To shit with respect!

[Billy]

No, of course you are not trying to persecute people, that is not what I meant!

But there is a sort of a continuum between disrespect ----------> persecution that seems to exist; persecution is at the very very far, extreme end of this continuum. And no, I do not think talking about atheism or questioning people's beliefs is persecution.

There is an extreme end of religion that is most definitely harmful, just like there is an extreme end of atheism that is also harmful, both extremes involve persecution, which to me has an awful lot in common with disrespect. Maybe we have too much of the extreme religion in the world today, probably we do, but I'd rather have moderate religion than extreme atheism, if I had a choice.

Overall, it would make more sense to say, "Hey, your laws are infringing upon my rights." than to say "Dumbass, why are you religious, fool?" And I think that is what seems to be happening in many places today -- the law thing, not the dumbass thing.

Well, that's just the thing. People who are kind and moderate tend not to change things. To liken this to the Christian aspect, Jesus was extremely radical. He didnt sit aorund and say, hey guys lets just respect the Romans and mind our business in the corner. He didnt say lets stay respectful with the Rabbis in control, he went to the temple and smashed that shit up. He told his followers when a Roman strikes you turn your other cheek. That isnt about love thats about resisting the notion at the time that the Romans were superior to the Hebrews. If you get back handed and offer the other cheek you are saying 2 things.

1. I am in control of this.
2. I am on your level.

Quiet well behaved moderates dont make history.

 

[acd]

Well, the thing is... those original viewpoints I wrote, are not actually my view points, I was simply playing the devils advocate. Which is why I wasn't sure of what @acd was asking me... maybe she thought I actually believe that... I don't. I was simply making a point. And yeah in my standard fashion I made it with some bloviating style. What can I say, I am bombastic.

That being said, well, I guess PS3 is technically better as far as its tech specs go. Not to mention backwards compatibility for older games, and blu ray capabilities. Xbox 360 is superior in that it has better exclusives (Halo, Gears of War) a better controller (IMO) and Xbox live, although Live is not what it used to be... oh and much better achievements.

Which one is better? meh, its up to personal taste. I have both though. LOL

I did seriously think that. My comprehension skills were lacking that day.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Sounds like you're trying to say that because say I or anyone else are not actual scientists we believe on faith. This is an ignorant comment. Faith requires blind belief, fact does not.

In essence, you are advocating an extreme Sensor preference: if I cannot verify something with my senses (or senses assisted by instruments) - then it is moot.

If this is your position, then it would be illogical for you to ever guess/hypothesize/estimate/ponder/attribute any intention to any person - because although we can see evidence of intention in people's actions/words/writings/etc. we cannot actually verify either the nature, or the existence of intention. So, what's with the accusations against historical figures?

Moreover, most of our theories and technical advances have come about through the engagement of the imagination of possible outcomes. However, if we were to reject all but the facts, we would only live from day to day, stumbling across things without any sense of predictability.

 

[myself]

respect is healthy

we share this space
be considerate

don't litter

it's good to consider consequences
'to shit with respect' sounds like a dangerous, reckless attitude

consideration, sensitivity, responsibility and respect make the world a better place generally speaking.

 

[Trifoilum]

In essence, you are advocating an extreme Sensor preference: if I cannot verify something with my senses (or senses assisted by instruments) - then it is moot.

If this is your position, then it would be illogical for you to ever guess/hypothesize/estimate/ponder/attribute any intention to any person - because although we can see evidence of intention in people's actions/words/writings/etc. we cannot actually verify either the nature, or the existence of intention. So, what's with the accusations against historical figures?

Moreover, most of our theories and technical advances have come about through the engagement of the imagination of possible outcomes. However, if we were to reject all but the facts, we would only live from day to day, stumbling across things without any sense of predictability.

Yeah, this... :|
Taking what Billy said in the context Flavus cut; I'm quite confused with the core @Billy 's attacking; its lack of proof, its 'blindness';
For no-- they have proofs. What they are feeling; the salvation, the protection, the safety, the forgiveness, the grace, the stupidity, the conformity, the restraint-- whatever you called it.

True, that does -not- make one thing true and one thing false, but that is the matter of belief. :|
It's as if they -- or humans, should not believe. Should not feel at all. Senses, senses, senses.

 

[Apone]

In essence, you are advocating an extreme Sensor preference: if I cannot verify something with my senses (or senses assisted by instruments) - then it is moot.

If this is your position, then it would be illogical for you to ever guess/hypothesize/estimate/ponder/attribute any intention to any person - because although we can see evidence of intention in people's actions/words/writings/etc. we cannot actually verify either the nature, or the existence of intention. So, what's with the accusations against historical figures?

Moreover, most of our theories and technical advances have come about through the engagement of the imagination of possible outcomes. However, if we were to reject all but the facts, we would only live from day to day, stumbling across things without any sense of predictability.

Most possible outcomes are hypothesized according to their likelihood, usually after observing/familiarizing one's self with the facts that have already been established. This is why people get educations, so that they don't go around believing that storks might deliver babies and Santa Claus is going to help them pay off their mortgage if they're good this year. As romantic as the notion may seem, progress (if you can call it that) has not been a series of giant leaps.. it has been a lot of baby steps, taken by people who have educated themselves in their fields and familiarized themselves with the facts. The actual breakthroughs are not arrived at spontaneously through dizzying flights of the imagination.

Refusing to believe in God isn't indicative of a weak imagination any more than not believing in leprechauns, unicorns, etc... it's called critical thinking, which, by the way, is also an essential component of success/progress.

 

[MrDoobie]

Moreover, most of our theories and technical advances have come about through the engagement of the imagination of possible outcomes. However, if we were to reject all but the facts, we would only live from day to day, stumbling across things without any sense of predictability.

To advocate atheism and scientific thinking is not the rejection of possibility or imagination.

#1 - I can't speak for all atheists, of course, but I do not reject the possibility that there might be a god. However, based on the evidence we have collected it seems unlikely (Occam's Razor). Furthermore, all the deities and dogma's mankind have developed over our time on this Earth are unsatisfying to me, intellectually. I don't see any reason why I should believe in a god when, A) it seems unlikely that there is one, and B) it's even less likely that the "true god" would be one understood by humans or even capable of being understood by humans.

#2 - There are key differences between science and faith, even in areas such as theory or invention. Nothing was invented just because. Inventions and progress are the result of observation of the world around the inventor and building upon previously established theory and collected knowledge.

What you're doing is misrepresenting the argument.

 

[Apone]

Yeah, this... :|
For no-- they have proofs. What they are feeling; the salvation, the protection, the safety, the forgiveness, the grace, the stupidity, the conformity, the restraint-- whatever you called it.

True, that does -not- make one thing true and one thing false, but that is the matter of belief. :|
It's as if they -- or humans, should not believe. Should not feel at all. Senses, senses, senses.

Feeling isn't the same thing as belief.

Some people feel things and tell themselves that the feelings themselves are enough, some people feel the need to attribute those feelings to something else... but really, unless you actually know (which you don't), then it's dishonest to claim that you do... because how do you know that you aren't being made to feel these things by a sinister power?

Provoking irrational feelings at the expense of reason is a key function of propaganda, after all.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Most possible outcomes are hypothesized according to their likelihood, usually after observing/familiarizing one's self with the facts that have already been established. This is why people get educations, so that they don't go around believing that storks might deliver babies and Santa Claus is going to help them pay off their mortgage if they're good this year. As romantic as the notion may seem, progress (if you can call it that) has not been a series of giant leaps.. it has been a lot of baby steps, taken by people who have educated themselves in their fields and familiarized themselves with the facts. The actual breakthroughs are not arrived at spontaneously through dizzying flights of the imagination.

Refusing to believe in God isn't indicative of a weak imagination any more than not believing in leprechauns, unicorns, etc... it's called critical thinking, which, by the way, is also an essential component of success/progress.

What's with attacking unicorns? The European legend was probably based on stories of rhinoceroses.

Anyhow, it does take imagination, beyond the facts, to have the kind of science we have. Our theories on the physical laws/constants (gravity, weak/strong electric force, etc. ) are based on some limited observations. Our theory is that these laws are universally constant. We cannot know that they are universally constant without observing all demonstrative examples, everywhere in the universe constantly. That is to say, we take it on 'faith' that the constants are constant - and with good reason and sound deduction. Similarly, it is not like believing in St Nicholas, beyond the actual saint, to believe that since all existing things everywhere are similarly ordered (display the same physical constants), that the existence of these things, wherever they may be found is caused by a single cause. (ie. God).

What you miss is that our theories are our imaginative constructs, which go beyond sensory observation - but are based on them. The fact that what is sensed can be made sense of intellectually (which is proven by the ability to accurately predict physical phenomena), tells us that everything that exists is intelligible: that there is an orderliness that our intellects can grasp: and this also implies that the cause of existence is orderly, or intelligible and not random and chaotic. (ie. God).

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Well, that's just the thing. People who are kind and moderate tend not to change things. To liken this to the Christian aspect, Jesus was extremely radical. He didnt sit aorund and say, hey guys lets just respect the Romans and mind our business in the corner. He didnt say lets stay respectful with the Rabbis in control, he went to the temple and smashed that shit up. He told his followers when a Roman strikes you turn your other cheek. That isnt about love thats about resisting the notion at the time that the Romans were superior to the Hebrews. If you get back handed and offer the other cheek you are saying 2 things.

1. I am in control of this.
2. I am on your level.

Quiet well behaved moderates dont make history.

Ok. To shit with respect. But only when something more important is at stake.

But that is only a transferal of respect, because to continue to respect the ordinary in spite of the extraordinary is indeed to disrespect the extraordinary.

 

[Trifoilum]

Feeling isn't the same thing as belief.

Some people feel things and tell themselves that the feelings themselves are enough, some people feel the need to attribute those feelings to something else... but really, unless you actually know (which you don't), then it's dishonest to claim that you do... because how do you know that you aren't being made to feel these things by a sinister power?

Provoking irrational feelings at the expense of reason is a key function of propaganda, after all.

True, but as you are implying, one cannot really separate belief from feelings-- or at least why they choose to believe.

 

[Lavendel]

[video=youtube;PY8fjFKAC5k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY8fjFKAC5k[/video]

If I understood Hitchens corectly, I do agree with most of the things he said. However, I have this conflict when it comes to criticising religion, especially other religions than christianity. I know I do it myself, I can never understand Islam, but then this little political correct pixie on my right shoulder whisper in my ear, telling me I'm being racist.
I have two attitudes to religion, or maybe it's three: one is, live and let live. I can't change peoples opinion, if they want to believe they can believe. Also: the historian in me and my interest in culture loves religion. Absolutely adore it. Especially catholicism for it's wonderful, bloody, gruesome, beautiful history. And the knowledge so much art and science came from that institution. And also the fantastic architecture: I will never forget the feeling of walking in the vatican, or stepping into Notre dame during good friday...
But then I also have this belief, of course you should challange everything. Nothing should be a taboo and everything must be discussed. Discussing and critizising is NOT the same thing as being biased or close minded. ...That is my own idea, but then society has told me the opposite so many times... But then, if there is a climate that allows everything to be a topic of discussion, that would put an end to racism and bias? If everything is discussed and brought to surface, there is no room for fear and ignorance to bloom in the dark corners of our repressed minds?
This text probably doesn't make any sense. I love the culture within religion, and I would be sad if it disappeared. But I am also aware there is nastiness comitted in the name of religion. But I don't believe religion is the sole reason for war and nastiness, it probably goes hand in hand with greed.

 

[MrDoobie]

What you miss is that our theories are our imaginative constructs, which go beyond sensory observation - but are based on them.

You just stated the key difference between science and faith. Namely, that even theoretical stuff like quantum physics or string theory or whatever is based upon observable phenomena or previously gathered information. There is no evidence to suggest that god exists or would even need to exist.

The fact that what is sensed can be made sense of intellectually (which is proven by the ability to accurately predict physical phenomena), tells us that everything that exists is intelligible: that there is an orderliness that our intellects can grasp: and this also implies that the cause of existence is orderly, or intelligible and not random and chaotic. (ie. God).

Read "The Blind Watchmaker".

 

[Poetic Justice]

I think it's funny that some religious people seem intent on inventing a heap of negative consequences to not believing in god that they brand atheiest with.

Really it's laughable. This is what should be ridiculed

 

[Apone]

Anyhow, it does take imagination, beyond the facts, to have the kind of science we have. Our theories on the physical laws/constants (gravity, weak/strong electric force, etc. ) are based on some limited observations. Our theory is that these laws are universally constant. We cannot know that they are universally constant without observing all demonstrative examples, everywhere in the universe constantly. That is to say, we take it on 'faith' that the constants are constant - and with good reason and sound deduction. Similarly, it is not like believing in St Nicholas, beyond the actual saint, to believe that since all existing things everywhere are similarly ordered (display the same physical constants), that the existence of these things, wherever they may be found is caused by a single cause. (ie. God).

What you miss is that our theories are our imaginative constructs, which go beyond sensory observation - but are based on them. The fact that what is sensed can be made sense of intellectually (which is proven by the ability to accurately predict physical phenomena), tells us that everything that exists is intelligible: that there is an orderliness that our intellects can grasp: and this also implies that the cause of existence is orderly, or intelligible and not random and chaotic. (ie. God).

I'm having a hard following you here.

Are you saying that anyone who believes in critical thinking doesn't think imagination is important? That anyone who doesn't believe in God also couldn't possibly believe in an orderly, intelligible universe? That an orderly intelligible universe can't be explained by anything other than the existence of God? That the entire universe and all of its incomprehensible distances is definitely orderly and intelligible? That order and intelligibility, time, consciousness, everything we know and experience… isn't simply an interpretation of a single phenomena spontaneously occurring amongst infinite others in a stranger, more terrifying cosmos where our 'order' is merely one of an infinite number of aesthetics-- expressed in an incomprehensible, unimaginable, causeless, orderless, infinite chaos?

I'm also having a hard time figuring out exactly what you think God is. Are we talking about a deity that requires worship? Did he send his son down to die on the cross? Is he some sort of cosmic emperor? Some kind of particle or naturally occurring force? What attributes God must have in order for someone to actually know that it's really God and not something else?

You claim to be Christian so I'm assuming you mean the Christian God, whose son was Jesus, who created the Earth in six days, who was wrathful and spoke to Moses, and who is a character in the Bible, etc… and then, even if there is order in every single part of every single universe that stretches infinitely beyond what any human being could possibly comprehend, how does any of that render the 'theory' of THAT God's existence somehow more credible than the notion that Santa gave the universe to humans as a present for all of the good things he knew that we would do? Because the meaning of life is more important than getting presents? Says who?

 

[Apone]

True, but as you are implying, one cannot really separate belief from feelings-- or at least why they choose to believe.

You can feel things without knowing what they are, and without claiming that you could ever know what they are or where they're from.

Many organized religions involve deceiving yourself into thinking that you know something that you couldn't possibly know, and accepting heavily politicized, heavily corrupted, and largely obsolete forms of social conditioning as an 'explanation'… because for some people, it isn't enough that they've felt what they've felt, they need to feel like they know what it is, to understand, and in some ways to posses it. It's the same basic idea as when you give something a name, or you make snap judgments about people, etc… you need to have explanations for things/feel like you have some sort of relationship with things in order to give yourself peace of mind and shut off/keep away the questions whose answers (or lack thereof) might disturb you. Things need to be put into little packages and filtered through lenses before you could ever be at peace with the world around you… and fair enough, it is a pretty tempting thing to accept some pre-existing mythology as an explanation, or some semblance of an explanation-- it IS comforting to think that everyone has a relationship with the 'creator', and that said creator loves us and wants us to succeed… who wouldn't be comforted by that??

 

[Trifoilum]

You can feel things without knowing what they are, and without claiming that you could ever know what they are or where they're from.

Many organized religions involve deceiving yourself into thinking that you know something that you couldn't possibly know, and accepting heavily politicized, heavily corrupted, and largely obsolete forms of social conditioning as an 'explanation'… because for some people, it isn't enough that they've felt what they've felt, they need to feel like they know what it is, to understand, and in some ways to posses it. It's the same basic idea as when you give something a name, or you make snap judgments about people, etc… you need to have explanations for things/feel like you have some sort of relationship with things in order to give yourself peace of mind and shut off/keep away the questions whose answers (or lack thereof) might disturb you. Things need to be put into little packages and filtered through lenses before you could ever be at peace with the world around you… and fair enough, it is a pretty tempting thing to accept some pre-existing mythology as an explanation, or some semblance of an explanation-- it IS comforting to think that everyone has a relationship with the 'creator', and that said creator loves us and wants us to succeed… who wouldn't be comforted by that??

I agreed, although I don't really see where we clash either, so... :|

But yeah,
the traps of security and the hand that offers them.

But that sort of extents to everything and everyone; even God Himself.
Not that I'm advocating the usual 'it's common anyway, so why bother' position, but more like, that hole that drives some of us to security? It's there, calling. To some degree, that hole needs to be closed without being actually closed. >_>;

 

[Billy]

I agreed, although I don't really see where we clash either, so... :|

But yeah,
the traps of security and the hand that offers them.

But that sort of extents to everything and everyone; even God Himself.
Not that I'm advocating the usual 'it's common anyway, so why bother' position, but more like, that hole that drives some of us to security? It's there, calling. To some degree, that hole needs to be closed without being actually closed. >_>;

That hole will never be filled, not even with religion.

 

[Cornerstone]

That hole will never be filled, not even with religion.

Unless you go back in time and become an altar-boy.

 

[Billy]

Unless you go back in time and become an altar-boy.

I LOL'd