Elton John: ban organised religion

[Flip McWho]

Aye I don't disagree with you. Being easier to convince will definitely entice them into a discourse, whether it's civilized or anything more than a monologue is something else entirely.

Ahteism is just a denial of a theistic God. It's not too hard to disprove that as you just pick apart the bible as the Literal Word. The God lovers who use a deist God who inspires us through the Bible is a whole nother kettle of fish imo.

[Barnabas]

I think communism resembles very much a religion, because of their end of times/ end of history beliefs of communist society as final stage of development for mankind.

I believe believing in what they do takes faith

[Perfection]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Atheists state that God positively does not exist.

Agnostics state they don't know (or care, in some cases but not all) whether God exists or not.

The porblem is what do you call a person who says "the chance that God exists is vanishingly small"?

It doesn't simply fit your definition scheme.

[Jon Miller]

someone who isn't using science or doesn't know what they are talking about

JM

[Drake Tungsten]

So, who's gayer? Elton John or Dick Dawkins?

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
someone who isn't using science or doesn't know what they are talking about

Why do you say that?

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
So, who's gayer? Elton John or Dick Dawkins?

Elton John, don't think Richard Dawkins calls for the banning of organized religion.

[Jon Miller]

Science says nothing about god(s) existence.. so saying that it is vanishly small is not based upon scientific reasoning.

JM

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Science says nothing about god(s) existence.. so saying that it is vanishly small is not based upon scientific reasoning.

Well you're using two different usages of "science" here. You're using "science" as a human institution in the first part of the sentance and "scientific reasoning" as the second.

I would contend that the scienitific institution having to conform with politics has set itself up to avoid the God question. At first it was to prevent God from impinging onto materialism (setting up the deistic God) but now is preventing materialism from impinging on God (atheism over the seperate domains idea). This settlement by and large works for pragmatic understanding of the universe and prevent the sciencific institution from getting involved in the religious/politics questions but I think it's overall false.

Scientific reasoning in my view can be applied to any problem (though it may be supplemented by subjective morality) including those involving God. I would argue that using scientfic reasing the most parsimonious conclusion is that God does not exist.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Hueij

Huh? How is atheism faith?

It's a belief in something that cannot be proven.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Sava
It's a belief in something that cannot be proven.

Atheism is not belief, it is disbelief.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

science has nothing to do with god. scientific theorems exist only because they have not yet been disproved. as long as newton's laws have not been disproved, they are seen as fact. god cannot be proved or disproved, therefore its not science.

[Perfection]

You're falling into this science is seperate from religion trap again. I would contend that except in the realms of morality and aesthetics scientific reasoning applies to any situation, and that those ideas that science cannot work with (like God) should be considered invalid. I see no need for an arbitrary demarkation anymore.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Perfection

Atheism is not belief, it is disbelief.

Hence my "it's like calling bald a hair color" comment.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Perfection

I would contend that the scienitific institution having to conform with politics has set itself up to avoid the God question. At first it was to prevent God from impinging onto materialism (setting up the deistic God) but now is preventing materialism from impinging on God (atheism over the seperate domains idea). This settlement by and large works for pragmatic understanding of the universe and prevent the sciencific institution from getting involved in the religious/politics questions but I think it's overall false.

Umm, can you come up with a scientific experiment about gods existence? I can tell you that none has been developed as of this time.

Scientific reasoning that isn't based on science is worse than useless. Science works, what you can scientific reasoning, where it isn't based on science, doesn't always. And is prone to errors of the worst sort (like the whole africans being inferior thing from 100 years ago).

Creationists at least don't claim science. People like yourself do, and I think are the ones most likely to disrupt science... and ****** it's practice.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Perfection
You're falling into this science is seperate from religion trap again. I would contend that except in the realms of morality and aesthetics scientific reasoning applies to any situation, and that those ideas that science cannot work with (like God) should be considered invalid. I see no need for an arbitrary demarkation anymore.

You don't know what you are talking about. Once more, give a single experiment which can place any sort of bound on the existence of god(s).

JM