you know why I prefer science to religion?

[Bill McBlueState]

It's the ability of scientific inquiry to build a consensus.

Early in the twentieth century, some cosmologists believed that the universe had always existed, while some believed it had a beginning at a finite time in the past. After just a couple decades, the evidence overwhelmingly supported the big bang theory instead of steady state cosmology. Today, the big bang theory is the default position among cosmologists, while the steady state universe is a contrarian position.

The same process took place in resolving the debate between Darwin's and Lamarck's conceptions of evolution. And in the future, we can expect to see a resolution between the quantum and the macroscopic descriptions of the world.

But to look at an example from the sphere of religion, Muslims claim that God is indivisible, having no need for such a thing as a son, while Christians claim that God is a trinity. These claims are mutually exclusive, yet there is no way to determine -- to the satisfaction of all parties involved -- which claim is true. Wars have been fought over less critical issues than the very nature of God, so it seems to me that religious diversity in a "small" world is a recipe for conflict. Science, on the other hand, is self-correcting, and progresses toward a single description of reality with little or no violence.

Are religious people bothered by this inability for religion to reach a consensus about even the most basic properties of its central object of study?

[beam me up scottie]

1. I think the ones who use words like "fundie-scientist" are bothered.

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeally bothered.

[Jim Sagle]

2. Because people don't generally kill one another over science.

They DO kill one another USING science, however.

[beam me up scottie]

4. Yeah. Dumb kids.

Whatever happened to using good old rocks and clubs?

[Ready4Change]

3. Religion can reach a consensus.

They try it all the time. Just kill all the unbelievers and Voila! Instant consensus.
:)

[InaneAnanity]

5. Yea. That and...

...don't use contraceptives, birth lots of children and indoctrinate them how you choose.

Instant majority!!!

[cdsilv]

8. Religion is all about FAITH, Science is all about FACT.

There is really no dichotomy.

They are about different aspect of the human mind/(soul?)

"Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

Science is about Hypotheses (Could this be true??), Theory (Here is how it could be true),
Experiment (Let's test the theory with empirical experiments to determine if it is true), and RESULTS (Do our experiments PROVE that it is true????).

AND DOUBT!

The Bush administration BELIEVES, but does not THINK! (except in the framework of politics).

Therefore they avoid the disconnect with reality.

Oh, God, we've re-entered the middle ages......

[beam me up scottie]

9. Give that man a rubber chicken.

Welcome to The Dark Ages: The Sequel

[BattyDem]

6. Science involves logic, reason and fact ....

three things that don't exist in religion - it's all based on "faith" which, by definition, is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

I understand why people need to believe in a higher being, but I don't understand the need to exclude all logic and reason in order to preserve that belief. If you believe you were created by a higher being, then why not use the brain that higher being gave you? :eyes:

[jobycom]

7. You're selling Christianity short

Remember in the fourth century when some Christians believed that Jesus was the literal incarnate son of God, and others believed he was simply a human who was endowed with divinity after his birth? Now Christians overwhelmingly believe that Jesus was the incarnate son, and Nestorian Christians were rightfully labeled heretics and executed or driven out of Christendom.

Science could learn a thing or two, if you ask me.

To be serious though, consensus doesn't always mean correctness. Ask Aristarchus of Samos, who was criticized for claiming the Earth rotated on an axis and the sun was the center of the universe. His critics claimed he was a fool, because he could not construct a mathematical model that would correctly predict the motions of the planets and the sun using his thesis. Even Copernicus faced similar criticism a millenium later, though most saw that his system would work better once the math was figured out.

My only point is that it wasn't stubbornness, stupidity or religious fervor that caused people to reject Aristarchus, it was that the best minds of the time felt his ideas did not hold up to science or math. I'm sure somewhere down the line we'll lose one or two of our cherished beliefs, too, and be ridiculed by future generations as superstitious idiots for it.

And no, I have no predictions over which ones! :-)

And don't take that statement as any criticism of science or any claim that we should teach religion instead of science, or anything of the sort. It is only meant to be a claim critical of certainty.

[Psephos]

11. I have a recommendation for you :-)

Try to find a copy of James Burke's documentary The Day the Universe Changed. From your post, my guess is that you will think (like I do) that it's one of the greatest science documentaries of all time.

Peace.

[greyl]

12. I think Christianity sells humanity short.

But it sure is selling. ;)

On Aristarchus et al, it's interesting that he died 2 centuries BC and that since then humans have walked on the Moon. Compared that with the progress of Christianity, which I suppose we could measure by the ever increasing Christ-like behaviour of Christians and Christian leaders, the OP's point that science is "better than" religion because of peer review, consensus, and the abondoning of non-working theories is supported.

edit: meanwhile, in LBN, a US religious group has just condemned the Iraq war. In the nick of time.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2121668

[jobycom]

17. At it's worst, sure

But then, so does science, at it's worst. Science was used to justify Hitler's racist ideas (thus WW II), as well as to justify slavery and segregation in America (Civil War, lynchings, etc). It's been used to experiment on human beings medically, to build the most horrendous weapons imaginable, etc. Some of the best horror stories have focused on the inhumanity of science. Science treats humans as subjects, as temporary objects in a large experiment, and that's not always humanizing.

Religion at it's best convinces humans that they are the unique while being part of something bigger. It convinces them they have a place in the universe, a reason to treat others with compassion and equality, and it gives them a purpose in their dealings with other humans rather than convincing them that they should only take for themselves. It focuses on love, charity, forgiveness, peace.

At it's worst, religion is George W Bush, James Dobson and Usama bin Laden, and at it's best science cures diseases, feeds the world, and gives us cool new toys. You can't just pick the best of one and compare it to the worst of the other.

My theory on the world is that science is a religion, and that religion is only as good or bad as people make it. People use religion to justify things they would do anyway. UBL attacked us for political reasons couched in religious phraseology, and Bush returned the favor. The Crusades had a strong religious patina but underneath they were about trade and empire more than any religious goal--religion was just the team each side rallied around.

The point about Aristarchus is that a concensus was reached and held for 1600 years in the West, and it was wrong. So just reaching a concensus is nothing special, unless you are a politician, or married.

And religion was the only source of learning and knowledge in the west for a thousand years after the fall of Rome. All learning was written down by religious monks, and without them, it might have died completely. As the earth cooled and warmed and crops failed then thrived, religious institutions created the only forms of government that were based on a sense of human rights, rather than on pillaging and plundering. When the west did begin to accept science again, it came through the Muslim world and Muslim religion. It's inaccurate to say religion has never built anything. It would be impossible to explain the development of our sense of equality and democracy without reference to what religion contributed. (It also had the opposite affect, of course).

Who knows what religion will accomplish in the next 1600 years? It's not interested in putting people on the moon. It's interested in understanding how human beings should live together, care for their world, and feel alive as individuals. Some religions do this better than others, but that's religion at it's best. After science finishes melting our icecaps and slaughtering half the planet, maybe religion is what will teach us to leave in peace and harmony with the planet again.

Or maybe not. :-)

[greyl]

19. No, at it's best. I want to be clear on that.

I'm sure there are thousands of Christians who are progressive thinkers, are usually altruistic, are usually empathetic to other life, are usually peaceful-minded, and generally care about Taking Care of Their Goodness, but in my mind they aren't true Christians at all.

They are post-Christian.

They are willing to incorporate their superior non-deistic ethics with the fallacious dogma they identify with culturally, but are emotionally attached to the identity "Christian". I'm not aware of one that is living their life following the ideal of the Christ.

It's only a matter of faith that the Christian God lavished care on every creature on earth except humans. Christianity says humans are the only creatures on earth that are divinely flawed and in need of salvation.

In my opinion, this is a horrible way to look at our place in the community of life.
It's also a sneaky way of blaming God, hence humanity, for the problems of our young and experimental culture.

[jobycom]

24. Your hate is blinding you

First, I wasn't talking only about Christianity, but all religions. Second, your idea that Christianity originally claimed that all humans were flawed is wrong--that's in Judaism, but for a couple of centuries it wasn't necessarily part of the faith of the followers of Jesus. When early Christianity began searching for a history, they attached themselves to Judaism, since Jesus was born in that culture and they could claim he fulfilled their prophecies. So what you see as "post Christian" was in the faith--and the teachings of Jesus--from the beginning.

Third, you are being hypocritical to claim that science doesn't have the same basic principle. Aging is seen as a natural flaw, and genetics shape us from conception. We are predisposed to have physical and mental illnesses, and emotional flaws, which require medication to correct. Depression is no longer something we feel because of circumstances, it is an affliction of our weak chemistry, and we take pills to cure it. We have a spiritual flaw, according to science, in that we basically have no spirit. Our basic instincts are our needs for survival, food, sex and companionship naturally incline us to selfish, evil acts. The highest goal of most religions is love, and yet science reduces this highest of all human virtues to a series of chemical reactions designed to force us to procreate through lust and to care for our young. That's dehumanizing.

Unlike religion, though, science offers no cure for these flaws. We are supposed to muddle through as best we can, and enforce a strong legal code so that we all behave as much as possible. Our nasty, short, brutish life is written in our genes and our DNA.

Religion and science both see humans as flawed from the beginning. Only religion cares to offer a way out of it. Your premise is biased and deluded, and shows what you want to be the case, not what is. That's unscientific, so you violate your own religion.

As for the "post-Christian" silliness--religion, like science, is constantly changing to new conditions, so there is no such thing as "post-Christian," unless you are refering to a time after Christianity has disappeared, or to a point in a person's life after they have rejected Christianity.

[greyl]

27. What's your excuse? :)

"First, I wasn't talking only about Christianity"

I was replying with your subject line in mind: "You're selling Christianity short"

"Second, your idea that Christianity originally claimed that all humans were flawed is wrong"

I never made that claim.

"Third, you are being hypocritical to claim that science doesn't have the same basic principle."

You've got to be kidding. Science has the principle that humans are born in need of divine salvation?


"As for the "post-Christian" silliness-..."

I rather like the term, and find it useful.

[greyl]

10. That's an important point.

To my eyes, it's very doubtful that a meaningful consensus will ever be reached by the 5 major salvationist religions. Unlike the body of scientific knowledge, religious faith is "born into" - it's so ingrained in the immediate culture and identity of a person, that it's not as easy to evolve. It's possible, but damn difficult. Throw in the current overpopulation problem and battle for resources, and the conflicts of fundamentalist faith become scary.
In contrast, the tribal religions that pre-date the big 5 by probably at least 200,000 years were usually not interested in converting other tribes. They didn't think they had some divine secret on how people should live, they just knew that their way worked for them.
There's no such thing as an Inuit missionary or a Yaka Fatwah.

"Are religious people bothered by this inability for religion to reach a consensus about even the most basic properties of its central object of study?"

Among religious moderates, faith salad believers, non-skeptics, and non-atheists, I'm sure you've seen the behavior of ignoring their differences temporarily in order to play on the same team against non-believers and their "rude" questions. ;) Typically, those people will also side agains the "bad" fundamentalists, however they remain unwilling to even consider that moderate salvationist religion is anti-human and that such a huge and life-directing concept as God needs to be open to rational peer review to remain relevant.

...they're all products of the same culture and all view humans as the very "subject" of religion, innately flawed, doomed to suffering and misery, and in need of salvation (whether it be eternal life in heaven or release from the cycle of death and rebirth). Together, they function as our culture's harem of scolding wives: always moaning about their greedy and materialistic husband, always trying to get him to lift his eyes to higher, nobler things.

Ecumenism among our culture's religions is not about reducing competition among themselves but rather about standing shoulder to shoulder against the common foe---modern skepticism and contempt. They would like to be perceived as no longer squabbling among themselves over petty differences but as together representative of some great, undeniable fundamental truth that the common foe MUST respect. These cultural siblings would smile on my work if I was willing to introduce animism into their company as a sort of retarded little brother, but they're certainly going to object strenuously to my identifying it as humanity's ancient, mighty mainstream and relegating them to a ver recently-formed (and now stagnant) backwater. Luckily I don't need (or even want) them to smile on my work.
http://www.ishmael.org/Interaction/QandA/Detail.CFM?Record=77

[Hardrada]

13. You aren't encouraged to rush up front of science class

to say how bad you are or eat a sacred wafer.

[sam sarrha]

14. some of the bloodiest was over a Greek Diphthong, jesus is/as god, the

rift between eastern christianity and the pope.. and the Fundamentalist Christians today and the Modernists is that Christ is god or gods son, or inspired by god as a man.

Buddhists have the best cosmology, ..it simply doesn't matter..it just always was, what is important is freeing yourself and others form eternal cyclical suffering caused by desire and grasping, separating the subject and object.. or not realizing that nothing inherently exists

[Hardrada]

15. and that nothing lasts.

[heidler1]

16. Historically even religions do not last. I predict that the demise of

Christianity will come about when a new religion promises more to the poor while giving more earthly protection to the rich.

[Desertrose]

18. Better still if people could..or would

just walk away from all religions and use their own hearts & brains to see that under our differences...we are all brothers....and you don't treat "family" the way we have been doing.


But I ain't holding my breath on that happening anytime real soon.

[Dogmudgeon]

22. The advantage to holding one's breath ...

... is that it allows one to test the concept of an Afterlife experientially.

And if they ever let us bring instrumentation, we'll be able to do it scientifically!

(Do E-Meters count?)

--p!
"Only up to ten, Mudhead."
(HCYBTPAOWYRNAA)

[Desertrose]

26. be nice, huh? But ya hold your breath and as soon as

you pass out ...you automatically start that ol' breathing thing again.....

The instrumentation would be a real kick in the pants, wouldn't it? ooooh. VERIFIABLE SCIENTIFIC evidence..wonder what would happen next?

:evilgrin:

DR

[Evoman]

20. Funny aint it

Yeah...its funny when you think about it. No way the ancient Greeks could imagine that their gods would be obsolete in a couple of thousand years, and that a new model would come on the market. Thats part of what led me to atheism when I was a kid.

If almost every god since the beginning of humanity has been thrown out, what makes Christians think we won't toss out their Gandolf in the Sky on his ass in a couple of thousand years. Zeus, Jehovah, Jesus, Mohammad, Quizecotl, Anansi, Jupiter, Osiris, Krishna, Voodoo-man.....they're all going to be tossed out someday. Its all bullshit. It was bullshit in the past, its bullshit now, and it will always be bullshit. BULLSHIT. In five thousand years, the post-nuclear world will find a transcript of the movie Biodome in some broken city and will worship Paulie Shore as the one true god. Count on it.

Evoman

[greyl]

21. Authentic Buddhism is salvationist, too.

Firstly, I think it's probable that if everyone turned Buddhist tomorrow that the world would be a more peaceful place than it is today.
However, "freeing yourself and others form eternal cyclical suffering caused by desire and grasping, separating the subject and object.. or not realizing that nothing inherently exists" remains a response of humans to their culture and not of humans to their universe.

[Dogmudgeon]

23. Argumentum Ad Pornographiam

A lot of arguments about religion suffer from Argumentum Ad Pornographiam, or the Supreme Court's defintion of porn: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it!" Most of the anti-religion people can manage a to cobble together a recognizable definition of science, even if it atrociously assembled, but when it comes to religion, no definitions are attempted, and the only discernable theme seems to be "anything I hate".

There's plenty to hate about most religion(s), but it leads to a certain non-scientific approach, as well as serious misunderstandings of what the religions are supposed to be about, and disrespect for the non-asshole followers. For instance, the example the OP gave involving Christian Trinitarianism and Muslim monism is seriously flawed. It misrepresents what both religions actually profess. The idea of multiple manifestations of a single deity is common among religions, pre-dates Christianity, and it will probably eventually collect numerous posts angrily trying prove the point that those evil Christians "stole" the idea from the Pagans, Native Americans, Buddhists, or The Foundation Trilogy.

From the Muslim side, both Judaism and Christianity are considered to be co-fraternal religions, with Jews and Christians as "People of The Book". Trinitarianism, then, isn't perceived by most Muslims as a heresy as much as a misunderstanding of God's Word, the same argument non-Trinitarian Christians make.

The assumption that religions lead to war via discrepancies in their beliefs is an oversimplification that carries the risk of biting the critic of religion in the ass. In the quest to inplicate religion in as many crimes against humanity as possible, the anti-religious make fallacious arguments often without a second thought; any minor association is enough proof.

Most wars ascribed to religious differences have been demonstrably caused by non-religious reasons, with religion acting as the pretext. It is just as fallacious to make statements like "Christianity caused the downfall of Communism" when public display of Christianity behind the Iron Curtain was a token of opposition to Communist tyranny, not the "cause" of its destruction. The official atheism of Communism has been cited as THE reason for the Communist tyranny, but that, too, is only guilt by association; too many examples exist to exonerate AND de-glorify religion in warfare.

Guilt and/or Glory by Association is dangerous to partisans, especially the ones proposing Science as the cure, replacement, successor and substitute for Religion as a preventive to war. Most military leaders in the last 100 years have studied a subject called "Military Science", so most, if not all, wars are started by science -- right? Another untenable over-simplification is the drive that some leaders have to test out their new war toys, which could legitimately be called a scientific impulse. Arguments over religion as the cause for this war or that must be qualified like arguments for any other cause.

Of course, there are still more problems, one of which is in trying to evaluate matters of faith as if they were claims of science. The quote, "Are religious people bothered by this inability for religion to reach a consensus about even the most basic properties of its central object of study?" expresses just this fundamental error. In addition, within the realm of theology itself, there IS significant consensus about the nature of God, whether as an individual being, or abstracted in formal philosophy as noumena. That the properties of God are dissimilar to the properties of Ytterbium or Escherichia coli poses no real threat to either religion or science.

Ultimately, trying to arrange a death-cage match between Science and non-Science ends in absurdity on both sides. It makes just as much sense to debunk love, or to consider Britney Spears's left elbow versus the Metric system.

At which point, we enter the realm of 'Pataphysics.

--p!
Occam was a Catholic Priest
He loved his little shavers
And at the Eucharistic Feast
He buzzed the grateful Savior
('Patawidgeon of Ülm)

[heidler1]

25. IMO A large majority of humans live in a wish was world of basic bullshit.

Any attempt to get them to face reality is doomed. Selfishness is the controlling influence, but the spectrum of selfishness is mallable and expandable so as to include even Gods. Of course this imaginary God must have more to offer then the alternative of no God at all. Eternal life is pretty sweet if you can still do what ever you please while professing belief. It will take a very imaginable person to top that, but it is surely inevitable.

Non believers like myself doubt the logic and probability of any Gods existence. The promised reward is therefore a bad joke.

[Dogmudgeon]

28. This assumes an afterlife and a regressive ethical code

It accounts for a significant minority of Fundamentalists of all faiths, but it doesn't explain most believers' motivations. Many believers don't have much of an interest in the afterlife, some don't connect ethical codes to religion directly, and yet others have an entirely different idea of God and religion altogether.

One of the basest reasons for religionizing is a belief in an afterlife with a wonderfully pleasurable Heaven and a terribly painful Hell -- and the desire to get on the side of the deity that decides who goes where. This strongly resembles the way a child deals with strict (religious?) parents who dole out love based on obedience, and administer "Biblical correction" for misbehavior. Their lives are driven by avoidance of the pain of punishment and the struggle for parental love, and as they grow up, it's internalized as the heaven-hell-and-Poppa-God belief system. In a "normal" childhood, punishment is mild and infrequent, and love is abundant and not based on performances made to fit the parents' desires. The out-of-balance system in harsh religious homes is Alice Miller's "Poisonous Pedagogy" inflicted from the point of view of theology. It seems to be the approximate level of belief that you have described.

Lawrence Kohlberg has described a model of moral development (also see this page for a simpler schematic of Kohlberg's work) that has also been used by some theologians. It suggests a similar system of "spiritual" development within religious belief systems. While it doesn't prove or disprove the existence of God or an afterlife, it does give support to the idea that many or most believers are not motivated by anticipating eternal rewards and punishments.

--p!

[heidler1]

30. IMO One of the big drivers of religious belief is a natural desire for

tribal elitism. Hitler used this with his master race crap. Religions use it all of the time with our God is better than your God and picking on human unacceptable types like gays and any other difference that was condemned in the Bible.

We have not changed in this regard. Worse yet they match it up with morality and sin. Some of it makes sense like locking up pedophiles, but does it really help? Step one would appear to be acceptance that some humans did not develop physically and or mentally correct and see if it can be medically corrected.

[greyl]

31. I wouldn't call it tribal elitism, exactly.

Behavior like that isn't found among tribal people.

I'd call it believing that there is only "one right way to live".

[heidler1]

32. My view of history is that the Indian tribes in both N. & S. A. often

killed and some ate intruders. Some tribes hunted, killed and ate non tribal members. It is very rare today. The Eskimo's did too. The African tribes were doing it when I was a kid. There were frequent stories in the paper of missionaries being eaten that I remember, which seemed kind of fair treatment toward someone who thinks their religion was neat and the tribe's sucked. IMO a big part of the glue that holds tribes together is elitism. I'm sure this happened in Europe and Asia too. A lot of this was due to hunger.

[Goblinmonger]

29. A couple examples to test your inductive theory

Crusades
Inquisition
Salem Witch Trials

Those seem to be pretty religiously driven.

[InaneAnanity]

35. Correction

InquisitionS

Heretics were murdered for hundreds of years, from around 1000 up until the 20th century. The Vatican only denounced the practice in 1918, and some South American countries kept killing people after that.

[Inland]

41. Oversimplification and false causality stalks the debate, I agree.

Mistaking association with causality, people see religious and even religion on both sides of a war and presume that religion caused it, leading to the conclusion that if religion were eliminated so would war.

Moreover, science involves observable phenomena. That science often ends up in consensus isn't surprising, given the subject matter. Compare the causes of soil salinity that with a question of, should I give to charity and how much? or How regressive should the tax system be? and suddenly you see WHY science is more fun. It's relatively bloodless, and nobody's pocket is picked by whether lemurs are descended from meekrats or vice versa.

I also wonder about the "lack of consensus" on the subject matter. In fact, decisions on the nature of god are pretty much set in the 4/O range. What's fought over is all the human stuff, like charity and tax systems and government and compelling orthodoxy. The politics.

[Goblinmonger]

44. False Causality?

I could teach irony to my English students for weeks with only using you as an example.

Perhaps you can answer, then, oh wise one, what the TRUE causalities would be for the following in not religion:

Inquisition(s)
Crusade(s)
Salem Witch Trials

And in the land of induction, those are pretty big examples to just ignore.

[InaneAnanity]

45. Don't forget

The systematic extermination of the Jews over hundreds of years, and our current cartoon issue as a modern example.

[Goblinmonger]

46. I don't think Inland

wants to talk to me. I think he's mad about something I said. x(

So many examples of religion causing evil things, so few theists wanting to admit it.

[InaneAnanity]

47. But, but...

Those people weren't REALLY following the tenets of their religion. They misread THE BOOK.

The problem will be solved by MORE religious indoctrination, not LESS!!!

[Goblinmonger]

52. Isn't that priceless

Don't try to do something to fix the evil shit that comes from your dogma, just close your eyes really tight and say they aren't really following the dogma.

[Inland]

33. But science doesn't ask how people should live

Science doesn't answer any of the philosophic quarrels between people, and it avoids them. Can science tell us how to live a good life? Can science determine right and wrong? Can science write our laws? Which form of government to use? Whether to give to charity? Whether to vote?

If it did, then there wouldn't be scientists on both sides of warring nations.

Science skips normative debate and matters not measurable. By it's reaching consensus is a function of concentrating on the matters that subject to experiment and proof.

[InaneAnanity]

34. That's what makes science GOOD

and what makes religion BAD.

Science doesn't create warring factions. Religion does.

[Inland]

36. Well, something has to concern themselves with how people should live.

Otherwise, you get bad people excusing their bad behavior through science, like someone saying that prejudice and bigotry are matters of biology, or the rulers of that big country based on scientific principles, who managed to find plenty of reasons to slaughter people without the help of religion.



My guess is that most people on a political website know that political, not scientific, consensus is still required.

[Goblinmonger]

37. Russia

was based on scientific principles? Perhaps you could enlighten me to those founding principles? I thought Marx just offered a philosophical position upon which Lenin and Stalin added their own twist (albeit sick).

[beam me up scottie]

40. Yes, he has claimed that they were evil because they were atheists.

It would be nice if he could make up his mind which particular historical revision he's going with in each thread.

[InaneAnanity]

38. How do you "know" that??

Care to explain??

[Inland]

39. It's. A. Political. Party. Forum.

If you don't know that the entire issue is how people should be living, then you've missed the point of just about everything. What did you think this was, a christian bashing site? A place for you to make general contradictions and pick fights after having a few? Really, this isn't the place for your intial socialization. Bubble boys, sheesh.

[InaneAnanity]

42. Inland

What are you doing now, projecting???

You have serious psychological issues, my man.

[Inland]

48. How come you miss something that every other person catches?

You did know it's a political party forum, and that issues of how people should live might, just might, come up in the discussion of politics?

A person who didn't have an interest in those types of questions wouldn't have much to post about. No wonder you've got so few subjects of interest.

[InaneAnanity]

49. Science has answers

Religion breeds mistrust of science. Politics would be much, much simpler sans religion.

I'd wager most of the things politicians debate, at least one side of the debate is fueled by a religious viewpoint.

Without religion, we could agree on much more. Of course there still would be things to debate, but the debate would at least be based in this reality.

[Inland]

54. Oversimplification and false causality.

You know, if not for the anti religion people telling us that in fact it's all about religion, all of us who participate in politics wouldn't have any idea how we are all motivated by religion or by being anti religion. I mean, who knew, besides you and Pat Robertson that everything was so simple?

Sheesh.

[InaneAnanity]

59. Things aren't simple

I'm not saying they are simple.

YOU are saying that I'm saying that things are simple, when in fact, I've never said that.

[Goblinmonger]

43. I'm starting to think you have me on your ignore list

I think the question was how do you "know" that science is the basis for Hitler and Stalin. Glad to see you have added Stalin to your list of Christian Apologist Crusades (yep, that's right, Stalin was a Russian Orthodox and went to a seminary, I said it. His crimes took place because of his dogmatic and crazy view of Marxism, not atheism--though I will admit that he died an atheist).

And who, exactly, made you the DU SS (get it, it's a Hitler reference like you toss out all the time)? You get to decide what this forum is about, now? And I really like the comparision you make to someone who disagrees with you to Bush.

Something for you to think about: Sometimes, to the person in the bubble, it might look like everyone else is in a bubble.

[beam me up scottie]

50. Congratulations!

You are the winner of the Inland's Ignore List of Honor Award!

[Goblinmonger]

51. Thank you. Thank you.

I think I am actually one of the "three dopes" he talked about in the other thread.

I would like to thank all of my fellow atheists, without whom this award would not have been possible.

[beam me up scottie]

53. Oops!

I guess we'll have have another category.

If you're an Inland Dope, you get an extra night out on the town, to be spent persecuting christians and eating their babies.

[Goblinmonger]

55. If I ever get down to your redneck of the woods

we'll have a good old-fashioned, atheist, fetus fry. Wash it down with some ale.

Found a perfect lapel pin for the Inland Dopes

[beam me up scottie]

56. We use moonshine down here.

I love the pin!

I've used these in the past

[Goblinmonger]

57. I love the "I'm with Stupid" one.

We have a commercial for our cable company (Time Warner) that has a guy that got that tattoed on his chest (pointing up at himself).

[beam me up scottie]

58. Snort!

I wonder if the stupids around here would get the joke?

[Evoman]

61. Who knows

Maybe someday there will be a science of ethics based on neuroscience, psychology, and nature. Who knows.

Its an interesting topic anyways.

[manic expression]

60. It's not one or the other

why do you think from such a mindset? If you respect science (which is pretty agreeable), are you bound to show none for religion? Of course not. To bound oneself to this sort of dilemma can only contribute to a decrease in perspective.

One thing about Lamarck. Epigenetics, Lamarck's theory, is gaining a lot of support now. I, for one, think that Lamarck will be shown to have a lot more of a point than anyone gives him credit for, and that opinion is not so unfounded.

Let's look at religion, shall we? Once, pretty much all Christians in Western Europe owed alliegence to the Vatican, today, that has radically changed. If you want a "consensus" in religion, look no further than the Nicene Council (I think that this is a bad influence, as diversity of thought is lost). Change happens in everything, religion included.

On tolerance, Muslims have always claimed what you say they have, but they also have a history of tolerating Christians and Jews under the most trying of circumstances (the Crusades come to mind). In Central Asia, India, Africa and other regions, many different religions coexisted for ages.

Does science suck because of pollution caused by new technologies? Or because two cities were wiped off the face of the Earth because of advancements in nuclear science? Or because the repeating rifle has enabled the massacre of countless people? Or that the invention of the motor has led to untold amounts of vehicle accidents? I think pretty much everyone would agree that those arguments would be misled, and I think it is similar when talking about religion.

Just my opinion.