277 replies to this topic

[Bear]

I totally agree, religion is a necessary evil. Without religion our society would be very diffrent. And not in a good way.

 

I also feel like religion has given us morals. It teaches us the difference between good and bad. I'm not sure were else our morals would have come from? Religions is also responsible for a lot of missionary work that helps less fortunate people, which is a very good thing.

I'd like to state it is entirely possible to have a life that is absolved of any religion and still sustain proper ethics & morals. It's my opinion that  a large amount  people use religion as a tool for excersizing whatever they feel is entitled to them for the sole purpose because they believe what they are doing is "correct" and while what may be "correct" may not always be the most ethical and moral decision and vice versa. Relgion can be a good thing but I can say for certainty that it's absolutely not necessary and there's about a fuckton of religions with so many opposing, contradicting (and in many cases, manipulated texts) ideals that labeling even one of them as "correct" would require evidence such as a diety announcing his majestic as fuck presence and whatever agenda he has on the world while dramatically changing everyone's life forever. You may say one person runs on belief, but for two people, one would need strong enough evidence to prove such a claim, and as long as humans have been on earth i'm pretty frickin sure no such evidence has appeared. 

Edited by Bear, 21 July 2013 - 05:51 PM.

[Mex]

Religion has its good things and bad things. Hating gay people? Hating people who abort? Hating condoms? No, thank you.

[VaultBoy]

Religion served its purpose as an unifying characteristic for people in times when nationalistic tendencies werent yet awakened. Their time has passed.

[Mex]

There's nothing religions teach that can't be teached with a good education.

[foundation]

There are sometimes people on the verge of death become greatly depressed not knowing what happens after death. That is where Religion can help to ease that pain and fear. 

[Sweeney]

There are sometimes people on the verge of death become greatly depressed not knowing what happens after death. That is where Religion can help to ease that pain and fear.

...with lies.

[Odd999]

I voted for Inconsequential. Religion takes place in many forms with me, and even science I considered a religion. Also, religions although made up a lot of conflicts and that kind of stuff, it also teaches people to love each other. Do you know that the Christian churches or Buddhist pagodas, etc helped out the poor? It's all the same with me, with or without religion.

[Sweeney]

even science I considered a religion

Why? Science is a methodological tool, not a religion.

[Odd999]

Why? Science is a methodological tool, not a religion.

I don't think I myself can explain it for you, because I'm a really bad speaker
I found a good one here: http://listverse.com...other-religion/
I just skim through and there're some reasons that I agree on and some that I don't, but it's just for general purpose.

[Yung]

I don't think I myself can explain it for you, because I'm a really bad speaker
I found a good one here: http://listverse.com...other-religion/
I just skim through and there're some reasons that I agree on and some that I don't, but it's just for general purpose.

 

I don't feel you have a good grasp on what science actually is.

[Frizzle]

Organised religion - pure evil
Individualistic religion worshipping - ok but compressible to listening to Justin Beiber

[Sweeney]

I don't think I myself can explain it for you, because I'm a really bad speaker
I found a good one here: http://listverse.com...other-religion/
I just skim through and there're some reasons that I agree on and some that I don't, but it's just for general purpose.

10. Science thinks humans are special.
Wrong. Humans are predisposed to think humans are special. The evolutionary advantage for such a psychological phenomenon is obnoxiously obvious. That a neuroscientist would attribute this to science itself is mind-boggling. He's right, in that anthropocentrism is an easy trap to fall into, but the problem is in the scientists, not the science.

9. It calls out heretics and persecutes other religions.
Wrong. It calls out "heretics", I can maybe give you that one, but calling them out with demands for evidence that conform to its methodologies is somewhat different to burning/imprisoning/murdering dissidents. I feel like the author is trying to equate science with "militant atheism", which is something that doesn't really exist. As for "persecution", the example he gives is perfectly representative - if you call for a prayer at a meeting of scientists, people will think you're a theist-scientist... which you would be. Ooooh. Such opression.
(And how, by the way, does this guy care to explain people who are both scientists and theists for real - they do exist, which they couldn't if this point was even remotely valid).

8. Science reveres its own saints.
Wrong. People revere their personal heroes, not science. You think "science" gave a shit when Einstein's theories of gravity surpassed Newton's in accuracy? Nope. When Cell Theory surpassed Spontaneous Generation? Nope. Some people cared, certainly not all scientists, and definitely not science. It is history lessons, and the rose tinted glasses of the past to be blamed for overselling ancient scientists, not science.

7. Science makes up stories to explain our origins.
Wrong. Sort of. Science's job is to sort the plausible stories from the implausible. So someone came up with the story, and subjected it to the scientific method as far as possible - if it survives without being disproven, it's plausible. If not, it's implausible. Is a story based on evidence equal in standing to a story based entirely in fiction? Not when it comes to explaining the world.

6. Science has it's own code of ethics.
Wrong. Again, sort of. Science has it's own code of ethics that apply to scientists... but only when they are doing science. You don't have to live by laboratory rules in your house, or in your car, or at the pub. This is totally incomparable to the life rules that many religions impose. Is having to list your apparatus in a scientific paper the same as never being able to eat pork? I don't think so. This is effectively saying that a washing machine is a religion, because it has a rule booklet that you must follow.
I fail to see how "science's morality" takes precedence over a scientist's own. Nobody is forced to run drug trials (or participate, for that matter).

5. Science has its own priesthood.
Wrong. And isn't this basically the same as the "saints" one? Anyway. Dawkins and Sagan and the rest are great communicators of science, true, but that does not alone constitute a priesthood. There is no ordination, no hierarchy, no excommunication. They perform the job of disseminating scientific information in a clear, factual and engaging way, whether or not their audience will like that information - as opposed to priests, whose job entails soleley keeping people in their religion, and waving away questions and concerns with platitudes.

4. Science is based on established dogmas.
Wrong. Sort of, for the third time. If you're going to compare scientific knowledge to religious dogma, you're expanding the definition of "dogma" so far as to make it useless. I know, based on my past knowledge, that I will have a comfortable seat when I sit on my couch. Does this make me a comfy-couch-dogmatist? No.
Plus, if I sat on the couch and it was hard one day, I would be wary of sitting down on the couch for a while after that. My reasoning would adapt to new information - scientific "dogma" does this, religious dogma does not. They are not the same.
Overturning a current scientific theory requires significant evidence. This is for good reason, and makes perfect sense logically. A current theory will already be backed by significant evidence, or else it would not be the accepted theory - expecting the scientific community to drop that at the very mention of another idea is inane. Imagine if, despite hundreds of years of regular sunrises and sunsets, the very first solar eclipse had caused people to act as if there would be no more sun ever. That'd be roughly equivalent.

3. Science will bend to accommodate modern trends.
Wrong. People use science to find out information about the world. Sometimes, people misuse and misapply science to support a foregone conclusion. This is emphatically not science, it is a bastardisation of the method. Blaming science for when people use it to "justify" genocide would be like blaming knives for stabbings.
(Also, the DSM is NOT a scientific document.)

2. Most of science is unfounded.
Wrong. Most of science is backed up by years, decades, of gathered evidence. Only the absolute most cutting edge of science is not supported by physical evidence. These parts of the scientific realm are called "hypotheses", not "theories", by the way - seeing a PhD conflate the colloquial use of "theory" with the scientific is offensive to me. Besides, it's not like theoretical physicists came up with the idea of dark energy out of thin air; it is based in ridiculously complex mathematical extrapolations. And we are looking for the physical evidence. Remember that time the Higgs Boson was predicted by theoretical physics, and then boop. There it was.
You can't blame science for not knowing everything already.

1. Science requires faith.
Wrong. Believing in a theory before it is supported by evidence, or rigorously tested, requires faith. But then, that's something that people do, not science. The scientific method is better summarised by "I wonder if..." than "...must be true".

[Odd999]

 

1. Science requires faith.
Wrong. Believing in a theory before it is supported by evidence, or rigorously tested, requires faith. But then, that's something that people do, not science. The scientific method is better summarised by "I wonder if..." than "...must be true". 

 

 

Yes, science is based on evidence and stuff like that, but things such as small molecules like atoms and such, did people actually see it by eyes? Sure the theories and evidences work together but you can't actually see it, thus it does require faith (lots or little) to believe in science.

_______

 

I have to go. The other I will add later

[Sweeney]

Yes, science is based on evidence and stuff like that, but things such as small molecules like atoms and such, did people actually see it by eyes? Sure the theories and evidences work together but you can't actually see it, thus it does require faith (lots or little) to believe in science.
_______
 
I have to go. The other I will add later

That's rubbish. Visual evidence, seeing things with your own eyes, is not the only way to know that things are likely to be true. Do you see the wind? Did you see your mother's birth? Are you witness to the spheroid shape of the Earth? You cannot answer yes to any of these questions, but assuming that they are all true/extant does not require any faith.

You cannot see me typing my answer to your post, but claiming that faith is required to believe that I wrote it is disingenuous at best, and actively deceptive at worst.

[pyke]

 

 

Yes, science is based on evidence and stuff like that, but things such as small molecules like atoms and such, did people actually see it by eyes? Sure the theories and evidences work together but you can't actually see it, thus it does require faith (lots or little) to believe in science.

_______

 

I have to go. The other I will add later

 

There's a neat little device known as an electron microscope.

[chadlime]

I think that the world would be better without religion for multiple reasons. As stated above, it tends to cloud judgement. But I think that some people need to look to a higher power to believe in. So I'm not really too sure.

[Sweeney]

In reality, we take every single theory of science by faith. Do we know for certain that electrons exists? Is the Earth round? Do we exist at all? These questions need faith to believe in. Without faith in anything, one can never be certain of anything.

 

Again, nonsense. Science does not ever declare a theory absolutely true. To take a theory to be absolutely true does require faith, but that would not be according to the scientific method.

 

Now, we may act as if the theory of gravity, for example, is absolutely true, because doing so is good enough for day to day life. Just as I spend my life acting as if I know there is no God, when in reality my view is more complex than that. But that's not faith, it's efficiency.

[Sweeney]

I agree with you that science doesn't declare a theory to be true. It's the people that do that. But that's how any theory becomes meaningful, when people believe in it.

No, it is not. A theory becomes meaningful when it is supported by evidence that pushes its statistical likelihood beyond 95%. So, you're definitely wrong - scientific theories to not require faith to be either useful or meaningful.

[Sweeney]

But then again, evidence isn't meaningful if no one believes in it. I could prove that life wasn't created by God for example, but since I don't have any credentials, it's likely no one would notice and the ones who do would laugh at my evidence, therefore making my evidence meaningless even though hypothetically it is correct.

 

What? Evidence (in scientific contexts), by definition, has to be empirically, independently verifiable. Nothing at all to do with individual belief.

In fact, basing acceptance of someone's ideas entirely on their credentials is a logical fallacy so common that it has its own name - argument by authority.

[Vainly]

The root problem is the people, not the religion. Don't you think that in absence of religious nonsense people would believe in other kinds of nonsense? If you don't know how to think you'll end up with a lot of bad ideas regardless of whether religion exists or not. The problem is that people largely don't know how to think rationally and often fail to care sufficiently about one another, not the existence of religion itself.

[Sweeney]

Likely you won't try to replicate the evidence. You have scientists to do that. Basically every time you accept a theory without empirically replicating it is a theory accepted in faith. That's just my opinion, you are certainly entitled to your very well backed up opinion.

 

The fact that people do accept something on faith is totally unrelated to whether or not that something is religious in nature. Religions require things to be accepted in faith - science does not.

 

And no, I do not accept a theory based on faith if I do not replicate all of the experiments that have been performed to substantiate it. I base my conclusions on the reliability of how I heard about the theory, what I understand of the theory, and my previous experiences with the efficacy of scientific investigation in general. This is not faith.

[Sweeney]

Ok first of all, I would like to say that I don't want this debate to snowball into a full out insulting bloodbath. Not saying that it is, just that it has the potential to be just that. I respect your opinion and enjoy debating with you, so let's make sure we keep it nice and neat

Well, I'm afraid I find the fact that you felt it necessary to say that deeply insulting in and of itself.

Anyways, I was not saying that science is religious. I am just saying that science and religion have some properties that are similar. They both set out to explain the unexplained and some aspects must be taken by faith by the public. Accepting a theory without experiencing it is in fact taking it by faith. Again, some theories aren't applicable but for the more exotic theories like the Higgs bosom and quantum entanglement, we generally don't experience them at all. We find it to be true because of how we heard it and what we understand in theory. This is still taking it by faith! However, this does not mean science is religious. And that is my 2 cents

That they both set out to explain the unexplained is meaningless. One attempts to do so by making things up, and the other by making rigorous inquiry.
You do not have to take anything on faith when it comes to science. The fact that people do is irrelevant - it is not required. Everything in science is repeatable and verifiable. It's practically part of the definition. In absolutely no way is this similar to the way that religion operates.

I find your references to the Higgs Boson and quantum entanglement in this context mind-boggling. 99.9% of people don't even know what those things are even vaguely referring to, let alone have them affect their life in a meaningful way. Can you explain how having "faith" in the existence of quantum entanglement is comparable to having faith that a deity will condemn you to eternal damnation for shagging a dude before marriage?

[tripz]

I dont think it is i think that politics take a huge role in it and we blame religion to not look at the real problem

[Creeper]

The world is both better with and without. Both sides have the disadvantages. I personally believe we should never lose touch with our connection to god. I see far too many atheists whose sole belief is not believing in God. God is the creator and to think we weren't created by an intelligent life form would be ignorant. Humans dont just simply exist, our existence here is not by mere coincidence. It was and always has been divine intervention.

[Sweeney]

The world is both better with and without. Both sides have the disadvantages. I personally believe we should never lose touch with our connection to god. I see far too many atheists whose sole belief is not believing in God. God is the creator and to think we weren't created by an intelligent life form would be ignorant. Humans dont just simply exist, our existence here is not by mere coincidence. It was and always has been divine intervention.

There is no evidence that supports a creator hypothesis. Such a construct is unfalsifiable, and has no predictive power.

That said, I wonder if you might explain why my position is "ignorant". I am ignorant of many things, on many topics, but abiogenesis, evolution, creationism and judeo-Christian beliefs do not fall under that umbrella.