ARK Encounter opens today!

[bshole]

Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism."

As an borderline anti-theist I disagree with Hillary very strongly. I believe most religions (and especially Islam) have a strong relation to terrorism. That is just objective reality. When was the last time an atheist perpetrated an act of terrorism on American soil? I can't remember. This despite the fact that they outnumber Muslims by a factor of more than 7 to 1. When was the last time an atheist blew up an abortion clinic or shot an abortion doctor? There is a reason that our prisons are filled with people of faith and not atheists. Atheism when combined with humanism represents the pinnacle of human intellect/morality.

 

[agent00f]

And they don't even have to be written in the book. Witness the adamant Christian aversion to abortion. Nowhere in their holy book is abortion prohibited. Their entire religion is based on divine command theory and they do not even require a written command. They invent a command, attribute it to God and that is the sum total of their rationale. Game, set and match. No Christian I know remotely follows much of what is in the Bible.

And yet Romania had an abortion ban due to "dogma" of a forcibly secular state. Only changed due to regime-change and not when it was abundantly evident it's a bad idea.

Christian abortion dogma seems similarly cut case of stubbornness in face of modernity, which will inevitably shift as a matter of time with prevailing politics. Contrast to islam with a different standard (closer to the modern west) despite worshiping the same god.

As an borderline anti-theist I disagree with Hillary very strongly. I believe most religions (and especially Islam) have a strong relation to terrorism. That is just objective reality. When was the last time an atheist perpetrated an act of terrorism on American soil? I can't remember. This despite the fact that they outnumber Muslims by a factor of more than 7 to 1. When was the last time an atheist blew up an abortion clinic or shot an abortion doctor? There is a reason that our prisons are filled with people of faith and not atheists. Atheism when combined with humanism represents the pinnacle of human intellect/morality.

Terrorism is a tool for the weaker side, to hit soft targets while maximizing psychological impact. Targeting non-militants is nothing new in modern conflicts, and if we're counting by religion christians have a near monopoly in this category.

 

[bshole]

And yet Romania had an abortion ban due to "dogma" of a forcibly secular state. Only changed due to regime-change and not when it was abundantly evident it's a bad idea.

Please don't bring up examples that debunk my position, they make me look bad.

 

[justoh]

Please don't bring up examples that debunk my position, they make me look bad.

Except he hasn't done that at all, since there are no proscriptions/prescriptions in atheism. All it means is the lack of any belief in gods.

Only an idiot would attribute the actions taken under any secular regime, for example, to the lack of a particular superstition.

Your only mistake was inviting such predictable, dumb replies, by asking for examples of atheists committing acts of terror, since it couldn't be meaningful.

 

[agent00f]

Except he hasn't done that at all, since there are no proscriptions/prescriptions in atheism. All it means is the lack of any belief in gods.

Only an idiot would attribute the actions taken under any secular regime, for example, to the lack of a particular superstition.

Your only mistake was inviting such predictable, dumb replies, by asking for examples of atheists committing acts of terror, since it couldn't be meaningful.

There's certainly a lack of belief in "gods" per se, but that only overplays the importance of gods in the first place. The point here is that even in complete absence of god, humans replace that symbolism with some other faith producing similar results. Results are what matter in reality, not rhetorically ideology, a position which someone like you should support.

For example, you in all likelihood faithfully worship at the alter of rationalism, yet seem to have a hard time observing that relatively little in life is decided "rationally" in some greater altruistic sense, but rather most decisions are self-interested and then rationalized after the fact.

This is similar to the religious mostly doing what they might think is in their interest, and justifying it with god after the fact. You might've even mocked this at times, all while doing it yourself.

 

[justoh]

babble

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

There's certainly a lack of belief in "gods" per se, but that only overplays the importance of gods in the first place. The point here is that even in complete absence of god, humans replace that symbolism with some other faith producing similar results.

I don't quite agree. I think you're making a false generalization. Some humans have done that yes, but I don't think it is an inevitable consequence of the human condition.

For example, you in all likelihood faithfully worship at the alter of rationalism,

I think this is a tortured metaphor and not really an apt description of secular ideology.

...yet seem to have a hard time observing that relatively little in life is decided "rationally" in some greater altruistic sense, but rather most decisions are self-interested and then rationalized after the fact.

This is similar to the religious mostly doing what they might think is in their interest, and justifying it with god after the fact. You might've even mocked this at times, all while doing it yourself.

I don't think it's at all controversial to point out that humans are constantly rationalizing their actions and experiences, but I do think it is an incredibly valuable feature of empiricism and methodological naturalism that ideas are always subject to revision on the advent of new and compelling evidence -- features notably absent from theistic religion. That is to say, it's obvious that we're all constantly trying to make sense of the world, but if you can choose how to go about doing that, secular ideologies are much more reliable.

 

[sandorski]

There's certainly a lack of belief in "gods" per se, but that only overplays the importance of gods in the first place. The point here is that even in complete absence of god, humans replace that symbolism with some other faith producing similar results. Results are what matter in reality, not rhetorically ideology, a position which someone like you should support.

For example, you in all likelihood faithfully worship at the alter of rationalism, yet seem to have a hard time observing that relatively little in life is decided "rationally" in some greater altruistic sense, but rather most decisions are self-interested and then rationalized after the fact.

This is similar to the religious mostly doing what they might think is in their interest, and justifying it with god after the fact. You might've even mocked this at times, all while doing it yourself.

What does that even mean?

Do we also worship Mathematics and Google?

 

[bshole]

What does that even mean?

Do we also worship Mathematics and Google?

I think the only thing I truly worship is the female form. That is the closest thing to perfection on earth.

 

[Subyman]

I don't think agent even knows what his argument is anymore. I gave up trying to debate him after he moved the conversation around for the fourth time.

 

[agent00f]

I don't quite agree. I think you're making a false generalization. Some humans have done that yes, but I don't think it is an inevitable consequence of the human condition.

Whether it's "inevitable" is an open question, largely because examples of where it's not done are basically nonexistent in everyday life.

I think this is a tortured metaphor and not really an apt description of secular ideology.

I think it's an apt analogy because it worships an idol which doesn't manifest in reality, at least to nowhere the degree that believers suppose.

I don't think it's at all controversial to point out that humans are constantly rationalizing their actions and experiences, but I do think it is an incredibly valuable feature of empiricism and methodological naturalism that ideas are always subject to revision on the advent of new and compelling evidence -- features notably absent from theistic religion. That is to say, it's obvious that we're all constantly trying to make sense of the world, but if you can choose how to go about doing that, secular ideologies are much more reliable.

Science is all well and good, except the vast majority of life isn't science. Consider for example modern ivory tower academics, sure the most scienced men of all time; yet much of their lives revolve around tenure track/collaboration politics, grants, underling mgmt, etc, and that's just the work aspect since the rest involve no empiricism at all. Also, the religious also pursued science, eg jesuits/islamic-golden-age, so it's not exactly some secular exclusive anyway.

 

[agent00f]

I don't think agent even knows what his argument is anymore. I gave up trying to debate him after he moved the conversation around for the fourth time.

My argument has always been that the anti-religious see the religious like conservatives see muslims.

 

[justoh]

Science is all well and good, except the vast majority of life isn't science. Consider for example modern ivory tower academics, sure the most scienced men of all time; yet much of their lives revolve around tenure track/collaboration politics, grants, underling mgmt, etc, and that's just the work aspect since the rest involve no empiricism at all. Also, the religious also pursued science, eg jesuits/islamic-golden-age, so it's not exactly some secular exclusive anyway.

You don't replace religion with science, but with philosophy. Religion was our first attempt at philosophy and therefore also our worst.

This science/religion dichotomy is false.

There's no dialectic here, because only a handful of people appear to be able to think critically. Few are interested in the truth, like yo momma.

 

[Bitek]

Thread is way off track, but FWIW, I'd go and even take my kids just to have a laugh and teach a valuable lesson of how foolish some adults can be. They've had a proper scientific education and would be well equipped to take it apart.

Cannot promise it would be terribly respectful, and tickets would have to be super cheap tho.

 

[agent00f]

You don't replace religion with science, but with philosophy. Religion was our first attempt at philosophy and therefore also our worst.

This science/religion dichotomy is false.

There's no dialectic here, because only a handful of people appear to be able to think critically. Few are interested in the truth, like yo momma.

Looks like you've never physically interacted with any religious institution, or think there's some sort of philosophical society which is a suitable substitute.

There is actual competition for religion, like the organs of the state as mentioned several times above.

So in sum, you don't know anything about religion, or philosophy, or read good either. It's a mystery what you hope to accomplish here.

 

[Subyman]

My argument has always been that the anti-religious see the religious like conservatives see muslims.

Not when you were talking to me.

 

[justoh]

lulz. ok. It seems pretty clear that he's just trolling. We be some damn fools.

666th post belongs to me!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Whether it's "inevitable" is an open question, largely because examples of where it's not done are basically nonexistent in everyday life.

You seem to be projecting, then.

I think it's an apt analogy because it worships an idol which doesn't manifest in reality, at least to nowhere the degree that believers suppose.

I don't think you know what the words "worship" and "idol" mean.

Science is all well and good, except the vast majority of life isn't science.

Speak for yourself.

Consider for example modern ivory tower academics, sure the most scienced men of all time; yet much of their lives revolve around tenure track/collaboration politics, grants, underling mgmt, etc, and that's just the work aspect since the rest involve no empiricism at all.

That's just total nonsense. Naturalism underlies the totality of every person's waking experience. It is implicit in the use of physical senses.

Also, the religious also pursued science, eg jesuits/islamic-golden-age, so it's not exactly some secular exclusive anyway.

What do you think that proves?

 

[Puffnstuff]

You don't replace religion with science, but with philosophy. Religion was our first attempt at philosophy and therefore also our worst.

This science/religion dichotomy is false.

There's no dialectic here, because only a handful of people appear to be able to think critically. Few are interested in the truth, like yo momma.

Life itself is a form of evidence based management and if a person is educated then they'll understand what this concept entails. Religion relies on the "Faith" of it's followers because they are taught that faith is the evidence of things hoped for and not seen. TV evangelists fleece their supporters using this concept on a daily basis as do most churches. These con artists shape their followers using the blind faith concept to continuously goad them into supporting their ministries, if you can actually call begging for private jet money a ministry, so once these people become conditioned to accept this as normal they go along with it without using any critical thinking skills.

 

[agent00f]

You seem to be projecting, then.

I don't think you know what the words "worship" and "idol" mean.

Speak for yourself.

It's possible that you're some unicorn to which the typical rules of human interaction don't apply. If that's the case, then surely you can illustrate the uniqueness of your situation with examples of a routine where science trumps politics and authority and so on at every turn.

For the near totality of us rubes stuck in the irrational ages, life is largely a matter of following convention, abiding the bureaucracy, and toeing the party line. And you might notice that comes from someone who hardly favors that sort of thing.

That's just total nonsense. Naturalism underlies the totality of every person's waking experience. It is implicit in the use of physical senses.

The point of contention here is that the anti-religious believe they they're clearly distinguished from the religious. I'm glad you agree in this case they're no different.

What do you think that proves?

The same thing that the previous sentence does.

 

[agent00f]

Not when you were talking to me.

Then I'd advise listening bit more careful:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=38354172#post38354172

"The issue with focusing exclusively on religion is that it ignores the problematic common framework which continues to power nation states, large corps and so on. As social groups competing for mindshare, they're been gradually squeezing out religion and committing many of the same fouls. Eg. the secular wars of our times aren't any less brutal/destructive than previously religious ones."

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=38354737#post38354737

"I'm sure we've all chastised the folks here who're are guilty of blaming the totality of a group/thing for bad elements within, when the focus should be on those elements across all groups/things."

---

Now doubt you're aware the fallacy that islamaphobes make when conflating some part/aspect of a whole with the whole.

 

[MongGrel]

lulz. ok. It seems pretty clear that he's just trolling. We be some damn fools.

666th post belongs to me!

Wrong again, grasshopper.

()

 

[MongGrel]

My argument has always been that the anti-religious see the religious like conservatives see muslims.

Muslims are religious.

There seems to be a bit of a pattern forming...

I'm not anti-religious myself, I just detest it if someone tries to force feed their beliefs down my throat.

 

[justoh]

Muslims are religious.

Since when?

 

[agent00f]

Muslims are religious.

There seems to be a bit of a pattern forming...

I'm not anti-religious myself, I just detest it if someone tries to force feed their beliefs down my throat.

The general pattern of human society is that individuals are force fed the rules.