To Be Irreligious, Stupididy Helps

[PoliticalChic]

The premise that it takes more brains to belong to a religion is just as flawed as the premise that it takes more brains to be an atheist, Political Chic. The sort of spiritual quest someone like Sky Dancer undertook might take more brains, but what is required to knee-jerk choose as an adult to belong to the faith you were raised in?

Religion and spirituality address certain emotional needs of humans, in various ways depending upon that human. We are never going to find a cure for AIDS just by praying about it. And asserting that evolution is a lie "because the Bible says so" just makes the speaker look foolish. Religion should confine itself to what it does best -- teaching ethics to its adherents -- and not attempt to change the US into a theocracy.

"but what is required to knee-jerk choose as an adult to belong to the faith you were raised in?"

In order to pose the above question, you must consciously ignore the various links that I have provided...and I understand the tempation to do so, else you might have to reconsider many of your closely held beliefs (I use the term 'beliefs' advisedly).

"...certain emotional needs of humans,..."

Exactly what I suggest is true of empiricism, especially those with limited knowledge of science.

"...asserting that evolution is a lie "because the Bible says so" ..."
Maddy, to sink to a straw-argument?
Juvenile at the very least...where did I claim what you state?

But, I would be happy to instruct you on the weaknesses of the Darwinian thesis if you like.


"...and not attempt to change the US into a theocracy..."

Consider the link between secularism and tyranny, for if moral knowledge is not possible, then we are left with only political and legal measures to coerce people into compliance, i.e. the better course that the elites envision. Thus, the folks who claim that they wish to be free of what they refer to as oppressive moral codes, such as yourself, are setting the scene for new forms of oppression. One accepts moral relativism to be tolerant and non-judgmental…but this ultimately leads to a politics of manipulation and coercion.

Think not? All totalist philosophies always know what is better for folks...does liberalism pop into your mind?

"Think not? All totalist philosophies always know what is better for folks...does liberalism pop into your mind?"

now...who else, today, believes that THEY know what is BEST for folks?

rush limbaugh
bill oreilly
ann coulter
glenn beck
sarah palin
millions of conservatives....


and...you!

you can deny it now (in your best interest) but I've read enough of your posts to KNOW that your basic premise in your war against all things liberal is that YOU KNOW you are RIGHT, you KNOW what is BEST for America and all of its' citizens

I can only conclude that you have a totalist philosophy, by your definition

And, based on this post, conclude that you don't understand what a totalist philosophy is...but I would be happy to entertain the question if you would like to begin a thread...

 

[Foxfyre]

Why do some feel the constant need to argue religion? If one is certain of something argument isn't required, and religion is faith, it is a leap into the unknown for surely so many religions require a balanced, tolerant view. And the constant argument that morality is not possible without religion forgets that in this real world, the religious do as much harm as the non-religious, maybe more for when one is certain one can act.

Interesting point counterpoint below.

Rick Warren on a life of purpose | Video on TED.com

Dan Dennett's response to Rick Warren | Video on TED.com


"When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion." Abraham Lincoln

Perhaps it is the same stimulus that prompted you to post in the thread. Arguing religion is the way some approach it. Discussing religious concepts or matters of faith is the way others approach it. But it is obviously a subject of intense interest to many whether they are or are not a believer in some sort of deity.

But going to your last line there--the Lincoln quote--one must have a sense of 'right' and 'wrong' in order to feel good or bad about what we do. I'm sure Lincoln, being an intelligent and articulate being, might enjoy an expanded discussion on how we determine what is right and what is wrong from a moral perspective.

And that can be expanded into different kinds of religious belief that could include our thoughts on evolution, environment, global warming, economics, or concepts of good government when it requires a leap of faith to accept one concept over another.

 

[Madeline]

"but what is required to knee-jerk choose as an adult to belong to the faith you were raised in?"

In order to pose the above question, you must consciously ignore the various links that I have provided...and I understand the tempation to do so, else you might have to reconsider many of your closely held beliefs (I use the term 'beliefs' advisedly).

"...certain emotional needs of humans,..."

Exactly what I suggest is true of empiricism, especially those with limited knowledge of science.

"...asserting that evolution is a lie "because the Bible says so" ..."
Maddy, to sink to a straw-argument?
Juvenile at the very least...where did I claim what you state?

But, I would be happy to instruct you on the weaknesses of the Darwinian thesis if you like.


"...and not attempt to change the US into a theocracy..."

Consider the link between secularism and tyranny, for if moral knowledge is not possible, then we are left with only political and legal measures to coerce people into compliance, i.e. the better course that the elites envision. Thus, the folks who claim that they wish to be free of what they refer to as oppressive moral codes, such as yourself, are setting the scene for new forms of oppression. One accepts moral relativism to be tolerant and non-judgmental…but this ultimately leads to a politics of manipulation and coercion.

Think not? All totalist philosophies always know what is better for folks...does liberalism pop into your mind?

Arrogant much, Political Chic? You dun even know what the hell I believe, though if you ask me nicely, I will tell you. WTF makes you think that you have startling new arguments that if I would just honestly ponder, would prompt me to run back to the RCC or whichever christian church you are here shilling for? (It is ALWAYS a christian religion. The day a Muslim, Buddist or Jew proletizes to me I will fall down in a dead faint.) You seem to think I have arrived at my spiritual depot carelessly and thoughtlessly -- and I assure you, such is far from the case.

By means of what training and education exactly to you claim to be able to out-science the scientists? I always wonder about you evolution-deniers...what the hell do you tell you kids at the dinosaur exhibit at your local Natural History Museum? Or do you just avoid the place as it is too taxing on your religion-based thinking?

What right do you have to tar every non-christian as a "moral relativist", nevermind me personally? When it comes to right and wrong, I doubt you'd find many as rigid as I am....IMO, very few actual ethical quandries exist in this world, though we do like to bullshit ourselves elsewise.

Get the hell off your high horse, Political Chic. T'aint becoming to you to presume a superiority you have not earned.

Now, now, calm down...

I have the feeling that you are purposely mischaracterizing my posts...I guess it is easier to do so than to repond or rebut same.

1. Each statement of mine deals directly with a statement of yours.

2. "...you think that you have startling new arguments that if I would just honestly ponder,..."
I'm going to guess that you have never been confronted with the idea that the Enlightenment took Western thought in a new direction, i.e., the dichotomy of fact/values.

I have had a reasonably good education, PC. I was once even able to tic off the differences between the various leading philosophers of the Enlightenment. I daresay, most people in the US with a college degree can do so as well.

As far as whether you will ponder same, that depends on your character, doesn't it.

Given something new to ponder, I swear I will.

3. "...christian church you are here shilling for?"
Which of us brought up Christian? Ah, yes, it was you.
What makes you so sensitive to same?

I am ex-RCC. The christians in America are usually up to no good...see, e.g., Muslim bashing and GLBT rights denials. Pain makes me sensitive, especially as you guys constantly reopen old wounds.

4. "...training and education..."
What, exaclty, is the resume required to post?
Isn't being able to read, and think, good enough?

Sure is, but to post "I have a better knowledge of the natural world than any scientist", I wanna see what lies behind the curtain.

5. "...about you evolution-deniers..."
Now, see...look how you show your weakness. You are reduced to making things up, as I have yet to deny evolution...or can you show where I have?
You seem so hostile to new ideas, or a presentation of facts that you have not considered before....
Is this what you learned in school?

You referenced "flaws in Darwinism", PC. Dun be coy here.

6. "What right do you have to tar every non-christian as a "moral relativist", nevermind me personally?"
Ah, but it really is about you, isn't it? One rarely becomes so incensed about some hypothetical 'non-christians,' does one.

I completely agree -- I was annoyed.

7. "... to presume a superiority ..."
Since I didn't claim such, how did you devine (pun intended) that? Was it the ideas? The links? What?
But if you did, well, I'm blushing.


I'm guessing that I made some points that you will, actually, ponder.
Be well.

Ah, no...except I do wonder what you've been smoking. This ain't your usual posting style.

Well, okay, mebbe your style but not your topic of choice. May I refer you to....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/141331-how-to-proletize.html

 

[PoliticalChic]

Been at many RL death scenes, Granny? I've been at a few and never seen nor heard this phenom you claim is so universal. I dun want immortality; I dun even crave an especially long life. I've known people who've lived past 75 or so and no thankies.

I'm not so egotistical as to think my "essence" is so precious and unique it must, as a matter of logic, persist forever. I'm sure another snotty New York bitch is coming up now who can more than replace me.

Actually, the opposite side of the question is under discussion here. That is, are we merely a collection of cells, a biological entity only?

Subsequent to the Enlightenment, and the rise of modern science, Westerners began to embrace a mechanistic model of the world, and of nature. Remember, by the fourteenth century complex and elaborate mechanical clocks featured marching automated figures, and these clocks and toys served as a lynchpin for the kind of thinking that transferred such workings to a perceived understanding of the animations of living things. Adding to this view, was its consistency with Christianity, in the sense that believers could attribute such workings to an inventor, a designer, a creator.

a. This view led to the mind-body dichotomy., which can be seen in your post. We can see that in the writings of Descartes: “ I suppose the body to be nothing but a statue or machine made of earth, …It’s motion…[as a clock] from the power, the situation, and the shape of its counterweights and wheels.” John Cooper, “Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate, “ p. 14-15, and The origin of Descartes'' mechanical philosophy. | Goliath Business News

b. Richard Dawkins asserts that humans are nothing but “machines created by our genes.” Journal of Cosmology

And, if this is so, whence come morality and values?

The mind body dichtomoy is bullshit that arose from a flawed understanding of medicine and likely will not survive this century -- mayhaps not this decade. The morality of mankind is a function of the basic social contract all humans need to live together in harmony in a group.....ever notice essentially the same morals are held by virtually all groups of humans, including non-christians, PC?

Again, I must beg to differ!

The worldview to which you subscribe removes morality, values, the human spirit, and attributes to a mechanistic view that ascribes all to an amoral physical dimension...you state it in your post, but don't realize it...

"...The morality of mankind is a function of the basic social contract all humans need ..."
So, where does it come from?
Is it in our genes?

Secularists have actually claimed that they know the scientific basis for morality:

“Sociobiologists like Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson claim that our values, including moral values, are part of innate, genetic dispositions which construct our minds. "Ethics as we understand it," Ruse and Wilson write, "is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate ... Our biology enforces its ends by making us think that there is an objective higher code, to which we are all subject," (Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson on "The Evolution of Ethics", in J. E. Huchingson, ed. Religion and the Natural Sciences, HBJ, 1993).

Similarly, Ruse writes in the May 2001 edition of Research News, "Morality is a collective illusion of humankind put in place by our genes in order to make us good cooperators." Taking a Look at Evolution from Quantum Reality :: Lothar Schafer :: Global Spiral

Almost as if you were quoting the above, eh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Science is NOT faith.

Atheism is NOT a religion.

And Stupididy is NOT a word. (At least not yet)

Pretty empty rebuttal to

“I believe a material explanation will be found, but that confidence comes from my faith that science is up to the task of explaining, in purely material or naturalistic terms, the whole history of life. My faith is well founded, but it is still faith.”
What neo-creationists get right - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences

It isn't faith...it's logic. I dun know today how to cure AIDS or whether life ever existed on Mars, but I realize the answers are far more likely to come from scientists working in labs than from old ladies praying at Mass. You see a burning bush advertising a cure for cancer, you be sure to lemme know.

Meanwhile I will continue to look to the rational for more rationales.

I suppose when your argument is as weak as it is you are reduced to making up things, as in some imagined belief that religious folks would try to cure disease by merely praying.

Very silly.

Jonas Salk: "“Why do I have to choose? Why must it be one or the other? Of course evolution is real. DNA mutates, and that makes evolution one of the most powerful forces in nature. But who set evolution into motion? Can’t God have done that? I can’t stand it when the ideologues take over on something like this. Don’t ever let yourself be caught in one of these “either/or” debates, because when you finally figure it out – it’s usually a bit of both.”Ultima Thule: Jonas Salk on evolution vs. ID


You have heard of Jonas Salk, haven't you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes! Please do.

Certainly.

1. . “ Microevolution, the adaptation of species to their environment, is an observed scientific fact, which we of course do not deny. But macroevolution, the gradual process of development of new species, is a mere conclusion, there’s no observational evidence for that.” Peter Korevaar is head of the physics and cosmology working group of Germany’s Studiengemeinschaft Wort
und Wissen, one of the largest creationist groups in Europe. He holds a PhD in astrophysics and now works at IBM in Mannheim. http://www.scienceinschool.org/repository/docs/issue9_nature_graebsch2006.pdf

2. Philip Johnson, Professor of Law, Berkeley, Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip From his thesis:

a. Nobody doubts that evolution occurs, in the narrow sense that certain changes happen naturally. The most famous piece of evidence for Darwinism is a study of an English peppered-moth population consisting of both dark- and light-colored moths. When industrial smoke darkened the trees, the percentage of dark moths increased, due to their relative advantage in hiding from predators. When the air pollution was reduced, the trees became lighter and more light moths survived. Both colors were present throughout, and so no new characteristics emerged, but the percentage of dark moths in the population went up and down as changing conditions affected their relative ability to survive and produce offspring.

b. Some experts do not believe that major changes and the appearance of new forms (i.e., macroevolution) can be explained as the products of an accumulation of tiny mutations through natural selection of individual organisms (microevolution). If classical Darwinism isn't the explanation for macroevolution, however, there is only , there is only speculation as to what sort of alternative mechanisms might have been responsible.

c. If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate forms…New forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved.


d. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:

The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago.

[Darwin] ruefully conceded: "Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms."
(emphasis mine throughout)

The point? Much of the theory is unproven.

All this proves is you know how to copy and paste.

Critical thinking? I think not.

Interesting how some folks will dodge when caught...like you.

You asked a question, I answered, and now you attempt to change the subject: critical thinking...

Busted.

The correct response would have been to either say 'thank you,' or, if you could, find weaknesses in the post.....

Clearly you could do neither.

 

[Madeline]

Pretty empty rebuttal to

“I believe a material explanation will be found, but that confidence comes from my faith that science is up to the task of explaining, in purely material or naturalistic terms, the whole history of life. My faith is well founded, but it is still faith.”
What neo-creationists get right - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences

It isn't faith...it's logic. I dun know today how to cure AIDS or whether life ever existed on Mars, but I realize the answers are far more likely to come from scientists working in labs than from old ladies praying at Mass. You see a burning bush advertising a cure for cancer, you be sure to lemme know.

Meanwhile I will continue to look to the rational for more rationales.

I suppose when your argument is as weak as it is you are reduced to making up things, as in some imagined belief that religious folks would try to cure disease by merely praying.

Very silly.

Jonas Salk: "“Why do I have to choose? Why must it be one or the other? Of course evolution is real. DNA mutates, and that makes evolution one of the most powerful forces in nature. But who set evolution into motion? Can’t God have done that? I can’t stand it when the ideologues take over on something like this. Don’t ever let yourself be caught in one of these “either/or” debates, because when you finally figure it out – it’s usually a bit of both.”Ultima Thule: Jonas Salk on evolution vs. ID

You have heard of Jonas Salk, haven't you?

Not just heard, PC. I'm old enough to have had a whiff of the polio scare. He was a genius.

Dun make him right about God.

IMO, faith is a gift -- usually a blessing, sometimes a curse. Believing in God is not about "proof", it's about wish-fulfillment. Some have it, others don't. I do, you do, and it would seem some here do not.

Bashing people about the head with arrogance isn't going to lead anyone to change their POV. Once again, may I suggest....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/141331-how-to-proletize.html

 

[Foxfyre]

I like PC and have enjoyed many a convo with her, foxfyre. My back is up because she wrote a snotty and condescending Op. I'll get over it -- but this thread likely ain't the place to discuss whichever discussion-worthy concept you sifted out of her Op.

Start over, make a new Op -- that's my advice.

Sorry, but other than the thread title, I didn't see it as snotty at all. I think it is interesting, provocative, and inspires discussion to those who can look at it objectively and not judgmentally. I would like for those who have a burr under their saddle re PC to go find something else to do because I enjoy the kind of discussion she offered.

Sorry, Fox. But I would speculate the reason you don't see it or the follow-up posts in relation to it as snotty is because you agree with it. Your POV masks the tone.

I have not said whether I agree or disagree with the OP, but I sure hope my POV doesn't set the tone of the truly snotty remarks some have directed at it or the member who offered it.

Those who do not agree that empiricism or "science" is a faith-based religion to all non-believers, and probably some who do, tend find the overbroad projection and the method of expressing opinion as incontrovertible fact and the sneer of condescension at the "great unwashed" who actually hold and articulate those beliefs rather than read about them online and copy and paste what others have come up with more than a bit smug. How do you feel when you tell somebody what you believe and why, and they tell you that you're wrong, inane and stupid because THEY read about it somewhere and therefore know you better than you know yourself?

What overbroad projection? What method of expression opinion as incontrovertible fact? What sneer of condescension? You are hugely reading a lot of stuff into that OP that I do not see and that I frankly believe is not there. Some others criticized PC because she was expressing 'others' thoughts' rather than her own. Have we come down to the point that if I say what I believe to be fact I am projecting? I suggest that I am the last word on the subject? I am being condescending because you don't agree that my opinion is based on fact?

You don't see how your own response to the OP might be a tad hypercritical and judgmental in ways that cannot be really supported? I say this because you've offered no rebuttal to what was actually said in the OP but only rebuttal to statements I can't find there.

Not to mention the OP comes across as more than a tad hypocritical when calling others incapable of debate while not demonstrating any capability of critical thought or articulation of an idea on her own merits. I remember a certain poster referred to as PI who also fatuously and repeatedly declared victory without offering a shred of real debate, but he at least stood by his own words - not somebody else's op-ed. The poster who uses these methods is treated with the derision he or she richly deserves. She has demonstrated no interest in debate, only in very slightly veiled contempt. You don't have to agree, but that's how many of "us regular folks" tend to operate.

I agree that the member who refuses to articulate a rationale for his/her opinion or any evidence to dispute the opinion of the other but declares the others' opinion to be unworthy--sort of like many have thus far done with the OP--doesn't inspire much confidence. More especially when they declare victory for themselves.

I do declare victory whenever the discussion diverts from the thread topic to focus on and discredit me personally or attacks maliciously without foundation. I'll declare victory every single time in such cases. I (and many others) have won formal debates not because I/we had a great argument, but because the opponent had nothing and went ad hominem or personally insulted. Gets them every time.

I'll get back to your other point on the other post in a few. While we disagree often, I always appreciate the fact that you debate with careful thought and respect and therefore like to take the time and effort to put the same into my posts directed at you. As ye give, so shall ye receive, so sayeth the unwritten law of the internet message board.

Sure. I would just hope that this discussion gets back on the OP and related concepts itself and doesn't become another flame thread.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It isn't faith...it's logic. I dun know today how to cure AIDS or whether life ever existed on Mars, but I realize the answers are far more likely to come from scientists working in labs than from old ladies praying at Mass. You see a burning bush advertising a cure for cancer, you be sure to lemme know.

Meanwhile I will continue to look to the rational for more rationales.

I suppose when your argument is as weak as it is you are reduced to making up things, as in some imagined belief that religious folks would try to cure disease by merely praying.

Very silly.

Jonas Salk: "“Why do I have to choose? Why must it be one or the other? Of course evolution is real. DNA mutates, and that makes evolution one of the most powerful forces in nature. But who set evolution into motion? Can’t God have done that? I can’t stand it when the ideologues take over on something like this. Don’t ever let yourself be caught in one of these “either/or” debates, because when you finally figure it out – it’s usually a bit of both.”Ultima Thule: Jonas Salk on evolution vs. ID

You have heard of Jonas Salk, haven't you?

Not just heard, PC. I'm old enough to have had a whiff of the polio scare. He was a genius.

Dun make him right about God.

IMO, faith is a gift -- usually a blessing, sometimes a curse. Believing in God is not about "proof", it's about wish-fulfillment. Some have it, others don't. I do, you do, and it would seem some here do not.

Bashing people about the head with arrogance isn't going to lead anyone to change their POV. Once again, may I suggest....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/141331-how-to-proletize.html

You misunderstand.

I don't mean to convert you...merely enlighten.

 

[goldcatt]

Sorry, Fox. But I would speculate the reason you don't see it or the follow-up posts in relation to it as snotty is because you agree with it. Your POV masks the tone.

I have not said whether I agree or disagree with the OP, but I sure hope my POV doesn't set the tone of the truly snotty remarks some have directed at it or the member who offered it.

What overbroad projection? What method of expression opinion as incontrovertible fact? What sneer of condescension? You are hugely reading a lot of stuff into that OP that I do not see and that I frankly believe is not there. Some others criticized PC because she was expressing 'others' thoughts' rather than her own. Have we come down to the point that if I say what I believe to be fact I am projecting? I suggest that I am the last word on the subject? I am being condescending because you don't agree that my opinion is based on fact?

You don't see how your own response to the OP might be a tad hypercritical and judgmental in ways that cannot be really supported? I say this because you've offered no rebuttal to what was actually said in the OP but only rebuttal to statements I can't find there.

Not to mention the OP comes across as more than a tad hypocritical when calling others incapable of debate while not demonstrating any capability of critical thought or articulation of an idea on her own merits. I remember a certain poster referred to as PI who also fatuously and repeatedly declared victory without offering a shred of real debate, but he at least stood by his own words - not somebody else's op-ed. The poster who uses these methods is treated with the derision he or she richly deserves. She has demonstrated no interest in debate, only in very slightly veiled contempt. You don't have to agree, but that's how many of "us regular folks" tend to operate.

I agree that the member who refuses to articulate a rationale for his/her opinion or any evidence to dispute the opinion of the other but declares the others' opinion to be unworthy--sort of like many have thus far done with the OP--doesn't inspire much confidence. More especially when they declare victory for themselves.

I do declare victory whenever the discussion diverts from the thread topic to focus on and discredit me personally or attacks maliciously without foundation. I'll declare victory every single time in such cases. I (and many others) have won formal debates not because I/we had a great argument, but because the opponent had nothing and went ad hominem or personally insulted. Gets them every time.

I'll get back to your other point on the other post in a few. While we disagree often, I always appreciate the fact that you debate with careful thought and respect and therefore like to take the time and effort to put the same into my posts directed at you. As ye give, so shall ye receive, so sayeth the unwritten law of the internet message board.

Sure. I would just hope that this discussion gets back on the OP and related concepts itself and doesn't become another flame thread.

You're certainly entitled to your opinions. But taking a look through the thread, when the vast cloud of witnesses states otherwise isn't it irrational to question what all of these others believe is true simply because you, personally, don't see it?

 

[Foxfyre]

Moving right along here, I woud be the first to say that David Hume, evoked in the OP, is VERY difficult reading. I once had the daunting dask of debating Hume's theories of morality but alas, forget much of those arguments, and my notes are either lost or sealed in some box we've moved a couple of dozen times now and never unpacked.

But one point pertinent to this discussion was this quotation of Hume's:

If I ask you why you believe any particular matter of fact, which you relate, you must tell me some reason; and this reason will be some other fact, connected with it. But as you cannot proceed after this manner, in infinitum, you must at last terminate in some fact, which is present to your memory or senses; or must allow that your belief is entirely without foundation.--David Hume 1737

and this:

"I found that the moral philosophy transmitted to us by Antiquity, laboured under the same inconvenience that has been found in their natural philosophy, of being entirely hypothetical, and depending upon more invention than experience. Every one consulted his fancy in erecting schemes of virtue and of happiness, without regarding human nature, upon which every moral conclusion must depend."--David Hume.

At the same time, Hume, the quintessential skeptic and therefore atypical of his time and culture, put a great deal of stock in experience.

In his first quotation posted here, we find the ultimate reason for much if not most of the discord on message boards. Once we arrive at that point in our rationale in which we rely on our experience to believe a thing, or if we believe it without experience, we have then demonstrated a leap of faith. It is when those who believe a thing can't even start relating verifiable facts to support their statement of 'fact', is when the foodfights generally start.

Then Hume comes up with people 'inventing' their sense of morality rather than basing it on the empirical evidence of basic human nature. "Antiquity" was his term for the status quo or cultural memory or 'the way it has always been'.

So again, now in late 2010, 273 years later, was Hume right? The Christian and many other faiths base their sense of right and wrong on dictates or instruction from a deity. On what do Atheists base their sense of right and wrong? Where does it come from? And how do you know?

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry, Fox. But I would speculate the reason you don't see it or the follow-up posts in relation to it as snotty is because you agree with it. Your POV masks the tone.

I have not said whether I agree or disagree with the OP, but I sure hope my POV doesn't set the tone of the truly snotty remarks some have directed at it or the member who offered it.

What overbroad projection? What method of expression opinion as incontrovertible fact? What sneer of condescension? You are hugely reading a lot of stuff into that OP that I do not see and that I frankly believe is not there. Some others criticized PC because she was expressing 'others' thoughts' rather than her own. Have we come down to the point that if I say what I believe to be fact I am projecting? I suggest that I am the last word on the subject? I am being condescending because you don't agree that my opinion is based on fact?

You don't see how your own response to the OP might be a tad hypercritical and judgmental in ways that cannot be really supported? I say this because you've offered no rebuttal to what was actually said in the OP but only rebuttal to statements I can't find there.



I agree that the member who refuses to articulate a rationale for his/her opinion or any evidence to dispute the opinion of the other but declares the others' opinion to be unworthy--sort of like many have thus far done with the OP--doesn't inspire much confidence. More especially when they declare victory for themselves.

I do declare victory whenever the discussion diverts from the thread topic to focus on and discredit me personally or attacks maliciously without foundation. I'll declare victory every single time in such cases. I (and many others) have won formal debates not because I/we had a great argument, but because the opponent had nothing and went ad hominem or personally insulted. Gets them every time.

I'll get back to your other point on the other post in a few. While we disagree often, I always appreciate the fact that you debate with careful thought and respect and therefore like to take the time and effort to put the same into my posts directed at you. As ye give, so shall ye receive, so sayeth the unwritten law of the internet message board.

Sure. I would just hope that this discussion gets back on the OP and related concepts itself and doesn't become another flame thread.

You're certainly entitled to your opinions. But taking a look through the thread, when the vast cloud of witnesses states otherwise isn't it irrational to question what all of these others believe is true simply because you, personally, don't see it?

Naw, I'll just repeat Hume's point:

If I ask you why you believe any particular matter of fact, which you relate, you must tell me some reason; and this reason will be some other fact, connected with it. But as you cannot proceed after this manner, in infinitum, you must at last terminate in some fact, which is present to your memory or senses; or must allow that your belief is entirely without foundation.--David Hume 1737

So far I have seen absolutely zero rebuttal of the points PC has made from that 'cloud of witnesses' and have seen a lot of unkind comments directed at her personally.

I have seen a lot of comments about what she said that I can't find that she said.

So I have to go with Hume's theory that the stated beliefs about what PC intended and/or said are so far entirely without foundation here.

 

[Toro]

I'm going to suggest that you read the thread, as there are several posts which would obviate yours.

Really? Where? I had read the thread and went through it again and the only thing I saw was a quote from a scientist stating that he had faith that naturalism would one day explain all life. But that is different than saying one has the same faith in science as in religion. His faith that in naturalism is based upon a body of scientific work leading him to a conclusion. There is no body of work which leads one to believe in the existence of God. It is entirely based on faith. Likewise, the debate on macroevolution is based on microevolution. It may turn out to be totally wrong, but at least it is a foundation. There is no foundation for religion other than faith. Again, you don't need faith to believe in photosynthesis. You need total faith to believe in God.

Check out the post on the weaknesses in the theory of evolution...significant, as it represents the idea that generally separates believers from non-believers.

And, of course, consider the dearth of scientific theory as to the creation of the universe itself...a pretty good question, no?

The Big Bang Theory is a theory of the universe, which is rooted in mathematics derived from observed physical phenomena.

But that is beside the point. There is more to science than how the universe started or evolution. The body of scientific knowledge does not remotely pretend to have answered every single question in the universe. (Likewise, simply because science cannot prove the existence of God does not mean God does not exist. It may mean that the proof of God is currently beyond the bounds of human technological ability.) But scientific answers are based upon methodology, not unverifiable belief systems, which is religion. That is why it is simply false to say that science requires as much faith as religion. By definition, this cannot be.

One should also realize that the most vocal critics of evolution are not from within the scientific community but from the religious community. The religious community is not interested in an intellectually honest debate about the origins of mankind and the universe. Religion already has those answers, even though there is no evidence whatsoever to support them. They are attempting to discredit evolution in the hopes that by discrediting evolution, people will turn to religion for answers by default. Religions are created in part to provide answers to questions people cannot comprehend. When science attempts to give answers to those questions, it threatens the foundations of religion. So religion attempts to discredit science because its credibility and very survival depends on it.

 

[uscitizen]

On the theory of evoloution.
I believe it as stated. It is a theory and not proven any more than God created everything.
However we do have a bit more shaky evidence supporting evoloution.
We have ZERO supporting God's creation of the universe.

 

[Foxfyre]

On the theory of evoloution.
I believe it as stated. It is a theory and not proven any more than God created everything.
However we do have a bit more shaky evidence supporting evoloution.
We have ZERO supporting God's creation of the universe.

So where did evolution come from?

 

[Madeline]

I suppose when your argument is as weak as it is you are reduced to making up things, as in some imagined belief that religious folks would try to cure disease by merely praying.

Very silly.

Jonas Salk: "“Why do I have to choose? Why must it be one or the other? Of course evolution is real. DNA mutates, and that makes evolution one of the most powerful forces in nature. But who set evolution into motion? Can’t God have done that? I can’t stand it when the ideologues take over on something like this. Don’t ever let yourself be caught in one of these “either/or” debates, because when you finally figure it out – it’s usually a bit of both.”Ultima Thule: Jonas Salk on evolution vs. ID

You have heard of Jonas Salk, haven't you?

Not just heard, PC. I'm old enough to have had a whiff of the polio scare. He was a genius.

Dun make him right about God.

IMO, faith is a gift -- usually a blessing, sometimes a curse. Believing in God is not about "proof", it's about wish-fulfillment. Some have it, others don't. I do, you do, and it would seem some here do not.

Bashing people about the head with arrogance isn't going to lead anyone to change their POV. Once again, may I suggest....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/141331-how-to-proletize.html

You misunderstand.

I don't mean to convert you...merely enlighten.

That you always do, PC. For example, today you have taught me that I need to work on my patience. Not that I wasn't already aware, but still.

Have a lovely evening, miss.

 

[Foxfyre]

Really? Where? I had read the thread and went through it again and the only thing I saw was a quote from a scientist stating that he had faith that naturalism would one day explain all life. But that is different than saying one has the same faith in science as in religion. His faith that in naturalism is based upon a body of scientific work leading him to a conclusion. There is no body of work which leads one to believe in the existence of God. It is entirely based on faith. Likewise, the debate on macroevolution is based on microevolution. It may turn out to be totally wrong, but at least it is a foundation. There is no foundation for religion other than faith. Again, you don't need faith to believe in photosynthesis. You need total faith to believe in God.

Check out the post on the weaknesses in the theory of evolution...significant, as it represents the idea that generally separates believers from non-believers.

And, of course, consider the dearth of scientific theory as to the creation of the universe itself...a pretty good question, no?

The Big Bang Theory is a theory of the universe, which is rooted in mathematics derived from observed physical phenomena.

But that is beside the point. There is more to science than how the universe started or evolution. The body of scientific knowledge does not remotely pretend to have answered every single question in the universe. (Likewise, simply because science cannot prove the existence of God does not mean God does not exist. It may mean that the proof of God is currently beyond the bounds of human technological ability.) But scientific answers are based upon methodology, not unverifiable belief systems, which is religion. That is why it is simply false to say that science requires as much faith as religion. By definition, this cannot be.

One should also realize that the most vocal critics of evolution are not from within the scientific community but from the religious community. The religious community is not interested in an intellectually honest debate about the origins of mankind and the universe. Religion already has those answers, even though there is no evidence whatsoever to support them. They are attempting to discredit evolution in the hopes that by discrediting evolution, people will turn to religion for answers by default. Religions are created in part to provide answers to questions people cannot comprehend. When science attempts to give answers to those questions, it threatens the foundations of religion. So religion attempts to discredit science because its credibility and very survival depends on it.

But the OP doesn't attempt to discredit evolution. So what does whatever the religious community thinks have to do with that? I'm pretty religious and science doesn't threaten a single religious belief I hold. And I don't believe I am anywhere close to being in the minority of the religious. If we don't condemn all of science because a few scientists hold screwy ideas, why do you seem to condemn all of religion because a few of the religious hold screwy ideas?

And where do you think moral values come from?

 

[Madeline]

Check out the post on the weaknesses in the theory of evolution...significant, as it represents the idea that generally separates believers from non-believers.

And, of course, consider the dearth of scientific theory as to the creation of the universe itself...a pretty good question, no?

The Big Bang Theory is a theory of the universe, which is rooted in mathematics derived from observed physical phenomena.

But that is beside the point. There is more to science than how the universe started or evolution. The body of scientific knowledge does not remotely pretend to have answered every single question in the universe. (Likewise, simply because science cannot prove the existence of God does not mean God does not exist. It may mean that the proof of God is currently beyond the bounds of human technological ability.) But scientific answers are based upon methodology, not unverifiable belief systems, which is religion. That is why it is simply false to say that science requires as much faith as religion. By definition, this cannot be.

One should also realize that the most vocal critics of evolution are not from within the scientific community but from the religious community. The religious community is not interested in an intellectually honest debate about the origins of mankind and the universe. Religion already has those answers, even though there is no evidence whatsoever to support them. They are attempting to discredit evolution in the hopes that by discrediting evolution, people will turn to religion for answers by default. Religions are created in part to provide answers to questions people cannot comprehend. When science attempts to give answers to those questions, it threatens the foundations of religion. So religion attempts to discredit science because its credibility and very survival depends on it.

But the OP doesn't attempt to discredit evolution. So what does whatever the religious community thinks have to do with that? I'm pretty religious and science doesn't threaten a single religious belief I hold. And I don't believe I am anywhere close to being in the minority of the religious. If we don't condemn all of science because a few scientists hold screwy ideas, why do you seem to condemn all of religion because a few of the religious hold screwy ideas?

And where do you think moral values come from?

Foxfyre, it is the Religious Right who inserts Genesis or "Intelligent Design" into science classes at public HS's. Who demands we "teach abstinence" rather than Sex Ed 101. Who opposes finding a cure for Alzheimer's, etc. because stem cells are harvested from the medical waste products of abortion. Who oppose FDA approval of safer abortificants. Who oppose full legal recognition of the basic civil rights of GLBT people. Who seek to recriminalize abortion.

I can go on for hours, but why? You know all this as well as I do. It's rather difficult to live in the US and not have your rights stepped on -- or threatened to be stepped on -- by these wingnuts, and the resentment after a lifetime of this nonsense is palpable.

I'm gonna say to you what so many say to moderate Muslims.....these are your brothers in faith. Why aren't YOU helping me tell them to back it the fuck up?

 

[Toro]

But the OP doesn't attempt to discredit evolution. So what does whatever the religious community thinks have to do with that? I'm pretty religious and science doesn't threaten a single religious belief I hold. And I don't believe I am anywhere close to being in the minority of the religious. If we don't condemn all of science because a few scientists hold screwy ideas, why do you seem to condemn all of religion because a few of the religious hold screwy ideas?

And where do you think moral values come from?

PC refers to evolution to support her argument.

I believe in God and am a Christian, albeit a lazy one, but what I am arguing is that this statement

the anti-religion thesis requires as much faith as the religious thesis...

is by definition false.

Science is based on a body of knowledge derived from process and methodology. Religion is an unverifiable belief system. Ergo, religion requires far more faith than science. Simple as that.

 

[goldcatt]

You're certainly entitled to your opinions. But taking a look through the thread, when the vast cloud of witnesses states otherwise isn't it irrational to question what all of these others believe is true simply because you, personally, don't see it?

Naw, I'll just repeat Hume's point:

If I ask you why you believe any particular matter of fact, which you relate, you must tell me some reason; and this reason will be some other fact, connected with it. But as you cannot proceed after this manner, in infinitum, you must at last terminate in some fact, which is present to your memory or senses; or must allow that your belief is entirely without foundation.--David Hume 1737

So far I have seen absolutely zero rebuttal of the points PC has made from that 'cloud of witnesses' and have seen a lot of unkind comments directed at her personally.

I have seen a lot of comments about what she said that I can't find that she said.

So I have to go with Hume's theory that the stated beliefs about what PC intended and/or said are so far entirely without foundation here.

Again, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally, I see no points in the OP except the one we already discussed that are worth discussing and my position is clear, nor will I engage in one-sided debate with a straw man other than to point out that it is, in fact, a straw man and move on. Which has also already been made clear. If you seriously expect me to chase my tail over logical fallacies, I'm afraid I will have to disappoint.

So it is now your position that one should NOT take the position of others into account when one is confronted with the testimony of a large group about the existence of an intangible? When does your "cloud of witnesses" matter, and when does it not? Or by rejecting the opinion of the herd when it doesn't suit your predelictions, are you now by your own definition being irrational? I don't follow your logic on this one.