Elton John: ban organised religion

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Perfection
The bible weilding man on the street.

Obviously you didn't hear what the guy actually said.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Perfection

Atheism is not belief, it is disbelief.

I see. So if I declare that there is no other intelligent life anywhere in the universe then that is not a declaration of a belief?

[Geronimo]

[SIZE=1]
Then you have things like skull shape denoting personality, or rockets being shaped the way they are because of scientists mostly being men.

JM

Erm, aren't rockets shaped the way they are to reduce air resistance? What other shapes would be workable for a rocket launched from earth?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Far better in my view to keep a close eye on religions indoctrinating children, and vigorously educate children in science, reason, history and the humanities so that they are able to decide things for themselves, and not merely repeat parrot-fashion what they are taught at their mothers knee (a mechanism by which most religions propagate themselves).

If people are taught to think with logic and reason, then it stands to reason that the atheistic view, being inherently stronger than the theistic view, would achieve the acceptance it deserves. Therefore, banning religion would be unnecessary, we simply become to wise for it.

That's the optimistic, Bright view of course.

More bigotry from aethiests.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Erm, aren't rockets shaped the way they are to reduce air resistance? What other shapes would be workable for a rocket launched from earth?

Feminists have said that they are shaped like a Phallus because scientists are men... perhaps they are joking.

I was using this as an example of what is not science, but comes from logic.

JM

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Perfection
@Darius

Well, the dictionary definition doesn't indicate that atheists must believe that "There must not be a God" (logical impossibility) rather that "There isn't a God" (various empirical rejections that admit possibility would be included). I think my definition fits with that scheme but I suck at semantic debates and I'm not attached to my definition so I'm not gonna push it much further.

My chief point is that atheists don't have to discount God as being impossible.

The whole agnosticism/atheism thing is a messy semantic debate that I don't care too much about. I call myself an atheist because agnosticism sometimes has the stereotype of being wishy-washy and self-unsure.

Here lies the problem with many aetheists, not just in their logic but also as people.

Rather that stick with an established set of facts which can be used to debate, they make up their own 'facts.'

Why? Simply becaue aetheism is more about an image to them. They don't want to be called agnostics because they prefer the image of aetheism. They want to appear smarter than they usually are.

Now, I admit that it is too much to say all aetheists are like this. But one must be aware when debating with aetheists, and even many communists, that it isn't about the ideaology as much as it is about their self-image. So a more proper label for them would be psuedo-intellectual.

[Kuciwalker]

Since when is it spelled "aetheist"?

[Jon Miller]

It makes it sound more hip.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

That's completely ****ing retarded.

[Jon Miller]

Unbelievable!

JM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman
I don't keep any bees. No bees whatsoever. In fact, never in my life have I owned any hives or harvested any honey.

Is this total lack of interest in bees actually a kind of beekeeping?

Sam the tailor from Minsk: rabbi, is there a blessing for the Tsar?
Rabbi: For the Tsar? Hmmm. May G-d bless and keep the Tsar ........ far away from us!

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Winston
You cannot render a scientific proof of the existence of neither love nor God. And you know what, it's because they're both entirely detached from the realm of science.

Love has been scientifically analyzed. It has a clear behavioral and nuerological pattern that can be studied empircally. I see absolutely no reason why it doesn't fit into the scientific frame.

Originally posted by Winston
I think you're corrupting both the concept of science and that of God by insisting on tying them together in some way. There is no connection, just as there isn't one between science and the concept of love.

There is a connection, The existance of God is a positive claim, science provides systems for examining positive claims. I contend that I can use the methods of science on any postive claim.

Originally posted by Winston
God may exist, or he may not, but which one of the two one chooses to believe in has nothing to do with science. I find it rather curious that anyone would think otherwise.

I dismiss the notion of God for the exact same reasons I dismiss psuedoscience.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Perfection
There is a connection, The existance of God is a positive claim, science provides systems for examining positive claims. I contend that I can use the methods of science on any postive claim.

You don't know what you are talking about. Science provides systems for examining claims for which experiments can be formulated or observations exist. It does not provide systems for examining all positive claims.

There are modes of philosophy (and theology) that do claim this, but that is not sciences claim. Once you remove experiment and obersvation from science, you are left with nothing more successful than any other philosophy.

The reason you and others wish to pin your fanciful speculation on science, is that science has been so successful. But science has been so successful because it depends on experimentation and observation. Once you takes those away, science would cease to have it's success. That is why you (and other pseudo-intellectuals like you) piss me off. It is because you are attacking the foundations of science, by claiming that science exists without experimentation or observation.

The methods of science are experimentation and observation, as such, you don't know what you are talking about when you say that the methods of science can be used to examine all positive claims.

Now I can see saying that you won't beleive in anything that science hasn't provided evidence for. This neccesitates (baring us having already discovered everything there is to know is science, which is definitely not the case) that you don't beleive in some things that are out there, and definitely do exist. This leads to agnosticism. Atheism is only relevant as a beleif.. (and a pretty pointless beleif in my humble opinion) entirely divorced from any line of reasoning based upon science.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Perfection
I dismiss the notion of God for the exact same reasons I dismiss psuedoscience.

But I have just shown that you don't know what you are talking about, when you refer to science. So how do you know what is pseudoscience? Some scientist told you?

Pseudoscience, like our fate being determined by the stars/etc, makes claims that can be tested by experimentation or observation. As such, yes, science can say something about it.

Once more, there has never been any experiment or observation that has said anything about the existence of god(s). I keep saying it because you keep not listening to me. And again, science is based on experimentation and observation. It is not science without observation and experimentation.

Jon Miller

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
I'd have to disagree with the conclusion. If science cannot say anything about something it means simply that. It can say NOTHING about it.

Well, I did oversimplify it let me rexplain.

An important part of science is the idea of parsimony, that is getting the most bang for your intellectual effort. If you can offer a simpler explination for the same system of observed phenomena then we adopt that view. This can be observed in the pre-Newtonian mechanics arguments between heliocentrism and geocentrism where models that at the time had about similar evidence. The heliocentric view got credence because it simplified the system and removed the need of epicycles. Similarly in modern science we see this in nomenclature changes such as the planetary redefinition or the disfavor of using relativistic mass. I draw on this notion of parsimony to dismiss God and psuedoscience (that is with no system of phenomena to explain the most parsimonious conclusion is a null explination).

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Is theology. They're both pretty much the same thing. One just assumes the existence of God and works forward from there.

Philosophy draws a heck of a lot from science, especially these days.

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Is that because humans can't comprehend the totality of the universe. Is it possible there may exist a being that could?

It's possible, but I don't work under the idea that if something is logically possible that we have to give it credence.

Originally posted by Flip McWho
My favourite is the definition argument.
1) God is a perfect being
2) A being that exists is more perfect than a being that doesn't
3) Ergo God exists.
Beat that with your science :P

Ah, fun tautologies! It might be a neat argument, but it still fails the parsimony test.