Respecting religion???
Discussion
Einion Yrth said:
nightflight said:
Apparently the first female pope conned her way in (they didn't she was a woman). They've got round this problem now by implementing a new procedure for all new popes. When the new one has been selected, he has to sit on a throne which has a hole cut in the bottom of it. He is then held aloft and carried over the heads of the other priests with his genitalia hanging down through the hole, and they have to check that it's a bloke! You really couldn't make it up. This is still going on in the 21st century, and we are supposed to "respect" religion.
Testiculos habet et bene pendentes.anonymous said:
[redacted]
The joy of the scientific method is that it is so easy to understand. It is understandable to anyone of average IQ and with an open mind.It is, of course, not that science hasn't the power (power? What an odd word) to disprove the existence of a god or gods. It is a system, one that is designed to ensure knowledge and dependability (dependability = prediction) is steadily improved.
Let's take homeopathy. It is up to the homeopaths to prove that it is of use.
Homeop says it can do A/. Scientific tests show that this is not so. This has been done many times with double blind tests. However, homeopaths still profess belief despite overwhelming proof that it cannot.
So science can't disprove homeopathy, only that it doesn't do anything that they say it does.
God believing people do not suggest that their god does stuff so, of course, it cannot be disproved. It doesn't take a genius to work out why.
So there is as much evidence to show that gods exists as there is to show that there's a teapot in orbit between Mars and the asteroid belt. Neither can be disproved, but it does not mean either exists.
Derek Smith said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The joy of the scientific method is that it is so easy to understand. It is understandable to anyone of average IQ and with an open mind.It is, of course, not that science hasn't the power (power? What an odd word) to disprove the existence of a god or gods. It is a system, one that is designed to ensure knowledge and dependability (dependability = prediction) is steadily improved.
Let's take homeopathy. It is up to the homeopaths to prove that it is of use.
Homeop says it can do A/. Scientific tests show that this is not so. This has been done many times with double blind tests. However, homeopaths still profess belief despite overwhelming proof that it cannot.
So science can't disprove homeopathy, only that it doesn't do anything that they say it does.
God believing people do not suggest that their god does stuff so, of course, it cannot be disproved. It doesn't take a genius to work out why.
So there is as much evidence to show that gods exists as there is to show that there's a teapot in orbit between Mars and the asteroid belt. Neither can be disproved, but it does not mean either exists.
God: since he cannot be proven ever; he can’t exist. If he can never be proven it means that he can never be observed in any way which makes divine intervention impossible because then we would be able to percieve him. If he cannot alter anything ever, it means that he can’t do anything, and if he cannot do anything then the whole idea of God is superflous and God himself is non-existent.
The fact that there is no scientific evidence FOR God at all, whatsoever, should really be more compelling than it seems it is.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Are you sure you are not an atheist troll? You sound just like one because most of the religious people I have see would not say such stupidly dumb things. They are smarter than that and know it is a nonsense argument - science cannot disprove god. Remove all the science and there is still the same evidence for god. None. So, is my £10 still safe?
supertouring said:
Are you sure you are not an atheist troll? You sound just like one because most of the religious people I have see would not say such stupidly dumb things. They are smarter than that and know it is a nonsense argument - science cannot disprove god. Remove all the science and there is still the same evidence for god. None.
So, is my £10 still safe?
I told you gambling was naughty!So, is my £10 still safe?
Exactly my point, a talk about respecting religion becomes a discussion about how science somehow can trump God, with all manner of half understood regurgitations of scientific theories from people who can't even get relative velocity right (blame it on the booze) when after all the subject of trying to scientifically disprove God is a totally futile endeavour.
Hey, Dawkins the scientist saying he's not a sevener shows he sees some sense.
Agnosticism seems the happiest way, don't let it bother you that there may be a God, don't waste your time trying to disprove it, don't be so bothered if others believe in a God. If we eventually prove God doesn't exist sometime (!) it won't matter so much because what's done is done, the religions are already there and well established and proving them wrong will be a bit horse -stable door.
Focus on what negative ACTIONS (real and now) are specific to religion and discuss, try not to pick examples of street preachers that you've seen 'a few times over the years', but real ISIS, FGM, homophobia type things.
Derek Smith said:
The joy of the scientific method is that it is so easy to understand. It is understandable to anyone of average IQ and with an open mind.
It is, of course, not that science hasn't the power (power? What an odd word) to disprove the existence of a god or gods. It is a system, one that is designed to ensure knowledge and dependability (dependability = prediction) is steadily improved.
Let's take homeopathy. It is up to the homeopaths to prove that it is of use.
Homeop says it can do A/. Scientific tests show that this is not so. This has been done many times with double blind tests. However, homeopaths still profess belief despite overwhelming proof that it cannot.
So science can't disprove homeopathy, only that it doesn't do anything that they say it does.
God believing people do not suggest that their god does stuff so, of course, it cannot be disproved. It doesn't take a genius to work out why.
So there is as much evidence to show that gods exists as there is to show that there's a teapot in orbit between Mars and the asteroid belt. Neither can be disproved, but it does not mean either exists.
Derek, you miss the point again.It is, of course, not that science hasn't the power (power? What an odd word) to disprove the existence of a god or gods. It is a system, one that is designed to ensure knowledge and dependability (dependability = prediction) is steadily improved.
Let's take homeopathy. It is up to the homeopaths to prove that it is of use.
Homeop says it can do A/. Scientific tests show that this is not so. This has been done many times with double blind tests. However, homeopaths still profess belief despite overwhelming proof that it cannot.
So science can't disprove homeopathy, only that it doesn't do anything that they say it does.
God believing people do not suggest that their god does stuff so, of course, it cannot be disproved. It doesn't take a genius to work out why.
So there is as much evidence to show that gods exists as there is to show that there's a teapot in orbit between Mars and the asteroid belt. Neither can be disproved, but it does not mean either exists.
And I understand the scientific method as well as the next man. My point to you is I think you profess to understand the specific claims of theories much more than you actually do.
One example is when you say you 'know' -no, you are led to believe or you 'understand'.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think this is where you're getting confused. Why should I care to disprove it? I don't, and I think most of the posters on here don't either, the same way we wouldn't expend any effort into disproving the tooth fairy - it's silly and a waste of time.I find science in general fascinating, physics especially. I can listen to Carrol, Strassler, Thorne, Cox, 'Gene Vincent' and their chums talk for hours about it, then I can research their experiments and results - no belief involved, just curiosity, an iPad and a general acceptance that the scientific method is what brings us nice things like fast cars and warm houses and that some day will be the saviour of my children and the human race. I'm not prepared to wait for the Sky Fairy Ball to finish up (what is this, a lock in!?) and for good old Jesuhammah to come flush the baddies away... Besides, no body seems to be able to agree on when this is going to occur. Also, the scientific method doesn't involve blowing anybody up or the mutilation of genitalia of innocent children. Those are results of religion, and you can find them in droves. There is no arguement for a place for religion in state or law.
Scientists get real passionate about their work too, I've seen many a heated and personal arguement in the comments sections of science popularisers, is that right, fair? Not really but they get over it because they're grown ups - sticks and stones will break my bones my parents used to say, do they respect each other? Most of the time, yes - but it always comes down to evidence because how else can we make an informed decision on what comes next?
And that's what intrigues and confuses me in equal measure. You are obviously no simpleton, you harness the power of the Internet to 'entertain' the likes of me - Yet you can't understand how your acceptance of these fanciful fables as even possible only lends credence to the even nuttier ones that cause so much harm and suffering. It genuinely baffles me, angers me sometimes (not you, you're funny!) but such is life.
That said, we are outgrowing it. NASA are extending our reach into space with incredible precision while Abdullah Snackbar plants another child-maiming IED and the church figures out which parts of its favourite story it adheres to this week, at some point in the not too distant future we resign the stupidity and mass disrespect to the history books.. Until then I think I'll stick to the lurking and smirking. Try not to assist in drawing it out too much if you can.
With respect,
(Not really, mere tolerance and voyeristic tendencies)
Paul.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You did ask people to talk about it voight: anonymous said:
[redacted]
You can't ask for it to be discussed, and then complain when it is.I think Dawkins is just trying to be polite and respect a technicality when he says he is a sevener. He is 99.9999% convinced, same as for fairies.
That said, I think there maybe merit in focussing on removing all the bad parts of religions, and leave the harmless stuff if it genuinely does no harm (and can brings comfort). That said, even 'de-weaponised' religions should not be force fed to any children, let them discover and make up their own minds. Give them the same choice over not being subject to FGM (or MGM*) as for picking a religion - indoctrinating children could be seen as a form of Brain Mutilation (BM)!
- the issue is not that MGM is far less inhumane than FGM, it the principle that they are given no choice over their own bodies.
Paul, I'd challenge you to show how my belief that Jesus existed gives credence to nutters doing nasty things, in some way making me responsible for ISIS for example. It's as ridiculous a statement as somehow professing that anyone who believes in science is responsible for the development of gases that killed millions in WW2.
If there is a 'thing' and that thing is science, religion, football, art, that thing is the tool, the method, the medium, some people do really good things with it and some use it for negative pursuits. Is Crick responsible for Zyklon-B, is Bobby Charlton responsible for football hooliganism?
Also I always get the feeling that anyone who uses the 'sky-fairy' or 'snackbar' tags isn't quite the open-minded and reasonable adult I'd hope they are. You know you are allowed to write the word 'God', it doesn't suddenly mean you are doomed to be a believer!
If there is a 'thing' and that thing is science, religion, football, art, that thing is the tool, the method, the medium, some people do really good things with it and some use it for negative pursuits. Is Crick responsible for Zyklon-B, is Bobby Charlton responsible for football hooliganism?
Also I always get the feeling that anyone who uses the 'sky-fairy' or 'snackbar' tags isn't quite the open-minded and reasonable adult I'd hope they are. You know you are allowed to write the word 'God', it doesn't suddenly mean you are doomed to be a believer!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
But you do not understand what a Scientific Theory is, and that severely limits your ability to play Science vs. Religion.Here's a clue - Scientific Theories don't make 'claims', they make very precise and falsifiable predictions on the outcome of experiments (there's that damned evidence and results malarkey again). They do not get to become a 'theory' I.e. The standard model, without being unfalteringly correct and do not get usurped until something else expands on the theory to include even more complex and unfalteringly correct predictions on even more complex happenings of the reality in which we live. I know it's hard to understand considering the normal definition of theory, but that's where spending a little less time bashing keys (bibles?) and a little more time learning helps.
Knife to a gunfight....
P.S. before you do try it on. A theory 'breaking down' does not equal incorrect, but incomplete. Hence the drive for 'unification'.
P.P.S. IANAS
Firebox7 said:
But you do not understand what a Scientific Theory is, and that severely limits your ability to play Science vs. Religion.
Here's a clue - Scientific Theories don't make 'claims', they make very precise and falsifiable predictions on the outcome of experiments (there's that damned evidence and results malarkey again). They do not get to become a 'theory' I.e. The standard model, without being unfalteringly correct and do not get usurped until something else expands on the theory to include even more complex and unfalteringly correct predictions on even more complex happenings of the reality in which we live. I know it's hard to understand considering the normal definition of theory, but that's where spending a little less time bashing keys (bibles?) and a little more time learning helps.
Knife to a gunfight....
P.S. before you do try it on. A theory 'breaking down' does not equal incorrect, but incomplete. Hence the drive for 'unification'.
P.P.S. IANAS
Hmmmmm, possibly a bad choice of word there. But you miss my point. I am not trying to dismiss scientific theory. I'm only saying science has limits of what we can do with it, some questions it cannot answer.Here's a clue - Scientific Theories don't make 'claims', they make very precise and falsifiable predictions on the outcome of experiments (there's that damned evidence and results malarkey again). They do not get to become a 'theory' I.e. The standard model, without being unfalteringly correct and do not get usurped until something else expands on the theory to include even more complex and unfalteringly correct predictions on even more complex happenings of the reality in which we live. I know it's hard to understand considering the normal definition of theory, but that's where spending a little less time bashing keys (bibles?) and a little more time learning helps.
Knife to a gunfight....
P.S. before you do try it on. A theory 'breaking down' does not equal incorrect, but incomplete. Hence the drive for 'unification'.
P.P.S. IANAS
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Of course it does, what makes their sky fairy any less credible than yours? You are religious, they are religious, if an influencable young man sees that you demand respect for your religion and receive it, why can't they and theirs? After all this is what the OP was about right?You are both interpreting stories and choosing to ignore the results, evidence of the past destruction caused by all religions. Why is that? Colour me baffled...
I can only think that you need to rely on the promise of heaven instead of the wonders of this life, it's sad, but it's cool with me, fill your boots, in private, and keep it away from the kids.
And no, I'm not open minded about religion, although I did like the new Pope until he let the mental slip the other day... Ah well, he is getting on a bit, bless him
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Precisely, that's exactly what science says. It says, "We don't know everything and for the things we think we do know, this is our best hypothesis at the moment".Where religion goes wrong is when it says, "Science can't disprove this thing we made up a long time ago so it must be true".
///ajd said:
You can't ask for it to be discussed, and then complain when it is.
I think Dawkins is just trying to be polite and respect a technicality when he says he is a sevener. He is 99.9999% convinced, same as for fairies.
That said, I think there maybe merit in focussing on removing all the bad parts of religions, and leave the harmless stuff if it genuinely does no harm (and can brings comfort). That said, even 'de-weaponised' religions should not be force fed to any children, let them discover and make up their own minds. Give them the same choice over not being subject to FGM (or MGM*) as for picking a religion - indoctrinating children could be seen as a form of Brain Mutilation (BM)!
Dawkins, polite? M'kay!I think Dawkins is just trying to be polite and respect a technicality when he says he is a sevener. He is 99.9999% convinced, same as for fairies.
That said, I think there maybe merit in focussing on removing all the bad parts of religions, and leave the harmless stuff if it genuinely does no harm (and can brings comfort). That said, even 'de-weaponised' religions should not be force fed to any children, let them discover and make up their own minds. Give them the same choice over not being subject to FGM (or MGM*) as for picking a religion - indoctrinating children could be seen as a form of Brain Mutilation (BM)!
- the issue is not that MGM is far less inhumane than FGM, it the principle that they are given no choice over their own bodies.
That technicality is what renders trying to prove God doesn't exist futile.
Not that I care if somehow it ever happens, just trying to say get priorities right about what it is about religion that REALLY causes us problems in REALITY.
And then that's what you are saying.
My kids are not even Christened! I prefer to allow them the choice, the same choice I had. I get the feeling indoctrination in childhood breeds evangelical lovers and haters of religion of the worst kind. Religion is here already, whether we subscribe to it or not we've got to best understand it so education (doesn't mean indoctrination) is key. Hopefully that would lead to less fear, suspicion and hatred, less reason for anyone to have a pop at anyone else.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 26th January 21:57
Firebox7 said:
Of course it does, what makes their sky fairy any less credible than yours? You are religious, they are religious, if an influencable young man sees that you demand respect for your religion and receive it, why can't they and theirs? After all this is what the OP was about right?
You are both interpreting stories and choosing to ignore the results, evidence of the past destruction caused by all religions. Why is that? Colour me baffled...
I can only think that you need to rely on the promise of heaven instead of the wonders of this life, it's sad, but it's cool with me, fill your boots, in private, and keep it away from the kids.
And no, I'm not open minded about religion, although I did like the new Pope until he let the mental slip the other day... Ah well, he is getting on a bit, bless him
Man will choose to do what he likes with religion, as he does with eveything else.You are both interpreting stories and choosing to ignore the results, evidence of the past destruction caused by all religions. Why is that? Colour me baffled...
I can only think that you need to rely on the promise of heaven instead of the wonders of this life, it's sad, but it's cool with me, fill your boots, in private, and keep it away from the kids.
And no, I'm not open minded about religion, although I did like the new Pope until he let the mental slip the other day... Ah well, he is getting on a bit, bless him
If a President carries out questionable acts in the name of 'America and Americans' should all Americans thereafter be ashamed and renounce their American identity forever or move on and try to ensure America isn't 'that' again?
I am concerned that you cannot distinguish between Methodist Mrs. Jones who likes flower arranging and feeding the poor and fundie Ahmed Bin Whatsit who likes to machine-gun minibuses.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Do you know how difficult it is to disprove an arbitrary idea? You could make up pretty much anything - no matter how outlandish - and science (at least our current knowledge of it) wouldn't have the power to disprove it.Can you disprove the existence of the rainbow ocelot using science?
Someone earlier (and I'm guessing they are religious) said that science hasn't been able to disprove the existence of god. Which is quite the claim considering that there has not been one single piece of evidence for an intergalactic super being in anyway shape or form for the entirety of human history. Nutters people claiming to hear voices of 'god' in their head don't count either, neither do people who 'just know its true'.
The burden of proof is not on science to disprove fanciful claims. Those that attempt to make us believe utterly unbelievable claims and claim special rights and privileges in society based on unprovable claims shoulder that burden.
I don't ask for special privileges because I don't have imaginary friends, I find it offensive that religious types suggest that with out religion that there would be no morality (religion being stuffed full of morality like infanticide, rape, honour killing, genocide etc) . But you know what, it's ok to be offended without making a scene. I go about my day and (you might not believe this...) ignore it!
If people want to worship god , mo, jesus, zeus, Ronald Macdonald or the Easter bunny and Xenu knock yourselves out, just don't talk to anyone outside your own home about it and we can all get on fine. While we're at it I won't try to persuade you otherwise either.
It's 2015 people, how the hell is the human race going to move forward together while we are still arguing over which imaginary bronze age supernatural figurehead is the best? It's utter nonsense. Not to mention rather depressing.
The burden of proof is not on science to disprove fanciful claims. Those that attempt to make us believe utterly unbelievable claims and claim special rights and privileges in society based on unprovable claims shoulder that burden.
I don't ask for special privileges because I don't have imaginary friends, I find it offensive that religious types suggest that with out religion that there would be no morality (religion being stuffed full of morality like infanticide, rape, honour killing, genocide etc) . But you know what, it's ok to be offended without making a scene. I go about my day and (you might not believe this...) ignore it!
If people want to worship god , mo, jesus, zeus, Ronald Macdonald or the Easter bunny and Xenu knock yourselves out, just don't talk to anyone outside your own home about it and we can all get on fine. While we're at it I won't try to persuade you otherwise either.
It's 2015 people, how the hell is the human race going to move forward together while we are still arguing over which imaginary bronze age supernatural figurehead is the best? It's utter nonsense. Not to mention rather depressing.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yet I think you can and do understand what I am saying and choose to duck and weave your way around confronting those unfamiliar and annoyingly accessible things we call facts. I know it's alien to you lot, basing your life on something without a shred of evidence and all.This is difficult for me, I get bored, join in and then realise that I really should let the 'reasonable adults' articulate the way those of us with a brain feel. They have so much more patience for it than me.
P.S. I wonder if we could quantify how much of Methodist Mrs. Jones church tax (sorry, don't know what it's called) went towards paying for the vicars child porn collection, would she want it back? I wonder if the 'moderate' Muslim could quantify how much of his mosque tax went towards the next suicide bombing, would he want it back? We have a church on this street, only fair they get a mosque too huh? Give them credence? Yes, you do. Hopefully not money too!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff