeper level than you are accustom.

Feb 21, 2012
You state that 'reality may not be reality'

Are you high?


I didn't state that.


You don't have to. I can tell you are.

Feb 21, 2012
You're hopeless.

Feb 21, 2012
You state that 'reality may not be reality'

Are you high?


I didn't state that.


You don't have to. I can tell you are.


Dumb.

I've smoked pot once in my life when I was a teenager and didn't much care for it. I am 30 years old and hold a masters degree and another bachelors degree in a related field. I have thousands of hours of formal education in the natural sciences, how about you?

Feb 21, 2012
Nope, could I not be...hallucinating?


I'm not questioning it.

Feb 21, 2012
You've resorted to acting like a child, we are done here. Enjoy your life, I've heard ignorance is bliss... though contrary to popular belief money DOES buy happiness, and intelligence leads to money... so I guess we'll both be happy either way :)

Feb 21, 2012
Deathclock:
If a lack of money were money I would be rich.


intelligence leads to money


Lol. See, proof is a real thing.

You've effectively proved your own intelligence.

Have a fun day in your Atheist church.

Feb 21, 2012
Cite a joke as "Proof"

Unwittingly demonstrate the opposite side of what you've been arguing about for hours.

Feb 21, 2012
@Turritopsis But atheists 'believe' there is no God.
Atheists are nonbelievers. Man you are thick.
@Deathclock Belief is not the same as knowledge.
That's insulting to idiots who believe belief is superior to competence.

Feb 21, 2012
Anything can be used for evil, religion is no exception.

Gravity is necessary for life, without gravity there'd be no Earth and no people.

Take a blackhole and bring it to a living thing and gravity will destroy life.

Gravity is both good for life and bad for life.

Same as religion. It can be good by bringing people together. But when one religion (such as theism) sucks you in and another religion (such as atheism) sucks someone else in, you two are divided.

A blackhole has extreme gravitational forces.

Some religious people are extreme.

Religious extremists destroy other religious people. Just like a blackholes extreme gravitational field destroys the Earths gravitational field.

It is not religions that are bad. It is the extremist followers.

Feb 21, 2012
Atheists are actively looking to destroy theism.

Theists are actively looking to destroy atheism.

Both groups have extremists within them that go to extreme measures to win their cause.

They are the problem, not religion itself.

Feb 21, 2012
Anything can be used for evil, religion is no exception.
Evil is relative between humans, and meaningless in nature.
It is not religions that are bad. It is the extremist followers.
Without an intellectual leash to restrain behavior, there is no limit to religious extremism. Only opportunity. Even the most moderate of religious followers can be brought to bestial behavior because he lacks the intellectual scaffolding to reason.
Atheists are actively looking to destroy theism.
Theism destroys itself, because it is self-contradictory, fantasy, and an abomination to nature.

Feb 21, 2012
An intellectual leash holds nobody.

Only real physical leashes do. Us regular folk call these physical leashes prisons and jails.

Feb 21, 2012
Evil is relative between humans,

Ends justify the means?
Pol Pot wasn't evil murdering millions just as Stalin wasn't evil murdering his millions.
They were just trying to create paradise.

Feb 21, 2012
Theism destroys itself, because it is self-contradictory, fantasy, and an abomination to nature.

How long will this destruction take?
The Jews have been around for over 5000 years. Christians over 2000, Muslims 1400 years.
Greek, Roman, Spanish, British, Soviet...empires have collapsed in much less time.

Feb 21, 2012
Theism destroys itself, because it is self-contradictory
This is just an atheistic religion/propaganda. The belief seeks for contradictory phenomena instead, with compare to science, which seeks for things, which fit the rational, i.e. noncontroversial thinking. In this sense the belief fits the Popper's methodology based on falsification better, than the science itself.

For example, the increase in the Christian population is growing at even higher rate than the world population 1.3 percent per year, when the total world population increased with 1.2 percent. The Christian population in Asia and Africa had the highest growth with 2.6 percent and 2.4 percent, respectively. In 2010, there were 2.30 billion Christians in the world, an increase of 150 million from two billion in 2005.