Irreligion does not prevent pseudoscience and superstition

Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Irreligion does not prevent pseudoscience and superstition

Here's and article and the accompanying findings of a survey that show that irreligious people being superstitious and declines in traditional beliefs among the educated increases pseudoscience, cults and superstition...

http://www.baylor.edu/pr/news.php?action=story&story=52815

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I don't think Baylor U is

I don't think Baylor U is really a reliable source for this stuff.

 

However, I do agree  that just because somebody is an atheist doesn't prevent them from being irrational. Pseudoscience and irrationality are all over the atheist movement.

 

That just means that atheists are human.

 

 


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi OP

Hi OP,

I think Baylor U has become heretical. A side note.

However, the term religion is no longer a term. There are no universal means of definition to tie it in. So It doesn't make sense.

Also, religious people of only Christianity? What if you were religiously communists. That would mean you're okay? I know what the article is trying to say, but they said it in a very poor sloppy way.

What church do you go to? If non-denomination, where does it lean theologically speaking?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yep

 

Yeah - I think human minds have a native propensity for essentialism - generalisations that include tagging the physical world with anthropomorphic and/or animistic characteristics. I recently read an article that suggested kids naturally think the supernatural is possible and have to unlearn this default irrationality. It takes very little for people to revert, even a loss of concentration can see scientists talking to strawberry plants, abusing their laptops and fearing a mouse in the roof might be that black-eyed Japanese kid from The Grudge

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
BTW

Wowzers1 wrote:

Here's and article and the accompanying findings of a survey that show that irreligious people being superstitious and declines in traditional beliefs among the educated increases pseudoscience, cults and superstition...

http://www.baylor.edu/pr/news.php?action=story&story=52815

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html

 

Wows, what's your point here? Is this an implied fallacy from adverse consequences or are you just throwing it out there? Personally, I think most christians and unbelievers don't think hard about their faith or lack of it. And even people who do think about their beliefs (I cheerfully include myself in this group), are not always particularly rational. The scientific method - a process of testable explanation - is not the way the human brain instinctively works. We make generalisations, take mental short cuts, wallow in cognitive blind spots and worse. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hey Terroritst

 Hey Terrorist,

Are you an atheist? You don't have a tag saying so.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi Jean.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 Hey Terrorist,

Are you an atheist? You don't have a tag saying so.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

I've got the word atheist in my avatar already and have an aversion to redundant words. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello Convict

Hello Convict,

I was just wondering. I see it now in the avatar. I wasn't sure if the Holy Spirit was using me to have you be a first time Chrisitan. Saved by Christ alone by His blood.

I thought you said you were not my brother in Christ.

no? Oh well.

Why do you have a mask on? Isn't this a familiy show? Everytime I see your avatar I check to see if I have my wallet.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I've already been a first time christian, Jean.

 

 

It was pretty boring. The worst part was the singing. Perhaps the highlight of my life in christ was when Melodie Carruthers kissed me in the swimming pool at jesus camp. I praised his precious name...

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sure.Just because one brand

Sure.

Just because one brand of psuedoscience/superstition, such as religion, doesn't appeal to someone, doesn't mean that they won't find some other form more to their taste.

D'uh.

Was this 'finding' supposed to be a surprise to anyone??

Maybe to those who think religious belief is special, rather than just one of the many categories of nonsense people are prone to fall for.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:Wows,

Atheistextremist wrote:

Wows, what's your point here? Is this an implied fallacy from adverse consequences or are you just throwing it out there? Personally, I think most christians and unbelievers don't think hard about their faith or lack of it. And even people who do think about their beliefs (I cheerfully include myself in this group), are not always particularly rational. The scientific method - a process of testable explanation - is not the way the human brain instinctively works. We make generalisations, take mental short cuts, wallow in cognitive blind spots and worse.  

I do not think rejecting religion automatically makes one rational or that being religious makes one irrational... The point is that rationality is not the sole property of atheism.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Maybe to

BobSpence1 wrote:

Maybe to those who think religious belief is special, rather than just one of the many categories of nonsense people are prone to fall for.

If religious beliefs are true, then there's nothing "special" about them.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I agree with you to a fair extent

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Wows, what's your point here? Is this an implied fallacy from adverse consequences or are you just throwing it out there? Personally, I think most christians and unbelievers don't think hard about their faith or lack of it. And even people who do think about their beliefs (I cheerfully include myself in this group), are not always particularly rational. The scientific method - a process of testable explanation - is not the way the human brain instinctively works. We make generalisations, take mental short cuts, wallow in cognitive blind spots and worse.  

I do not think rejecting religion automatically makes one rational or that being religious makes one irrational... The point is that rationality is not the sole property of atheism.

 

Wows. I'm sure there are plenty of theists in the world hustling a far more rational thought process than I'm operating with. Still. They can't ever bring themselves to limit their confusion over universal unknowns to those three little words: "I don't know".

This means they either claim they do know something about exo-universal reality - whether it be the mind of god or the necessity for a pre-universal teleology - or they are motivated by some inner feeling to convince themselves they truly know these unknowable things.

In saying this, Wows, I am aware you've pointed out before that you don't make such claims yourself and you do appreciate unknowns but feel the weight of evidence points to a particular truth.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10550
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Irreligion DOES prevent

Irreligion DOES prevent superstition and pseudo-science. It doesn't do so absolutely, of course, but it does all the same. The reasoning is rather simple. By removing religion (the #1 leading cause of teaching falsehoods), you automatically remove the pseudo-science and superstitions propogated by that religion. Obviously, it cannot completely remove pseudo-science and superstition from existence. Not even close. Only one thing can accomplish that: education.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:BobSpence1

Wowzers1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Maybe to those who think religious belief is special, rather than just one of the many categories of nonsense people are prone to fall for.

If religious beliefs are true, then there's nothing "special" about them.

If they were demonstrably true, that would make them special in the context of other superstitions or supernatural beliefs. But then they would no longer be in the category of the supernatural or superstitious beliefs.

Unless their 'truth' is clearly demonstrable, it is indeed true that they are not 'special', but that applies whether they somehow happen to be true or not.

The believers of any particular set of supernatural or unprovable beliefs, Christian, Wiccan, etc, or non-religious, clearly do regard them as much more than just another bunch of superstitions and 'woo' ideas, and as being 'true'. That's what it means to believe in them.

Since in societies like much of the US, the majority of the population do regard the Christian ideas as true, that also has them seen as deserving of special reverence and respect within such societies.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:If they

BobSpence1 wrote:
If they were demonstrably true, that would make them special in the context of other superstitions or supernatural beliefs. But then they would no longer be in the category of the supernatural or superstitious beliefs.

Unless their 'truth' is clearly demonstrable, it is indeed true that they are not 'special', but that applies whether they somehow happen to be true or not.

So you're assuming that the only thing that is demonstrable are things that are not supernatural then? If that is the case, then it is not a problem with the supernatural, but your assumptions about it. That's not any better than believing something without warrant.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Since in societies like much of the US, the majority of the population do regard the Christian ideas as true, that also has them seen as deserving of special reverence and respect within such societies.

If that were true, I'd think that intolerance would be written into the social fabric of western cultures. Rather the opposite is the case. The reason that atheism is even tolerated in many aspects is because I think the greater reverence is given to tolerance rather than particular theistic commitments.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Irreligion DOES

Vastet wrote:
Irreligion DOES prevent superstition and pseudo-science. It doesn't do so absolutely, of course, but it does all the same. The reasoning is rather simple. By removing religion (the #1 leading cause of teaching falsehoods), you automatically remove the pseudo-science and superstitions propogated by that religion. Obviously, it cannot completely remove pseudo-science and superstition from existence. Not even close. Only one thing can accomplish that: education.
One of the arguments from the article was that removing traditional theistic belief made the way for superstition and psuedo-science.


 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:Wows.

Atheistextremist wrote:
Wows. I'm sure there are plenty of theists in the world hustling a far more rational thought process than I'm operating with. Still. They can't ever bring themselves to limit their confusion over universal unknowns to those three little words: "I don't know".

This means they either claim they do know something about exo-universal reality - whether it be the mind of god or the necessity for a pre-universal teleology - or they are motivated by some inner feeling to convince themselves they truly know these unknowable things.

In saying this, Wows, I am aware you've pointed out before that you don't make such claims yourself and you do appreciate unknowns but feel the weight of evidence points to a particular truth.

If I feel a weight of evidence points to a particular truth, then would not consider what I believe to be the truth to be irrational.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10550
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Vastet

Wowzers1 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Irreligion DOES prevent superstition and pseudo-science. It doesn't do so absolutely, of course, but it does all the same. The reasoning is rather simple. By removing religion (the #1 leading cause of teaching falsehoods), you automatically remove the pseudo-science and superstitions propogated by that religion. Obviously, it cannot completely remove pseudo-science and superstition from existence. Not even close. Only one thing can accomplish that: education.
One of the arguments from the article was that removing traditional theistic belief made the way for superstition and psuedo-science.


 

Which is obviously false. Superstition and pseudo-science predate all religion, and was the foundation upon which religion was built (hell, it was the foundation of science too, when people started to test and disprove mistaken beliefs). Suggesting the removal of religion would increase superstition and pseudo-science is illogical.

Edit in brackets

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:BobSpence1

Wowzers1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
If they were demonstrably true, that would make them special in the context of other superstitions or supernatural beliefs. But then they would no longer be in the category of the supernatural or superstitious beliefs.

Unless their 'truth' is clearly demonstrable, it is indeed true that they are not 'special', but that applies whether they somehow happen to be true or not.

So you're assuming that the only thing that is demonstrable are things that are not supernatural then? If that is the case, then it is not a problem with the supernatural, but your assumptions about it. That's not any better than believing something without warrant.

If something is clearly and repeatably demonstrable, it is part of physical reality. Supernatural is only an empty label some people slap on things we don't have any explanation for - it is ultimately an empty distinction.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Since in societies like much of the US, the majority of the population do regard the Christian ideas as true, that also has them seen as deserving of special reverence and respect within such societies.

If that were true, I'd think that intolerance would be written into the social fabric of western cultures. Rather the opposite is the case. The reason that atheism is even tolerated in many aspects is because I think the greater reverence is given to tolerance rather than particular theistic commitments.

Tolerance is indeed greater in countries where no specific religious belief has a strong position. You are mistaking the US as representative of 'Western Culture'.

Intolerance is indeed deeply imbedded in the 'Bible Belt' of the US. What is your argument??

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote: One of the

Wowzers1 wrote:
One of the arguments from the article was that removing traditional theistic belief made the way for superstition and psuedo-science.

Here's a 'study' from Christian Information Ministries that says that 3% of Americans claim to have been abducted by aliens, which would be over 1 million Americans.

http://www.christianinformation.org/article.asp?artID=55

Other studies put the percentage of of Americans who believe in god at 92% of the population.

 

I'm wondering how the majority of those alien abductees who are theists reconcile there being a technologically superior extraterrestrial race, with the bible.

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yeah Wows

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
Wows. I'm sure there are plenty of theists in the world hustling a far more rational thought process than I'm operating with. Still. They can't ever bring themselves to limit their confusion over universal unknowns to those three little words: "I don't know".

This means they either claim they do know something about exo-universal reality - whether it be the mind of god or the necessity for a pre-universal teleology - or they are motivated by some inner feeling to convince themselves they truly know these unknowable things.

In saying this, Wows, I am aware you've pointed out before that you don't make such claims yourself and you do appreciate unknowns but feel the weight of evidence points to a particular truth.

If I feel a weight of evidence points to a particular truth, then would not consider what I believe to be the truth to be irrational.

 

I get this. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
So 'removing' one

So 'removing' one superstition from a person who has shown that they are susceptible to believing irrational things, opens them to adopting another one. Big surprise!

This is news?

If they had lost religion because of learning about, and adopting, a rational, skeptical approach, and still showed a tendency to adopt a 'woo' belief, now that would have been news.

Are these trivial half-baked surveys the best you can dig up to try and justify religion?

They are having the opposite effect here, dude. You are just showing how little serious evidence there is for the benefits of religion to set against the mountain of evidence pointing to the opposite conclusion.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:So

BobSpence1 wrote:

So 'removing' one superstition from a person who has shown that they are susceptible to believing irrational things, opens them to adopting another one. Big surprise!

This is news?

If they had lost religion because of learning about, and adopting, a rational, skeptical approach, and still showed a tendency to adopt a 'woo' belief, now that would have been news.

Are these trivial half-baked surveys the best you can dig up to try and justify religion?

They are having the opposite effect here, dude. You are just showing how little serious evidence there is for the benefits of religion to set against the mountain of evidence pointing to the opposite conclusion.

The real comparison is that the more or the better the education the more likely one is to reject religion and supterstitions such as astrology and New Age or New Thought stuff.   People who have lost their orthodox or traditional religions oftern turn to other forms such as Buddhism or trendy things that are well advertized or popular among friends. This is a pattern that Dawkins points out in Great Britain. People are cause finding creatures and without a particular scientific or rational method of finding causes the brain looks at many things.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:]One of the

Wowzers1 wrote:
]One of the arguments from the article was that removing traditional theistic belief made the way for superstition and psuedo-science.

 

 

That's a weird conclusion considering that theistic belief is superstition and pseudo-science.

 

I bet they can correctly point out pseudo-science and irrationality in the atheist movement, but that doesn't mean that by simply rejecting religion suddenly opened the door to irrationality. They're not irrational because they're atheist, and theists aren't irrational because they're theists, it's because they're human.

 

Ray Comfort rejects homeopathy that doesn't mean he's rational. Christopher Hitchens is an atheist and that doesn't mean he's rational.

 

 

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:I do not

Wowzers1 wrote:

I do not think rejecting religion automatically makes one rational or that being religious makes one irrational... The point is that rationality is not the sole property of atheism.

This is a good time to introduce a clear distinction between a rational atheist and an atheist.  I consider a rational atheist to be one that has arrived at the current position through critical thinking, and is willing to approach anything, including the atheistic default position, with a critical eye.  The other is an atheist for some of the reasons that Jean lists ad nauseam, such as emotional, popularity, appeals to authority, etc.

I consider myself to be a rational atheist, and religion is just one of the many irrationalities that I detest.  I have a dislike for pseudo-science, but at the same time i realize that genius thrives on irrationality.  In some ways, by dismissing the extremely unlikely, segue the economy imposed by Occam's razor, the truly genuine ideas are not for the hard core rationalists.  This is the reason why I suffer idiocies with a sense of forced wonderism.  In the off chance that there is a grain of truth to some of the outcasts of the rational.  It's my attempt at an open mind. 

An irrational person that's an atheist, is only an atheist for the moment, and no reasonable evidence is necessary to change that position.  Hence not really an atheist in my opinion. 

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:I do not

Wowzers1 wrote:

I do not think rejecting religion automatically makes one rational or that being religious makes one irrational... The point is that rationality is not the sole property of atheism.

In the sense of attaining an optimal level of reasoning and rationality, atheism or "rejecting religion" or even open-arms embrace of science -including pure science which almost always promises a negative return on one's investment and does nothing to directly improve the human condition- are a lot like ingredients of a very complex recipe. Individually, they have little bearing on a person's capacity for rationality. But together, they make for important precursors to a rational way of thinking.

(of course this wasn't entirely my original idea, but it does express my sentiments rather well)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:If

BobSpence1 wrote:

If something is clearly and repeatably demonstrable, it is part of physical reality. Supernatural is only an empty label some people slap on things we don't have any explanation for - it is ultimately an empty distinction.

So you are assuming it? That's essentially no better than an ontological argument... You're really just begging the question.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Tolerance is indeed greater in countries where no specific religious belief has a strong position. You are mistaking the US as representative of 'Western Culture'.

Intolerance is indeed deeply imbedded in the 'Bible Belt' of the US. What is your argument??

So the US isn't Western Culture then? If it isn't then what is it?

And you're saying that the Bible Belt is a representative for the entire USA. You're arbitrary divisions are accusations of arbitrary opinions seem to suit your purpose as you see fit....

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:That's a

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

That's a weird conclusion considering that theistic belief is superstition and pseudo-science.

If religion is true, then how can it be superstition? But to label it pseudo-science is a category mistake.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I bet they can correctly point out pseudo-science and irrationality in the atheist movement, but that doesn't mean that by simply rejecting religion suddenly opened the door to irrationality. They're not irrational because they're atheist, and theists aren't irrational because they're theists, it's because they're human.

So what makes one irrational then?


 

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:If they had

BobSpence1 wrote:

If they had lost religion because of learning about, and adopting, a rational, skeptical approach, and still showed a tendency to adopt a 'woo' belief, now that would have been news.

Or maybe one arrives at religion through a rational, skeptical approach... But you'd probably deny this out right. But that is neither rational or skeptical.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Are these trivial half-baked surveys the best you can dig up to try and justify religion?

Trivial and half-baked in who's evaluation? Your's?

If what you mean by "trvial" or "half baked"  is "does not agree with me"  then I think you need to change your definition of "half baked" and "trival"

BobSpence1 wrote:

They are having the opposite effect here, dude. You are just showing how little serious evidence there is for the benefits of religion to set against the mountain of evidence pointing to the opposite conclusion.

What mountain of evidence? I really think you are over stating your claims.

I don't go looking for surveys. I occassionally read news about such things. If I find it interesting, I share it.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:BobSpence1

Wowzers1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

If something is clearly and repeatably demonstrable, it is part of physical reality. Supernatural is only an empty label some people slap on things we don't have any explanation for - it is ultimately an empty distinction.

So you are assuming it? That's essentially no better than an ontological argument... You're really just begging the question.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Tolerance is indeed greater in countries where no specific religious belief has a strong position. You are mistaking the US as representative of 'Western Culture'.

Intolerance is indeed deeply imbedded in the 'Bible Belt' of the US. What is your argument??

So the US isn't Western Culture then? If it isn't then what is it?

And you're saying that the Bible Belt is a representative for the entire USA. You're arbitrary divisions are accusations of arbitrary opinions seem to suit your purpose as you see fit....

Let it go, Wowzers. Bobspence has yet another agenda to push, so he's bound to skip actual debate and use the lowest common denominators as examples at least once. Of course, the time he's actually spent in the bible belt could be measured at 'less than a blink of an eye' -ie not at all- so his points are doubly substantial and validated.

[/sarcasm](and I'll be damned if politics doesn't make for strange bedfellows...)

edit; I can't pretend I'm 100% innocent of everything I accuse Bob of doing in this post. I do have my own habit of summarily dismissing cultures I consider beneath me... and sometimes I'll do it with regards to other residents of the 'Bible Belt'.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3614
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Let it go,

Kapkao wrote:

 

Let it go, Wowzers. Bobspence has yet another agenda to push, so he's bound to skip actual debate and use the lowest common denominators as examples at least once.

   Ah, yes.   Like in the thread regarding homosexuality and whether, categorically speaking, it was "normal".  I was surprised to be informed that any behavior that occurs among humans is "normal" ......as long as it occurs among humans.  

  I was also surprised to discover from Bob that simply pointing out something as being abnormal automatically makes one a bigot whose observations are not motivated by objectivity but by hatred.  I even identified myself as an example of someone who is abnormal in an attempt to diffuse his deliberate mischaracterization.  Doubt that it did any good, though.

  It wasn't a total fail.  Thanks to my dealings with Bob I am now much more inclusive as to what actually defines bigotry.....

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

   Ah, yes.   Like in the thread regarding homosexuality and whether, categorically speaking, it was "normal".  I was surprised to be informed that any behavior that occurs among humans is "normal" ......as long as it occurs among humans. 

Well, "behavior" amongst humans and animals is also somewhat normal in primitive societies and cultures as well, such that nations have had to make laws against getting fresh with one's beasts of burden.

Quote:
I even identified myself as an example of someone who is abnormal in an attempt to diffuse his deliberate mischaracterization.  Doubt that it did any good, though.

A shame, at that. Despite his great intellect (couldn't say how much of it has been lost to time) Bob is still a far cry from the most intellectually honest individuals one can think of.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: I

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 I was also surprised to discover from Bob that simply pointing out something as being abnormal automatically makes one a bigot whose observations are not motivated by objectivity but by hatred.  I even identified myself as an example of someone who is abnormal in an attempt to diffuse his deliberate mischaracterization.  Doubt that it did any good, though.

  It wasn't a total fail.  Thanks to my dealings with Bob I am now much more inclusive as to what actually defines bigotry.....

If it makes you feel any better, I think you're quite abnormal.  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Well,

Kapkao wrote:

Well, "behavior" amongst humans and animals is also somewhat normal in primitive societies and cultures as well, such that nations have had to make laws against getting fresh with one's beasts of burden.

We all have society 'norms' that we wish weren't so, I for one wish women would walk around topless more, you obviously have a beef with not being able to get 'fresh' with your beef.  You just can't please them all.  *shakes head saddent

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10550
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I win.

I win. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Wowzers1

Vastet wrote:
Wowzers1 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Irreligion DOES prevent superstition and pseudo-science. It doesn't do so absolutely, of course, but it does all the same. The reasoning is rather simple. By removing religion (the #1 leading cause of teaching falsehoods), you automatically remove the pseudo-science and superstitions propogated by that religion. Obviously, it cannot completely remove pseudo-science and superstition from existence. Not even close. Only one thing can accomplish that: education.
One of the arguments from the article was that removing traditional theistic belief made the way for superstition and psuedo-science.

 

 

Which is obviously false. Superstition and pseudo-science predate all religion, and was the foundation upon which religion was built (hell, it was the foundation of science too, when people started to test and disprove mistaken beliefs). Suggesting the removal of religion would increase superstition and pseudo-science is illogical. Edit in brackets

Superstition and pseodo-science are not the sole property of religion... IOW, you say they predate religion, yet by removing religion they somehow go away. But how do they exist in the first place without religion if they predate it? You've got some circular reasoning going on here...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I win. What'd

Vastet wrote:

I win. Smiling

What'd you get?


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I win. What'd

Vastet wrote:

I win. Smiling

What'd you get?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10550
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Superstition

Wowzers1 wrote:

Superstition and pseodo-science are not the sole property of religion...

I didn't say or suggest that they were. Merely that religion grew from the first superstitions and pseudo-science humanity came up with.

Wowzers1 wrote:
 IOW, you say they predate religion, yet by removing religion they somehow go away.

uh uh, they don't just go away. The particulars of that religion goes away. If all religion goes away, then 80% of the population becomes hippies, ghost hunters, alien abductees, and conspiracy theorists. If all religion goes away and we beef up the education system, then the vast majority of the population becomes rational, and none of that shit matters.

Wowzers1 wrote:
 But how do they exist in the first place without religion if they predate it? You've got some circular reasoning going on here...

No, you just aren't thinking it through. By definition, superstition and pseudo-science are faulty ways of understanding the world. Someone once threw salt over their shoulder and won a horse race or something, and suddenly people think salt over the shoulder is a good luck charm or something. Note: I'm not necessarily copying verbatim whatever the whole salt thing is about, I'm just providing an example of how a superstition comes to be.

The further back you go, the less people know. The first hundred years backwards and suddenly electricity is new and noone has ever flown. Ever. It's not common conversation, and the best anyone can do is watch the birds. Now flight is commonplace. We're in space right now. You see how something that doesn't exist, and that noone thinks about, suddenly becomes a commonplace reality? Go back another hundred years, and engines altogether are brand new. Noone has any clue how birds stay in the air, and they won't for quite awhile. Go back to 1500, and the best technology is a blacksmith. Noone has the slightest idea that tvs, radio, the internet, cars, planes, and space shuttles are the future.

You go back 10,000-30,000 years, and farming is new. Not everyone knows about it, just a few scattered clusters of people. Religion doesn't exist. It can't. Why? Language is being formed. Writing has just started to happen. There's no way to communicate ideas yet. Especially not an idea so complex as religion. Not when most people spend their days hiding from predators and hunting for food. As language develops, ideas form to explain the world to each other. Superstition and pseudo-science is born.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10550
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Vastet wrote:I

Ktulu wrote:

Vastet wrote:

I win. Smiling

What'd you get?

 

A response. Laughing out loud

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:BobSpence1

Wowzers1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

If something is clearly and repeatably demonstrable, it is part of physical reality. Supernatural is only an empty label some people slap on things we don't have any explanation for - it is ultimately an empty distinction.

So you are assuming it? That's essentially no better than an ontological argument... You're really just begging the question.

No - the problem is that people who see no current physical explanation assume that it must mean there is some 'realm' which is not bound by 'physical laws'. That is the giant assumption. I simply say we don't currently know the explanation, but history shows that our understanding of these things grows as we continue to study them.

The intelligent, rational 'assumption' when we can't find a current 'natural' explanation for something is to simply say that we don't know the explanation at this point. IOW, to not make any assumption based on a lack on evidence, to suspend judgement until we have some relevant evidence. History shows that explanations for previously unknown phenomena arise from new studies and new ideas or inspirations which suggest new avenues of investigation. To assert that 'no current physical explanation' should be taken as indicating a 'supernatural' origin is just ignorant of history and the progress of science.

Rather than jumping to a totally unjustified and ultimately unhelpful assumption of 'magic', we study more widely and deeply.

You are equating not assuming A exists with assuming that A does not exist. There are an infinite number of potential explanations for physically inexplicable events or observations, especially if you are going to allow things way beyond current understanding, so making any specific assumption, such as God as imagined by Christianity, is totally unjustified.

If we could test and formalize 'laws' for the Supernatural, it would become part of Science.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Tolerance is indeed greater in countries where no specific religious belief has a strong position. You are mistaking the US as representative of 'Western Culture'.

Intolerance is indeed deeply imbedded in the 'Bible Belt' of the US. What is your argument??

So the US isn't Western Culture then? If it isn't then what is it?

And you're saying that the Bible Belt is a representative for the entire USA. You're arbitrary divisions are accusations of arbitrary opinions seem to suit your purpose as you see fit....

No. I did not say the US is not part of Western Culture, but its degree of religiosity, as documented in that survey I mentioned in a previous thread, is way outside the range of others in that group. Even in the more 'enlightened' areas, but massively so in the Bible Belt.

If you are not aware that the US is definitely an outlier in many aspects among Western-style Democracies, you need to read around a bit more. My views are anything but arbitrary, but based on reading and listening to a lot of articles, podcasts, news digests, etc, etc.

Religion is pure assumption upon assumption.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Wowzers1

BobSpence1 wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

If something is clearly and repeatably demonstrable, it is part of physical reality. Supernatural is only an empty label some people slap on things we don't have any explanation for - it is ultimately an empty distinction.

So you are assuming it? That's essentially no better than an ontological argument... You're really just begging the question.

No - the problem is that people who see no current physical explanation assume that it must mean there is some 'realm' which is not bound by 'physical laws'. That is the giant assumption. I simply say we don't currently know the explanation, but history shows that our understanding of these things grows as we continue to study them.

Rather than jumping to a totally unjustified and ultimately unhelpful assumption of 'magic'.

If we could test and formalize 'laws' for the Supernatural, it would become part of Science.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Tolerance is indeed greater in countries where no specific religious belief has a strong position. You are mistaking the US as representative of 'Western Culture'.

Intolerance is indeed deeply imbedded in the 'Bible Belt' of the US. What is your argument??

So the US isn't Western Culture then? If it isn't then what is it?

And you're saying that the Bible Belt is a representative for the entire USA. You're arbitrary divisions are accusations of arbitrary opinions seem to suit your purpose as you see fit....

No. I did not say the US is not part of Western Culture, but its degree of religiosity, as documented in that survey I mentioned in a previous thread, is way outside the range of others in that group. Even in the more 'enlightened' areas, but massively so in the Bible Belt.

If you are not aware that the US is definitely an outlier in many aspects among Western-style Democracies, you need to read around a bit more. My views are anything but arbitrary, but based on reading and listening to a lot of articles, podcasts, news digests, etc, etc.

Religion is pure assumption upon assumption.

I live in the Bible Belt.  In one job I moved from downtown Atlanta  where there is "enlightenment" to a suburb, Marietta. My office was oriental in decoration. When I placed a Buddha in my office. I was later informed that a group of fellow employees anointed my door with oil "to keep Satan in my confines." Another job I work which like the previous was a government job for the State of Georgia. The staff meeting began with prayer and often directly to Jesus.  One of my support staff across the hall was crying one time. I asked her the problem. She had been listening to a local evangelist that had just prophesied that the submarine base nearby at St. Mary's would and most of SOuth Georgia would be destroyed by a nuclear explosion.  She was worried.  Around Thanksgiving at 11 PM or 11:30 my neighbor knocked on the door. He asked me if I was right with the lord. I asked him what was going on He said that Jesus was coming tonight. I asked him whether he had heard that at church. He simply replied he wanted me to be ready. He then sang in his front yard loudly hymns to god.  His wife tried to bring him in but he said that he had worked to hard for his lord not to meet him when he comes. She went inside. I think he took off down the road. Law enforcement came and went down the road. An ambulance returned and passed by with said neighbor. And law enforcement tried to talk his wife into a domestic violence simple assault charge... tried to get her to say he shoved or pushed her, hit etc.; I could go on but you get the picture.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Cpt_pineapple

Wowzers1 wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

That's a weird conclusion considering that theistic belief is superstition and pseudo-science.

If religion is true, then how can it be superstition? But to label it pseudo-science is a category mistake.

 

 

But it's not true. It's pseudo-science because it doesn't offer any scientific answers but claims it does.

 

 

Quote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I bet they can correctly point out pseudo-science and irrationality in the atheist movement, but that doesn't mean that by simply rejecting religion suddenly opened the door to irrationality. They're not irrational because they're atheist, and theists aren't irrational because they're theists, it's because they're human.

So what makes one irrational then?

 

It depends. People can be rational on some issues, but completely irrational on others. I don't know how to measure whether somebody as a whole is rational or irrational based on a single rational or irrational belief.

 

 

 


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Wowzers1

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

That's a weird conclusion considering that theistic belief is superstition and pseudo-science.

If religion is true, then how can it be superstition? But to label it pseudo-science is a category mistake.

 

 

But it's not true. It's pseudo-science because it doesn't offer any scientific answers but claims it does.

 

 

Quote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I bet they can correctly point out pseudo-science and irrationality in the atheist movement, but that doesn't mean that by simply rejecting religion suddenly opened the door to irrationality. They're not irrational because they're atheist, and theists aren't irrational because they're theists, it's because they're human.

So what makes one irrational then?

 

It depends. People can be rational on some issues, but completely irrational on others. I don't know how to measure whether somebody as a whole is rational or irrational based on a single rational or irrational belief.

 

 

 

I would agree that creation science, intelligent design ( creationism in covert fashion ) and such science as Jean Calvin presented yesterday using/abusing science( I should say twisting physics ) to support a 6000 year old earth is pseudo-science. I can say the earth is  2 seconds old with simply the created properties of old age built into it. Dinosaurs never lived ...just the fossils were planted... The trees were built with rings in them and people with false memories. It begins with the presupposition of biblical/ doctrinal correctness from a doctrine of infallibility and goes against probability, plausibility and common sense.  These should suffice as irrational and as pseudo-science.  How bout those christian theories of a previous creation ruined huh? 


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3614
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:If it makes you

Ktulu wrote:

If it makes you feel any better, I think you're quite abnormal.  

     Well then your humor or "humor" is at least predicated in reality but according to Bob's perception I am quite "normal" as persons such as myself  simply typify a "normal" human variable.  

 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yep

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

Wowzers1 wrote:

 

So you are assuming it? That's essentially no better than an ontological argument... You're really just begging the question.

 

 

No - the problem is that people who see no current physical explanation assume that it must mean there is some 'realm' which is not bound by 'physical laws'. That is the giant assumption. I simply say we don't currently know the explanation, but history shows that our understanding of these things grows as we continue to study them.

The intelligent, rational 'assumption' when we can't find a current 'natural' explanation for something is to simply say that we don't know the explanation at this point. IOW, to not make any assumption based on a lack on evidence, to suspend judgement until we have some relevant evidence. History shows that explanations for previously unknown phenomena arise from new studies and new ideas or inspirations which suggest new avenues of investigation. To assert that 'no current physical explanation' should be taken as indicating a 'supernatural' origin is just ignorant of history and the progress of science.

Rather than jumping to a totally unjustified and ultimately unhelpful assumption of 'magic', we study more widely and deeply.

You are equating not assuming A exists with assuming that A does not exist. There are an infinite number of potential explanations for physically inexplicable events or observations, especially if you are going to allow things way beyond current understanding, so making any specific assumption, such as God as imagined by Christianity, is totally unjustified.

If we could test and formalize 'laws' for the Supernatural, it would become part of Science.

 

 

I think this puts it rather well.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I didn't say or

Vastet wrote:

I didn't say or suggest that they were. Merely that religion grew from the first superstitions and pseudo-science humanity came up with.

uh uh, they don't just go away. The particulars of that religion goes away. If all religion goes away, then 80% of the population becomes hippies, ghost hunters, alien abductees, and conspiracy theorists. If all religion goes away and we beef up the education system, then the vast majority of the population becomes rational, and none of that shit matters.

One of the studies referenced in the article suggested that removing traditional theistic beliefs causes more superstition and pseudo science. The suggests otherwise....

Vastet wrote:

No, you just aren't thinking it through. By definition, superstition and pseudo-science are faulty ways of understanding the world. Someone once threw salt over their shoulder and won a horse race or something, and suddenly people think salt over the shoulder is a good luck charm or something. Note: I'm not necessarily copying verbatim whatever the whole salt thing is about, I'm just providing an example of how a superstition comes to be.

IS the salt-throwing trick one that evolved out of religion?

Vastet wrote:

The further back you go, the less people know. The first hundred years backwards and suddenly electricity is new and noone has ever flown. Ever. It's not common conversation, and the best anyone can do is watch the birds. Now flight is commonplace. We're in space right now. You see how something that doesn't exist, and that noone thinks about, suddenly becomes a commonplace reality? Go back another hundred years, and engines altogether are brand new. Noone has any clue how birds stay in the air, and they won't for quite awhile. Go back to 1500, and the best technology is a blacksmith. Noone has the slightest idea that tvs, radio, the internet, cars, planes, and space shuttles are the future.

You go back 10,000-30,000 years, and farming is new. Not everyone knows about it, just a few scattered clusters of people. Religion doesn't exist. It can't. Why? Language is being formed. Writing has just started to happen. There's no way to communicate ideas yet. Especially not an idea so complex as religion. Not when most people spend their days hiding from predators and hunting for food. As language develops, ideas form to explain the world to each other. Superstition and pseudo-science is born.

And communicating ideas does not necessarily require a verbose language as we know them per se, but it does require that one establish a means of communication. But this seen in nature in many species.

But In the fullness of times, I think that it is possible that a species evolved --namely homo-sapiens and the "Adam" of that species received from God revelation in a very meaningful way.... This is how religion was born.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:No - the

BobSpence1 wrote:

No - the problem is that people who see no current physical explanation assume that it must mean there is some 'realm' which is not bound by 'physical laws'. That is the giant assumption. I simply say we don't currently know the explanation, but history shows that our understanding of these things grows as we continue to study them.

The intelligent, rational 'assumption' when we can't find a current 'natural' explanation for something is to simply say that we don't know the explanation at this point. IOW, to not make any assumption based on a lack on evidence, to suspend judgement until we have some relevant evidence. History shows that explanations for previously unknown phenomena arise from new studies and new ideas or inspirations which suggest new avenues of investigation. To assert that 'no current physical explanation' should be taken as indicating a 'supernatural' origin is just ignorant of history and the progress of science.

So long as you keep insisting on "physical", then then that which is nonphysical cannot exist. And you conclude that anything that is otherwise is a "giant assumption". But insofar as I can tell you're this is precisely what you doing to dismiss such things.

For me, the I see evidence for such things and follow where the evidence leads.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Rather than jumping to a totally unjustified and ultimately unhelpful assumption of 'magic', we study more widely and deeply.

You've got you're story mixed up. I do not think it is "tottally unjustified" and "ultimately unhelpful" assumptions. Rather justified and very helpful conclusions...

BobSpence1 wrote:

You are equating not assuming A exists with assuming that A does not exist. There are an infinite number of potential explanations for physically inexplicable events or observations, especially if you are going to allow things way beyond current understanding, so making any specific assumption, such as God as imagined by Christianity, is totally unjustified.

I'm showing that you're precluding the possibility for something. It has absolutely nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with an unsubstantiated assumption about reality...

BobSpence1 wrote:

If we could test and formalize 'laws' for the Supernatural, it would become part of Science.

Then I suppose you'd think it would be natural them, yes?

BobSpence1 wrote:

No. I did not say the US is not part of Western Culture, but its degree of religiosity, as documented in that survey I mentioned in a previous thread, is way outside the range of others in that group. Even in the more 'enlightened' areas, but massively so in the Bible Belt.

If you are not aware that the US is definitely an outlier in many aspects among Western-style Democracies, you need to read around a bit more. My views are anything but arbitrary, but based on reading and listening to a lot of articles, podcasts, news digests, etc, etc.

I'm not saying the US is not an outlier... What I was saying is that one of the core beliefs of western cultures is intolerance. You obfuscated it by diverging down a path concerning the USA which is largely irrelevant in that I granted the observations made, but also suggested that the Bible Belt is not a representative of the totality of the USA. I'd even wager that many of the religious people (in the USA and otherwise in Western Cultures) are open about allowing people who are not like them live in their communities.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Religion is pure assumption upon assumption.

I do not think that this is necessarily true.

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:But it's

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

But it's not true. It's pseudo-science because it doesn't offer any scientific answers but claims it does.

So you're saying that which is true is science then?

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

It depends. People can be rational on some issues, but completely irrational on others. I don't know how to measure whether somebody as a whole is rational or irrational based on a single rational or irrational belief. 

How would you measure beliefs concerning religion to be rational?

Or do you categorically say that religious beliefs are irrational? and if so, why?

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Right here is the nub

 

Wowzers1 wrote:

 

So long as you keep insisting on "physical", then then that which is nonphysical cannot exist. And you conclude that anything that is otherwise is a "giant assumption". But insofar as I can tell you're this is precisely what you doing to dismiss such things.

For me, the I see evidence for such things and follow where the evidence leads.

 

 

of all our long conjectures with Wows and it comes back to what we consider can legitimately be used as evidence. Wows, could you tell me, have you deeply considered the supernatural evidence for the existence of any other gods but your own? What would this other supernatural evidence consist of in the absence of a personal conviction it was true? 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck