Elton John: ban organised religion

[Arrian]

Just a bit, though. It's not far off.

Actually, consider it... masturbation isn't actually bad. Ergo, "mental masturbation" is good, clean fun.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


But we do ask for evidence of a negative.

JM

When you're discussing the supernatural?

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


I dunno. I've met a fair number of converts who became fanatical about whatever it was they had converted to, and now were just as close-minded as before... it seems like a personality trait more than anything.

The nature of belief is such that it can be difficult to consider being wrong.

Besides, not wanting to admit being wrong & therefore being hostile to the possibility does not rule out conversions. Either the person overcame their resistance, or they rationalized it somehow so they weren't "wrong" per se (different interpretation of same basic "Truth").

-Arrian

As far as I know, most people who change faiths are quite willing to admit they were wrong. You seem to be doing the bigfoot thingie now, in defense of a completely false empirical statement. I also would suggest that plenty of people who "beleive" are constantly wrestling with belief. You seem to be taking a personality trait from SOME fundies and attributing it to all believers.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Sandman


There is no scientific evidence against the sort of invisibility and teleportation used by invisible teleporting Bigfoot. How could there be?

If there is entirely new physics, that allows for invisibility and teleportation of Bigfoot, then yeah, as I said, you would be a stupid pseudo-intellectual for saying that there was scientific evidence against an invisible teleporting Bigfoot (where the invisibility and teleportation arise from physics which does not exist in anything else observed).

Science is limited, but it's limitation is what has made it so successful. Also note my parenthetical comment, it is important.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian


When you're discussing the supernatural?

-Arrian

Scientists don't really have much reason to discuss the supernatural. Occasional one does some experiments into stuff (like ghosts or intangible energy fields or psychics) but these always come up negative and so most scientists don't find the subjects as ones needing much study.

Basically, a lot of the 'supernatura'l that people claim has already had bounds placed on it to make it not worth time or money. The existence of God has not, but no one has come up with any experiments for this, so as a scientist it is unintesting as well.

Jon Miller

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


As far as I know, most people who change faiths are quite willing to admit they were wrong. You seem to be doing the bigfoot thingie now, in defense of a completely false empirical statement. I also would suggest that plenty of people who "beleive" are constantly wrestling with belief. You seem to be taking a personality trait from SOME fundies and attributing it to all believers.

First off, I limited it to "many religionistas and hard atheists" which, while still an over-generalization, is not a blanket assertion re: all religious people. Second, when challenged, I mentioned some first-hand experience, which I know perfectly well doesn't mean that all [insert any category you want here] are a certain way.

So no, I am most certainly NOT attributing this personality trait to all believers. In fact, I'm attributing it to a small subset of people, who seem to tend toward the fanatical. If I wasn't clear on that point, my apologies.

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian


A 'poly poll. There's a good data set for ya!

An alternative explanation could be that a person who was not raised religious (or as some might say, indoctrinated) would, as an adult, find religion absurd. Whereas, you get 'em while they're young...

-Arrian

Err, actually, according to the poly poll a similiar number switched athiest to theist as theist to atheist. The result of more theists switching arose from theists switching between different religions, not theists losing their beleif in God (or god(s).

JM

[Arrian]

The point about 'poly poll data stands, though, dontcha think?

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


First off, I limited it to "many religionistas and hard atheists" which, while still an over-generalization, is not a blanket assertion re: all religious people. Second, when challenged, I mentioned some first-hand experience, which I know perfectly well doesn't mean that all [insert any category you want here] are a certain way.

So no, I am most certainly NOT attributing this personality trait to all believers. In fact, I'm attributing it to a small subset of people, who seem to tend toward the fanatical. If I wasn't clear on that point, my apologies.

-Arrian

well then, I agree with you. Fanatics tend to be, well, fanatical. I dont care much for fanatics. Now take another look at the EJ quote.

[Arrian]

Why? I already gave him the in my first post in the thread. I read it, considered it, disapproved and said so. The end, on to more interesting things

-Arrian

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Obviously you didn't hear what the guy actually said.

And obviously you did? What did the guy actually say?

Originally posted by Jon Miller
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?

Numerous reasons:
1. Some scientist told me. I can't possibly research and test every dumb claim that comes about. If a bunch of scientists who are knowledgable on the topic say otherwise I'll listen. There is enough empirical data out there showing the correctness of the scientific community that I'll believe what mainstream scientists say on matters I don't know Jack about.
2. Contradiction of known theory. Someone who makes claims that seem to be completely in contradiction with known theory usually is a crackpot. I'll dismiss them as crackpots until they give good data.
3. Falsified by testing. If they're proved wrong it's safe to say thier wrong.
4. Untestability/Unwillingness to be tested. A psychic who says "My psychic powers don't work in the presence of skeptics" is just as much full of crap as one who doesn't.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
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.

What about Paley's Natural Theology? I'd say it's based highly observation and experimentation.

[Elok]

I'll just repeat my usual objection: Discussing the "odds" of the existence of God--an "event" which, assuming for the sake of argument that it did occur, was utterly unique and unprecedented--is sublimely idiotic. Were there no God, things might very well look exactly as they are. If there were a God...things might very well look exactly as they are.

The absence of scientific evidence means nothing given that we cannot account for God's intentions assuming He exists--and so anything we could obtain as scientifically admissible evidence would point to anything *but* God. I am aware that the same is also true for Invisible Pink Unicorn, or whatever degrading strawman-meme may have replaced him in atheist circles, but IPU is not claimed to exist by anyone, nor is he ever alleged to make contact with human beings, or any of the other characteristics of deity aside from invisibility.

AFAICT, when people say "the odds are against it," they mean only "I am not interested in believing it, reason unspecified."

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Why? I already gave him the in my first post in the thread. I read it, considered it, disapproved and said so. The end, on to more interesting things

-Arrian

Sigh, another discussion of whether "atheism" is a "faith"? I fail to see what is interesting, or useful, in that. (which btw, is not the argument that everyone lives for something, and that is their "god" - which also got sidetracked into aspergerian hyperfocus on the dictionary definition of "god" and missed the point of the metaphor)

[Arrian]

AFAICT, when people say "the odds are against it," they mean only "I am not interested in believing it, reason unspecified.

Rephrase: "I don't find it plausible, reason(s) unspecified."

-Arrian

[Provost Harrison]

Despite my stand, I must admit though, I'd rather ban Elton John