The Irony Of The Myth

[Thugpreacha]

Many atheists claim that religion and the ideology constitute a myth. By definition, the beliefs of some of the most educated and intellectual people in our society are based on concepts foreign to religion. (On the other hand, remember, many smart people are also believers) The concepts are some such as:
Logical Positivism, or empiricism, is the belief that reality is limited only to what can be measured by the empirical senses-eyes, ears, nose, tongue and fingers. It involves the application of rationality and empiricism through science and technology. In other words, science becomes our "sacred cow" or god. Any truth that can’t be observed or experienced, such as moral or spiritual truth, is relative. The "scientist," like Carl Sagan, would be the "high priest" in this modern movement. Motto: "The cosmos is all there is or ever will be." Paul says that the Christian is to "live by faith and not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7).
Secular Humanism is a worldview that is man-centered rather than God-centered. In its simplest form it views man "as the measure of all things." Man, not God, is the standard by which all norms and values are ultimately determined-all reality and life is centered on man. This belief system is summarized in the Humanist Manifesto I & II. Its motto: "I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul." Man-centered secular humanism is the most popular alternative to God-centered Christianity.
So there are alternative belief systems. One idea that I personally find interesting is the fact that many of the Christian end times scenario writers, who by the way I do not usually take seriously, have previously written of a scenario where the world leader and leadership which rises up in the last days will advocate a non religious atmosphere. It is said that religion and fundamentalism has caused all of the worlds problems in politics and international relations. The next logical step will be to essentially proclaim that humanity needs to be free from ALL religion. This scenario is well and good IF Jesus is unreal. IF the Biblical scenario is even mostly true, these well meaning efforts will cause even worse problems.

[McGargoyle]

Originally posted by Thugpreacha
One idea that I personally find interesting is the fact that many of the Christian end times scenario writers, who by the way I do not usually take seriously, have previously written of a scenario where the world leader and leadership which rises up in the last days will advocate a non religious atmosphere.
It is merely good business practice to vilify potential competitors in advance; a thing not entirely unknown throughout the Bible.

[Philosoft]

IF the Biblical scenario is mostly true, the "end-times" probably isn't something that can be avoided. Why scoff at those who authoritatively write about it? How are their scenarios any more ridiculous than any others?

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Thugpreacha
IF the Biblical scenario is even mostly true, these well meaning efforts will cause even worse problems.
"If the God of the Bible exists" is the worst possible nightmare.

Try reading the book sometime, and you'll see what I mean.

[ObiKenobi]

Originally posted by Thugpreacha
Man-centered secular humanism is the most popular alternative to God-centered Christianity.
How very conceited of you to think that the only two possibilites are secular humanism and christianity. So let me break this down for you based on figures from religioustolerance.org:

Christianity: ~2.0 billion
Islam: ~1.2 billion
No religion (including agnostics, atheists, secular humanists, etc.): ~1.1 billion
Hindus: ~786 million

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

Which by these figures show that Islam is the most popular alternative to Christianity. Also, membership in Islam is growing while Christian membership is declining.

[Sven]

Originally posted by Thugpreacha
This scenario is well and good IF Jesus is unreal. IF the Biblical scenario is even mostly true, these well meaning efforts will cause even worse problems.
Sounds like a """"new"""" version of Pascal's wager.
May I ask: what was the purpose of your OP? Did you simply want to state your belief or do you actually want to dicuss anything?

[orpheus last chant]

Originally posted by Thugpreacha
[B]Many atheists claim that religion and the ideology constitute a myth. By definition, the beliefs of some of the most educated and intellectual people in our society are based on concepts foreign to religion. (On the other hand, remember, many smart people are also believers)


And many smart people aren't believers. Your point?


The concepts are some such as:
Logical Positivism, or empiricism, is the belief that reality is limited only to what can be measured by the empirical senses-eyes, ears, nose, tongue and fingers.


LOL! You know, most skin has nerve endings...that's why you can feel heat pain and touch with more tha your fingers...
And you got yourself a strawman there. Of course there might be more than we can measure with your senses. We can measure a lot more now indirectly, or through their effects. And whatever exists and has no bearing to ourselves, directly or indirectly though effects...well, doesn't matter much to us, does it? That doesn't mean it cannot exist...where did you get these ideas anyways?



It involves the application of rationality and empiricism through science and technology. In other words, science becomes our "sacred cow" or god.


At least you can milk this cow. Where do you think the computer you used to write this anti-scientific rant comes from?


Paul says that the Christian is to "live by faith and not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7).


Tell me, in a busy intersection, what do you use?


Secular Humanism is a worldview that is man-centered rather than God-centered.


*gasp* How dare they...man centered? What awful mind has conceived such wicked ideas as enlightened self-interest and lack of misantrophy.



In its simplest form it views man "as the measure of all things." Man, not God, is the standard by which all norms and values are ultimately determined-all reality and life is centered on man.


While OTOH, any theist's faith is just the theist convictions of what other people should do, with a godditit to support it. Not human centered, egocentered. Not to mention the hole point of believing is the non-selfish pursuit to save one's soul!



So there are alternative belief systems. One idea that I personally find interesting is the fact that many of the Christian end times scenario writers, who by the way I do not usually take seriously, have previously written of a scenario where the world leader and leadership which rises up in the last days will advocate a non religious atmosphere.


" Hear, hear! I present my new product, Blue Syrup. (if you could actually read my thoughts, you'd know it's crap, but you can't, can ya?). This product is sooo good, tha I can predict the competition will react saying stuff like "Blue Syrup is no good!" Why, some will say whoever likes BS is deluded. That they are experiencing the addictive effect of this poison. But rest assured, I will present evidence to counteract all the false tests and fake scientist that say this is poison. Just a minute, I gotta go on my personal jet...BRB in your lifetime"

[NottyImp]

"Hear, hear! I present my new product, Blue Syrup"

We don't need to read your mind. Food shouldn't be blue, period.

[orpheus last chant]

Originally posted by NottyImp
"Hear, hear! I present my new product, Blue Syrup"

We don't need to read your mind. Food shouldn't be blue, period.


Who says it's food ;) ? Maybe it's like cough syrup, only for an imaginary flu...hmmm, I'm getting more fond of this analogy by the minute...

[Corona688]

Originally posted by Thugpreacha
Many atheists claim that religion and the ideology constitute a myth. By definition, the beliefs of some of the most educated and intellectual people in our society are based on concepts foreign to religion. (On the other hand, remember, many smart people are also believers) Indeed. I don't think intelligence and morality are the opposites of religion; I think they are independent of it.The concepts are some such as: Logical Positivism, or empiricism, is the belief that reality is limited only to what can be measured by the empirical senses-eyes, ears, nose, tongue and fingers. It involves the application of rationality and empiricism through science and technology. In other words, science becomes our "sacred cow" or god. Any truth that can’t be observed or experienced, such as moral or spiritual truth, is relative. I think that's going a bit far. It doesn't say that there's some giant central source of all morality, no, but it doesn't mean there's no morality. If you're interested, you can check out the manifesto of Secular Humanism for some basics on what it's morality is..The "scientist," like Carl Sagan, would be the "high priest" in this modern movement. If empirical reality is what the point of view is based on, what good is a high priest? The priest doesn't control reality - as always, reality does as it darn well pleases no matter what the high priest or anyone else says. Just look at reality yourself, no high priest needed.Motto: "The cosmos is all there is or ever will be." Paul says that the Christian is to "live by faith and not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7).
Secular Humanism is a worldview that is man-centered rather than God-centered. In its simplest form it views man "as the measure of all things." Funny, I didn't find that anywhere in the Secular Humanism Declaration. It says, at it's base, that if we want to make the world a better place that's our job; there's no god that's going to do it for us. If we want to become better people, that's our job; there's no god that's going to guide us to it. If we want the world to be a good place, it's our job and our responsibility to do it. I see nothing in that that "glorifies" the human race, it merely deals with the practical reality that we are the ones that are here.Man, not God, is the standard by which all norms and values are ultimately determined-all reality and life is centered on man. This belief system is summarized in the Humanist Manifesto I & II. Its motto: "I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul." Man-centered secular humanism is the most popular alternative to God-centered Christianity. Er, yeah. So, it's based on human thinking rather than godly thinking. Given that there is no evidence that god exists, what are we SUPPOSED to do? Make-believe? And what are we supposed to center it around, given that there is no evidence for an existing god? Leprechauns?One idea that I personally find interesting is the fact that many of the Christian end times scenario writers, who by the way I do not usually take seriously, have previously written of a scenario where the world leader and leadership which rises up in the last days will advocate a non religious atmosphere. It is said that religion and fundamentalism has caused all of the worlds problems in politics and international relations. The next logical step will be to essentially proclaim that humanity needs to be free from ALL religion. I think you missed this bit of the Secular Humanist Declaration:

"There are many forms of totalitarianism in the modern world - secular and nonsecular - all of which we vigorously oppose. As democratic secularists, we consistently defend the ideal of freedom, not only freedom of conscience and belief from those ecclesiastical, political, and economic interests that seek to repress them, but genuine political liberty, democratic decision making based upon majority rule, and respect for minority rights and the rule of law."

So if a nontheistic force did indeed advocate the destruction of all religion, you certainly couldn't call it a secular humanist.

Myself, I don't think that religion should be eliminated. I just wish it's followers would get the idea that maybye, just maybye, the rest of the world isn't pure evil and in need of saving at all cost. :( What if we just want to be left alone?

[Soundsurfr]

Where can I get some of that Blue Syrup?

[Soundsurfr]

One idea that I personally find interesting is the fact that many of the Christian end times scenario writers, who by the way I do not usually take seriously, have previously written of a scenario where the world leader and leadership which rises up in the last days will advocate a non religious atmosphere.

You should continue the practice of not taking them seriously.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Soundsurfr
Where can I get some of that Blue Syrup?

:notworthy

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Thugpreacha
Secular Humanism is a worldview that is man-centered rather than God-centered.

You don't believe there's a conflict between these do you? When you want to sell people on being god centered, you certainly tell them that god-centeredness works out well for people, don't you? If you thought there was a conflict, if you thought religion was bad for people, you wouldn't be recommending it, am I right? What would be the point?

crc

[Infidelettante]

originally posted by Thugpreacha
Many atheists claim that religion and the ideology constitute a myth.

It is a claim that I believe can be substantiated. Religion is mythology. Your own religion is awash in mythological imagery. I don’t have to enumerate the particulars to you, do I. They are so well known that any decent apologist should be able to recite them without much thought.

So well known in fact that I can’t imagine why you would bring the subject to our attention. Your post is predicated on the assumption that atheists must believe as you want them to believe otherwise how would you argue against them.

The tactic is so old I remember it from my teenage days as leader of a weekly Bible study for junior high students. What you have offered us is nothing but buzz words empty of meaning except to those whose ears you hope to buzz. That is to say you direct your words to us but you preach to the choir.

Most of what you post is content free. That is to say if your intent were really to direct some truth to the atheists here you fail miserably. If, however your only intend to toss about tired, worn out apologetic bon bons to impress the faithful you succeed magnificently.

By definition, the beliefs of some of the most educated and intellectual people in our society are based on concepts foreign to religion. (On the other hand, remember, many smart people are also believers)

The above is a perfect example of content free prose. Are educated, intellectual people defined by concepts foreign to religion? Or, are there concepts foreign to religion that are defined by adherence to them of educated and intellectual people? If the former I think you might have put an existential shot in your apologetic foot.

The concepts are some such as:
Logical Positivism, or empiricism, is the belief that reality is limited only to what can be measured by the empirical senses-eyes, ears, nose, tongue and fingers. It involves the application of rationality and empiricism through science and technology.

But surly there are other ways of experiencing reality than the tongue, the eye, the nose, the finger, and the ear. It has always amused me that those who would claim atheism reduces experience to the human senses seem to forget those senses are attached to brains. On the other hand perhaps it is not so amusing after all when they attempt to explain reality to us.

In other words, science becomes our "sacred cow" or god. Any truth that can’t be observed or experienced, such as moral or spiritual truth, is relative. The "scientist," like Carl Sagan, would be the "high priest" in this modern movement. Motto: "The cosmos is all there is or ever will be." Paul says that the Christian is to "live by faith and not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7).

Thank you ever so much for putting the buzz words in quotes. I know of no one outside of Christian apologetics who thinks science is a sacred cow much less a god. Please do prove me wrong. Inform on those scientists who have distorted their chosen field so as to render it a religion. Give us names man. Tell us who they are so we can root them out. Else, you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

BTW Carl Sagan was a scientist. Only a terribly distorted view of both science and religion could imagine him to be a high priest. But then we aren’t talking reality here are we. We are speaking buzz. Evangelistic Buzz. Fundamental Buzz. Apologetic Buzz. Words that mean something more to those conditioned to hear the buzz. Words that mean only what they mean to those of us not conditioned to the buzz.

The buzz is able to convert Carl Sagan into a stooge of humanism, a tool of the Devil. The buzz puts science in quotes so all the buzzed know you’re talking about the evil science, not the good science that proves God exists. The buzz puts high priest in quotes and the buzzed think they don’t have a high priest because you aren’t in quotes. If you were in quotes you would be their high priest.

Secular Humanism is a worldview that is man-centered rather than God-centered. In its simplest form it views man "as the measure of all things." Man, not God, is the standard by which all norms and values are ultimately determined-all reality and life is centered on man. This belief system is summarized in the Humanist Manifesto I & II. Its motto: "I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul." Man-centered secular humanism is the most popular alternative to God-centered Christianity.

I will take my own singular, lonely path over the broad, busy way you offer. I will progress in my understanding of my self. I will not give up my being to things hoped for or to things unseen. Not for a two thousand year old promise. Not if it means I must loose what is most precious to me, myself. My personhood.

I am not master of my fate. Life is too uncertain to make that claim. But I will have no god as my master. I will not sacrifice my being to the distant memory of some tribal deity risen from the sands of Sinai.

So there are alternative belief systems. One idea that I personally find interesting is the fact that many of the Christian end times scenario writers, who by the way I do not usually take seriously, have previously written of a scenario where the world leader and leadership which rises up in the last days will advocate a non religious atmosphere.

How odd, I saw that movie on TBN the other night. MEGGIDO was the title. Jon Voit as Satan.

It is said that religion and fundamentalism has caused all of the worlds problems in politics and international relations. The next logical step will be to essentially proclaim that humanity needs to be free from ALL religion. This scenario is well and good IF Jesus is unreal. IF the Biblical scenario is even mostly true, these well meaning efforts will cause even worse problems.

Watching Satan climb out of Jon Voit’s head was bad enough. Apocalyptic visions should be left to literature. Horrible movie. BTW the only way you will ever see Jesus return is if Mel makes it happen in a dark movie theater.

JT

[Thugpreacha]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Corona688
Indeed. I don't think intelligence and morality are the opposites of religion; I think they are independent of it. John 1:3= Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.If you're interested, you can check out the manifesto of Secular Humanism for some basics on what it's morality is.. Of course, this document surely has as much impact on society as the bestselling book of all time! (From Humanist ManifestoI) FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created. Ps 53:1-3=The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."...God looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. Everyone has turned away,
they have together become corrupt;there is no one who does good, not even one. If empirical reality is what the point of view is based on, what good is a high priest? The priest doesn't control reality - as always, reality does as it darn well pleases no matter what the high priest or anyone else says. So reality is a force? Or is collective human will the force that drives reality? If we want to become better people, that's our job; there's no god that's going to guide us to it. 1 Peter 5:10-11= And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast. To him be the power for ever and ever. Amen. Given that there is no evidence that god exists, what are we SUPPOSED to do? Make-believe? 2 Peter 3:3-5=First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." Myself, I don't think that religion should be eliminated. I just wish it's followers would get the idea that maybye, just maybye, the rest of the world isn't pure evil and in need of saving at all cost. What if we just want to be left alone? Rom 2:5-8=God "will give to each person according to what he has done." To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. From a human centered standpoint, all that is real is perceived and understood collectively as well as individually in our own minds. To declare God as a non reality is not permissable except as an individual action. None of you can declare that I do not perceive God just because you do not. I am quite sane, and I just have a different worldview than you do. I will leave you alone if you wish, but not in our debates...because you never let me get away with anything either! :p

[Naked Ape]

Originally posted by Thugpreacha
Of course, this document surely has as much impact on society as the bestselling book of all time!
.sigh.
So much buying of bibles, so little understanding of them.
Originally posted by Thugpreacha
So reality is a force? Or is collective human will the force that drives reality?
Reality it nothing but a crutch for people who can't handle religion. Like me.
Originally posted by Thugpreacha
From a human centered standpoint, all that is real is perceived and understood collectively as well as individually in our own minds. To declare God as a non reality is not permissable except as an individual action. None of you can declare that I do not perceive God just because you do not. I am quite sane, and I just have a different worldview than you do. I will leave you alone if you wish, but not in our debates...because you never let me get away with anything either! :p
If you can perceive god, please tell us all how to do that. Wait, let me guess, we gotta believe before we can percieve, like tinkerbell. Is that the catch?
If your worldview embraces ghosts, spirits, demons, angels, original sin, and blood sacrifice, I would feel quite comfortble in calling such a worldview insane. You might be ok though, it depends on the worldview.
Originally posted by Thugpreacha
One idea that I personally find interesting is the fact that many of the Christian end times scenario writers, who by the way I do not usually take seriously, have previously written of a scenario where the world leader and leadership which rises up in the last days will advocate a non religious atmosphere. It is said that religion and fundamentalism has caused all of the worlds problems in politics and international relations. The next logical step will be to essentially proclaim that humanity needs to be free from ALL religion. This scenario is well and good IF Jesus is unreal. IF the Biblical scenario is even mostly true, these well meaning efforts will cause even worse problems. Ever since Hal Lindsay started munching blotter acid and churning out such literary masterpieces <.erk> as The Late Great Planet Earth there have been people stoned enough to say "You know, Apatche attack helocopters kinda sorta seem like gigantic killer robot locusts therefore the bad mushroom trip starring the incredible switchblade jebus (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=REV+1:16&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) formerly known as the revelation of st. john the divine and the concept of prophecy should be taken seriously."

There is a special word for the works of Christian end times scenario writers, according to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionarythe word is bosh.
\Bosh\, n. [Turk.] Empty talk; contemptible nonsense; trash; humbug. [Colloq.]


Cheers,

Naked Ape

[Corona688]

Originally posted by Thugpreacha
John 1:3= Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.Corona688 6:3= And lo, people continueth preacheth the bible to nonbelievers even though it was a righteous load of rich mushroom growing medium. Seriously, quoting the bible like it holds any meaning to anyone who doesn't already believe it is stupid. Bible quotes are not an argument any more than this quote from the nonexistent Book of Corona688 is an argument.Of course, this document surely has as much impact on society as the bestselling book of all time! (From Humanist Manifesto) I can't find that in either the old (http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html) nor new (http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto2.html) version of the Humanist Manifesto. Lying for jesus, are we?

Besides which, so what if the bible is the most popular book of all time? Surely you know better than to try and pull the argument from popularity on us. Child sacrifice used to be popular, and nobody's arguing that it's correct.Ps 53:1-3=The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."...God looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. Everyone has turned away,
they have together become corrupt;there is no one who does good, not even one. Matthew 5:22 "But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the Judgement: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the counsil: but whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of Hell fire."2 Peter 3:3-5=First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.[/b] Hang on. Just where do you get off calling me evil? Or a scoffer, for that matter? I am open to the possibility if evidence should present itself. It's hardly my fault that god seem to want to exist.They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? I never said that. Please do not put words in my mouth. Isn't there something in the bible about not bearing false witness?Rom 2:5-8=God "will give to each person according to what he has done." To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. Y'know, if I had a nickel for every time a theist told me I was a rotten self-seeking truth-hating evil follower for not agreeing with them, I'd have.. um.. enough to buy a drink or something. A good sized number.

Why do you think I am self-seeking? My basic philosphy is that the universe does as it darn well pleases no matter what we believe, and that hardly strikes me as self-aggrandizing. Truly, should I be hated for this?

Why do you think I reject the truth? I have rejected nothing, the truth as you know it has never been presented to me by anyone qualified to speak it. All I can assume at this point is either your god does not exist or he does not want me to believe yet. Truly, should I be hated for this?

Because that's what this holy book of yours preaches, Thug. It pays lip service to the concept of loving the sinner and hating the sin, but when it comes down to it it says that people who didn't figure out the One True Correct Beliefs(tm) - which over 1000 different Christian sects still cannot decide on btw - will be tortured forever in a lake of fire to pay for their finite mortal crimes. This is not love, this isn't even justice, it's pure hate.To declare God as a non reality is not permissable except as an individual action. Well, duh. Who did you THINK I was speaking for, The Voice of the Mysterons? :pI will leave you alone if you wish, but not in our debates...because you never let me get away with anything either! :p Good point. :)

[Deacon Doubtmonger]

Originally posted by Thugpreacha
In other words, science becomes our "sacred cow" or god. Any truth that can’t be observed or experienced, such as moral or spiritual truth, is relative. The "scientist," like Carl Sagan, would be the "high priest" in this modern movement....
OK, Thugpreacha, let's take a look at the differences between Carl Sagan and god:

(1) Carl Sagan never demanded that anyone kneel before him, pray to him, sing hymns to him, or erect special buildings devoted solely to glorifying him. While he may have sought understanding and respect, he never demanded any form of "worship," nor did he ascribe the status of "follower" to anyone and promise them any form of unverifiable paradise in an unverifiable afterlife.

(2) While Carl Sagan may have found flaws in the scientific work of others, he never threatened them with eternal fire, nor demanded that they be imprisoned and tortured until they recanted of their results, nor demanded that their manuscripts and data be burned as "sinful" while his were to be uncritically accepted.

(3) He was certainly not exempt from paying taxes simply for engaging in scientific activities.

(4) He never sent out little envelopes marked "My Gift to Carl Sagan" expecting 10% of the recipients' incomes.

I hardly see how his activities could be considered "religious," or what made him a "high priest."

Deacon Doubtmonger

"Jack decided to shift the Cottonwood hike to Saturday so on Sunday he and Connor could see to the reinforcement of God's self-esteem. You are Most Glorious, Lord, we worship Your name, and no you don't look fat in that." -- Dale McGowan

[dshimel]

I see no irony.

People with a myth based world view will attempt to elevate a scientific world view to the level of myth in an attempt to make it "no better" than their flawed world view. No irony there.

Secular humanism does not claim reality is limited that that which can be sensed. It simply says our knowledge of reality is limited to that which can be sensed.

Secular humanism IS based on subjective morality. However, it seeks to influence that morality to the benifit of mankind.

Let's flip around Pascal's Wager.

If there is a God, than I can't know his mind. I can help create a moral code that benifits mankind, and hope that is okay with God, or I can follow a moral code created by others that claim to know the mind of God, but really just know their own mind and create the moral code for their personal gain.

If there is not a God, then I can choose to believe a moral code created by others for their own benifit, or I can choose to take part in the creation of a moral code which benifits all mankind.

Either way I look at it, it is in my best interest to assist in the creation of a moral code which benifits all mankind.

[Jamie_L]

I never get how people start calling science a religion. As if science is this "thing" or this "philosophy". It's not.

You know what science is? Science is observing the world to try to figure out how it works. That's all it is. Among those who practice science as a profession, there are rules and such, much as their are in any profession. But it's not like science is a worldview, or some foundation for behavior. It's just observations.

A little kid wonders what a pan will sound like if he hits it with a spoon. So the kid hits it with a spoon to hear the sound. That's science.

A minister wants to know what the fastest way to drive to church is. So one day, he drives one route and times it. The next day he drives a different route and times it. If there are lots of variables involved (stop lights, etc), he may time each route multiple times. Eventually he finds one route is consistently faster than the other. That's science.

People need to get it through their thick skulls that this is all science is, and stop throwing this "religion of science" strawman already.

Jamie

[dshimel]

Originally posted by Jamie_L

You know what science is? Science is observing the world to try to figure out how it works. That's all it is.

The key being that no belief is held more strongly than the evidence supports.

I'm bugged by all there "Walking with Dinosaurs" type shows that attempt to bring the Mezazoic era to life by telling fanciful stories.

My 13 year-old daughter checked out the "Dragon Bones" exhibit at the Arizona Science Museum over the weekend. They had this movie playing about a heard of dinos being stalked by a T-Rex which had laid a dozen eggs but was down to 3 babies, 2 of which were picking on the third..... This "number of babies" was based on a couple eggs nests combined with how most reptile preditors of today behave. It was very hard to separate "knowledge" from specualtion from pure made up details.

This "dumbing down" of science for the masses just lends evidence to those that want to change science into a religion.

[Thugpreacha]

I never get how people start calling science a religion. As if science is this "thing" or this "philosophy". It's not.

You know what science is? Science is observing the world to try to figure out how it works. That's all it is. Among those who practice science as a profession, there are rules and such, much as their are in any profession. But it's not like science is a worldview, or some foundation for behavior. It's just observations.

A little kid wonders what a pan will sound like if he hits it with a spoon. So the kid hits it with a spoon to hear the sound. That's science.

A minister wants to know what the fastest way to drive to church is. So one day, he drives one route and times it. The next day he drives a different route and times it. If there are lots of variables involved (stop lights, etc), he may time each route multiple times. Eventually he finds one route is consistently faster than the other. That's science.

People need to get it through their thick skulls that this is all science is, and stop throwing this "religion of science" strawman already.

Jamie And what is religion? Faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen....

[lpetrich]

And what is religion? Faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen....
And as Mark Twain had supposedly pointed out, faith is when you believe something when you know it isn't true.

[rad]

OK, Thugpreacha, let's take a look at the differences between Carl Sagan and god:

(1) Carl Sagan never demanded that anyone kneel before him, pray to him, sing hymns to him, or erect special buildings devoted solely to glorifying him. While he may have sought understanding and respect, he never demanded any form of "worship,"

Jesus didn't either, but I have a flash for you. If Jesus turns out to be real, Carl Sagan may worshipping him as we speak, being a rather intelligent person.


nor did he ascribe the status of "follower" to anyone and promise them any form of unverifiable paradise in an unverifiable afterlife.

I wouldn't follow a mere mortal myself.

(2) While Carl Sagan may have found flaws in the scientific work of others, he never threatened them with eternal fire,

Big time strawman

nor demanded that they be imprisoned and tortured until they recanted of their results, nor demanded that their manuscripts and data be burned as "sinful" while his were to be uncritically accepted.

Jesus demanded something be burned? And how do you know what they burned if it was burmned?

(3) He was certainly not exempt from paying taxes simply for engaging in scientific activities.

Huh?

(4) He never sent out little envelopes marked "My Gift to Carl Sagan" expecting 10% of the recipients' incomes.

Nor offered a thirty, sixty or hundredfold return on any gift to his work.

I hardly see how his activities could be considered "religious," or what made him a "high priest."

No you would obviously exalt the creature Carl Sagan more than any extant Creator of same.

But if Jesus is real, then Thugpreacha has a point and Carl is singing quite a different tune than you are.

Rad

[Tuvar Ane Ingolenen]

"Hear, hear! I present my new product, Blue Syrup"

We don't need to read your mind. Food shouldn't be blue, period.

Except if it is smurf shaped candy ofcourse.

[Weltall]

Jesus didn't either, but I have a flash for you. If Jesus turns out to be real, Carl Sagan may worshipping him as we speak, being a rather intelligent person. Actually Jesus did demand worship and threatened eternal torment to anyone who wouldn't play the sheep. If he turns out to be real (despite 2000 years and no proof whatsoever) I doubt very much that Sagan would have anything to do with him, don't insult his memory like that.
I wouldn't follow a mere mortal myself. Jesus, if he existed at all, was unquestionably a 'mere mortal'.
Big time strawman Would you like the passages where Jesus threatens unbelievers with hellfire, I can supply them easily.
No you would obviously exalt the creature Carl Sagan more than any extant Creator of same. Carl Sagan did much to help improve our knowledge of the world, no deity can claim that (actually they tend to be defined by ignorance of the way the world works, your sky daddy included).
But if Jesus is real, then Thugpreacha has a point and Carl is singing quite a different tune than you are. If Jesus is real then I imagine Sagan is kicking back in Hell having long and interesting discussions with Darwin and that I'll quite enjoy having a chance to meet the two of them when I die.

[lpetrich]

Jesus didn't either, but I have a flash for you. If Jesus turns out to be real, Carl Sagan may worshipping him as we speak, being a rather intelligent person.
Or more likely going to Hell, since he had been a Jewish agnostic.

(2) While Carl Sagan may have found flaws in the scientific work of others, he never threatened them with eternal fire,
Big time strawman
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
And other such statement by Jesus Christ's self-proclaimed successors.

And I wonder what Bible rad is reading, since he is does not seem to be reading any edition of the Bible I'm familiar with - Jesus Christ was depicted as foaming at the mouth at those who would not listen to him.

nor demanded that they be imprisoned and tortured until they recanted of their results, nor demanded that their manuscripts and data be burned as "sinful" while his were to be uncritically accepted.
Jesus demanded something be burned? And how do you know what they burned if it was burmned?
Consider what his self-proclaimed successors had often done.

And what JC had said about those scribes and Pharisees.

(4) He never sent out little envelopes marked "My Gift to Carl Sagan" expecting 10% of the recipients' incomes.
Nor offered a thirty, sixty or hundredfold return on any gift to his work.
A promise never kept -- if it was ever made.

I hardly see how his activities could be considered "religious," or what made him a "high priest."
No you would obviously exalt the creature Carl Sagan more than any extant Creator of same.
Carl Sagan's parents had never done what Carl Sagan had done.

And Carl Sagan was real, while the Xtian God is pure fiction.

But if Jesus is real, then Thugpreacha has a point and Carl is singing quite a different tune than you are.
Pascalian merde de taureau.

[Tuvar Ane Ingolenen]

....
Rom 2:5-8=God "will give to each person according to what he has done." To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.
....


Just wondering,
what about those who by persistence in doing good, ignore glory, honor and immortality?
what about those who are self-seeking and who embrace the truth and reject evil?

What's in store for them?

[Deacon Doubtmonger]

I'm bugged by all there "Walking with Dinosaurs" type shows that attempt to bring the Mezazoic era to life by telling fanciful stories.... It was very hard to separate "knowledge" from specualtion from pure made up details.

This "dumbing down" of science for the masses just lends evidence to those that want to change science into a religion.
Exactly ... but it doesn't stop there. Wanna hear fanciful stories? I have to ask: are there faith-based tour guides in Phoenix who walk kids through the museum and put the xian creationist spin on every exhibit? We have such an outfit in Denver, called BC [Biblically Correct] Tours. See this thread. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=60133)

[Deacon Doubtmonger]

Originally posted by Deacon Doubtmonger
nor did he ascribe the status of "follower" to anyone and promise them any form of unverifiable paradise in an unverifiable afterlife.

And by rad
I wouldn't follow a mere mortal myself.
Sorry, but it not's up to you -- Carl Sagan declared you to be His follower whether you wish to be or not, and you were born in a state of Original Sin against Him, and He will cast you into the Lake of Fire if you refuse to repent of your sin and love and worship Him! Of course, this is not the case, and all you have to go on in deciding whether or not to worship Carl Sagan is my claim -- but I have nothing further to go on in my decision whether or not to worship your god than your qualitatively similar claim.

DD:
While Carl Sagan may have found flaws in the scientific work of others, he never threatened them with eternal fire,

rad:
Big time strawman
I think not. The threat of eternal fire lies behind every "righteous" action demanded of an xian, every "righteous" choice he is expected to make, every "righteous" promise made to him, and even his thoughts and feelings deemed to be "sinful" or simply insufficiently "holy." If xianity were so wonderful and love-based, it could be "sold" in our present lives to benefit us in our present lives on those merits alone, and would not need the carrot of afterlife joy nor the stick of eternal fire. What's the most hardass stick Carl Sagan could ever use? Something like, "There's a flaw in the design of this experiment which will likely render your results inaccurate, unreliable or meaningless" -- certainly not, "Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and those who fail to provide a sufficient control group!"

DD:
nor demanded that they be imprisoned and tortured until they recanted of their results, nor demanded that their manuscripts and data be burned as "sinful" while his were to be uncritically accepted.

rad:
Jesus demanded something be burned? And how do you know what they burned if it was burmned?
Any violent action performed in xianity, if not directly demanded by jesus, was committed, and/or demanded of others, by those claiming to be acting in his name. And of course, every would-be heretic at the time knew exactly what was burned and who was tortured (and how) -- such acts would be of no value in "selling" the faith if they were not publicized.

DD:
He was certainly not exempt from paying taxes simply for engaging in scientific activities.

rad:
Huh?
Churches in the US think they're so special and important that they should have to pay no income, property or other taxes on their activities -- and have somehow succeeded in so convincing the government, on no basis other than their claim to "holiness."

DD:
He never sent out little envelopes marked "My Gift to Carl Sagan" expecting 10% of the recipients' incomes.

rad:
Nor offered a thirty, sixty or hundredfold return on any gift to his work.
I sometimes listen to a Denver xian FM station for laughs, and recently heard a report from the "Bible Answer Man," Hank Hanegraaff, of a preacher who said that if you're seeking to get out of credit card debt, you should make a "seed faith contribution" to his ministry on the overloaded credit card! This preacher then said that he and god would touch that card and its balance, and within thirty days of contributing you'd receive a huge windfall.

Hanegraaff condemned this preacher -- but for the wrong reason! Not because the preacher's claim was blatantly fraudulent, not because it's bull-goose foolish to put anything more on a credit card close to the snapping point (and cruel to demand that anyone do so) ... but because he was calling for "false giving (giving in expectation of a return)" rather than "true giving to the glory of god"! In other words, the transaction is wrong not because the preacher is attempting to defraud the followers, but because the giver is attempting to defraud god!

Hanegraaff said such people were tarnishing xianity. In other words, it's more important that the faith look spotless in the eyes of the followers its god professes to love, than that it should share any responsibility for protecting them against fraud. And you wonder why we atheists consider that "hundredfold return" claim baseless and never seek financial or any other kind of relief through prayer???

rad:
No you would obviously exalt the creature Carl Sagan more than any extant Creator of same.
The difference between respect/understanding and exaltation is a microcosm of the difference between science and religion, and between Sagan and god. It's explained far better than I can by Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy author Douglas Adams in this selection from a speech he gave (this was originally quoted by Richard Dawkins in his essay "Time to Stand Up" -- full text here (http://ffrf.org/articles/?t=others/dawkins.txt)):

Now, the invention of the scientific method is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked. If it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that. It has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, "Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not?--because you're not!"... If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday,' you say, "I respect that."... the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody's (I'm going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say "No, we don't attack that; that's an irrational belief but no, we respect it."

Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labor party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows--but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe . . . no, that's holy? What does that mean? Why do we ring-fence that for any other reason other than that we've just got used to doing so? ... when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be.

Douglas Adams is a far better writer and explainer than I ... in fact, he's the wisest person who ever lived. In fact, he's so wise and so right and so good ... he must be God! And since his skepticism made it possible for me to be Deacon Doubtmonger ... he's my Maker! He IS God! I shall praise Him! I shall glorify His name!! I shall give away all that I have and follow Him!!! All the answers can be found in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, His inspired and inerrant words!!!! I shall water His feet with my tears and dry them with what's left of my hair!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Neither Adams nor Sagan expected such groveling and breaches of dignity. The god of which you speak does.

Deacon Doubtmonger

"Jack decided to shift the Cottonwood hike to Saturday so on Sunday he and Connor could see to the reinforcement of God's self-esteem. You are Most Glorious, Lord, we worship Your name, and no you don't look fat in that." -- Dale McGowan

P.S. For more on fundy financial fraud and folly, see this thread, (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=69573) "Disgusting-Ass Xian Debt Counseling."