Do you believe Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus Christ?? (3 Viewers)

[Iron]

Cookie, your clawing angst is getting... embarrasing. The universal truth that you claim to represent through science is nothing without a universal creator.

 

[Cookie182]

lol dude just read your ad hominem

your struggling man, really reducing your credibility. I mean you can see it at the seams- you know I'm right!

Fancy going down the "faith in science" path and comparing this to religious zeal as though its embarrassing (which inductively implies that you see religious faith as something to shame LOL)

I accept science as it is rigorously tested, peer-reviewed and evolves through critical thought. It arises through using our faculties in the most reasonable way we know and offers the closest answer to "truths" about the material universe we know.

On the side of philosophy, I much do enjoy Hume, Plato, Socrates, Russell, the thoughts of Jefferson and Paine, Nietzsche, Machiavelli Voltaire, JS Mill, Buddhist parables (purely in the non-theistic sense) and much more....

From the great works of literature my mind is stimulated, from the beauty of the words of Coleridge and Frost I find reflection and peace...Huxley makes me think,,,,

You wish for me to reject all this thought in the name of one. Sure its much easier for the unintillgent masses to do this as they have neither the time/nor comprehension to read elsewhere, but that says little about religions truth value, only about its ability to manipulate and virally spread.

 

[Iron]

I will never understand what makes you think that Catholics are against discovery and research into the material world. In the instances when this search conflicts with the universal morality, such as the dignity of life, we make no apologies for raising our hand in objection. Who else will? It would be a very dark world if you didnt have an institution like ours drawing attention to such questions which have the objective well-being of the individual at heart, always.

 

[Cookie182]

tbh cookie - don't try anymore, he won't budge.

inb4 'NO IT IS U WHO WON'T BUDGE'

Such is the danger of our world.

These people find their way into our governments and soon enough into the running of our lives.

Yet at the fundamental level, they are no longer able to think. Slaves to a celestial ideology- impoverished through a constant reminding of guilt and general lack of self-worth, the constant need to be uplifted and "saved".

People want to cure cancer, religion is the virus I'm concerned with.

 

[Cookie182]

I will never understand what makes you think that Catholics are against discovery and research into the material world. In the instances when this search conflicts with the universal morality, such as the dignity of life, we make no apologies for raising our hand in objection.

Galileo Galilei; in case you haven't heard of him

Galileo Galilei - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Still haven't told me why you "were born again"?

I know you were an atheist, post history.

 

[tommykins]

Such is the danger of our world.

These people find their way into our governments and soon enough into the running of our lives.

Yet at the fundamental level, they are no longer able to think. Slaves to a celestial ideology- impoverished through a constant reminding of guilt and general lack of self-worth, the constant need to be uplifted and "saved".

People want to cure cancer, religion is the virus I'm concerned with.

admirable for you to pursue such a path.

who knows, there might be a change or a revelation sooner or later.

 

[Iron]

Galileo Galilei; in case you haven't heard of him

Galileo Galilei - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Still haven't told me why you "were born again"?

I know you were an atheist, post history.

Vatican Science Panel Told By Pope: Galileo Was Right - The New York Times

Moving formally to rectify a wrong, Pope John Paul II acknowledged in a speech today that the Roman Catholic Church had erred in condemning Galileo 359 years ago for asserting that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Has science never made a 'moral mistake' which resulted in horrific human suffering?

 

[Kwayera]

To give credit where credit is due, the Catholic church does support evolution (mostly).

 

[Cookie182]

To give credit where credit is due, the Catholic church does support evolution (mostly).

Of course, but it is not something which should be respected, it should be a given. Although I don't understand how Catholics can consistently attempt (under social pressure) to slowly adapt teachings which are certainly unbiblical- if evolution is true, why was it not described in "Gods book" as the method as opposed to Genesis? Most "Christian" scientists who attempt reconciliation of paradigms fail miserably/ Lots of questions here...

Despite this "liberation", the Church's past is unforgivable. If it had never been rebelled against and the enlightenment movement had not came about, we would undoubtfully still be living in the Middle Ages- its not like the Church undertook the research itself.

At the end of the day, Iron tries to reduce it to vague concepts of "love" and humanities big, moral brother who is needed to watch over us all- this "institution" mentioned above. Firstly, this assumes it holds moral truths revealed by a supernatural creator. This is something in which no evidence supports and the implications of such a view are implicit. It has a ruling on the nature of the universe and its life which is static and essentially unchallengable through the notion of "faith" by its proponents. This is unhealthy for humanity. Through in hundreds of other competing churches across the globe and you basically have a world full of nutters.

Secondly, the assumption is still one of "good v evil", sin, superstition etc

It sets off to save people from a fear it carefully instilled, against an "evil" which has never been clarified offering a reward it can't conjure.

It think accepting that the likely hood of supernatural influence is improbable when weighted against any evidence presented is not only the rational view, but it frees you from this authoritarian mind frame and allows you to pursue real moral philosophy which have practical implications such as preference utilitarianism, (insert favoured view here).

 

[Iron]

How about you apologise for every single application of man's 'rational' thought that has caused harm to others or the environment, and we call it even? From the sharpened stone used against another, to the nuclear bombs and CO2 emissions?

Actually, how bout we dont. How about you admit that your faith in science is just a convenient way for you to duck any moral responsibility for anything bad, ever? How about you reevaluate the greater evil?

 

[Cookie182]

Vatican Science Panel Told By Pope: Galileo Was Right - The New York Times


Has science never made a 'moral mistake' which resulted in horrific human suffering?

But see "science" is not an actual paradigm of thought, it is a method. I thought I made it clear, I agree with your distinction between science and philosophy.

For eg, Hiroshima could be called an attrocity, the science of nuclear reaction put to killing people, but the science (the "how-to" didnt do it), it was the underlying motives of its controllers (philosophy of the US at the time).

Hence, when the Catholics burn a witch, they are using the "science" of starting a fire. Is the fire immoral? I think its the thought behind it- (ie Witch's are heretic, against "GOD" etc)

 

[Iron]

see previous

You detach yourself from the 'method' and bad things happen. The combination of reason and faith is about a focus on science that promises no humanitarian/environmental disaster - yet you cant prove that these reasons are worth considering in your atheistic world

 

[Cookie182]

How about you apologise for every single application of man's 'rational' thought that has caused harm to others or the environment, and we call it even? From the sharpened stone used against another, to the nuclear bombs and CO2 emissions?

Actually, how bout we dont. How about you admit that your faith in science is just a convenient way for you to duck any moral responsibility for anything bad, ever? How about you reevaluate the greater evil?

I'm a strong environmental advocate. Science has ALLOWED us also to view that our poor industrial practices have harmed the environment (once again, science as a tool here) and we now need to make a decision (based on our political philosophy etc) about action.

Seriously Iron, I thought you were smarter then this. Do some heavy reading- science is as you pointed out- a "how" tool. Atheism is not a faithful endorsement of science as the only alternative to god. It’s simply a rejection of the evidence put forward in relation to claims made about "gods" (my atheism is not even "there is no god"; although I think it’s logically improbable).

Once you realise your alone with just your fellow man in this universe, that's when the true knowledge begins. You’re free to adopt any philosophy to fill the gap. Admittedly, yes you can still be immoral, be a sociopath, be like Stalin for instance, but unlike religion, these "immoral" actions are not motivated through atheism as it is not a belief- its a statement, much like hypothesis testing-

For eg: I'm sure you can follow, we will do it in respect to the Christian god.

Ho= The Christian god does not exist (default state)

Ha= The Christian god does exist (the proposition of a Christian to the atheist)

Atheists test this at any level of significance and conclude that the calculated t-value falls short of the rejection region. Therefore, at the x% level of significance, there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis. You will remember from Stat101 that we can not actually say we accept the null hypothesis, this would not be logical (the reason that militantly strong atheism is just as bad as theism).

Once you've reached this conclusion, your on own, I admit. I think this is what you’re scared of.

Oh, on moral duties I read Peter Singer

 

[Iron]

Neither of us have any evidence to dismiss God. This may be unsatisfactory to you and youre free to reject Him on this basis, idc. The point is that you cant answer a Why with a How

 

[Kwayera]

Why must there be a "why"? Bit arrogant tbh

 

[Iron]

It's less arrogant than insisting that there IS no why. We're at least thoughtful.

 

[Kwayera]

Yeah, but you're using it as a criticism against science, for not answering the "why" questions. Which itself begs the question: why do there have to be "why" questions?

 

[Cookie182]

Neither of us have any evidence to dismiss God. This may be unsatisfactory to you and youre free to reject Him on this basis, idc. The point is that you cant answer a Why with a How

Review my hypothesis test.

I don't need to "dismiss" it.

Its a proposition which violates our natural thought. Think about if I moved to a new planet (its easier then imagining Earth). On planet Y they believe in a giant platypus god. There are fables about him, people are in a personal relationship, he created and governed the universe etc

They are putting forward a proposition to my null mind- which has no thoughts on the subject. Logically I then ask: What evidence do you have to support this claim?

They don't present anything satisfactory other then attempting to instill psychological fear in me in regard to eternal punishment if I don't accept him on "faith" ie no evidence.

Rationally I have no choice to reject. If I don't, then it undermines my whole epistemic position on anything in the world.

The opposite does not necessarily work. There is no burden on me to "prove a negative". We know this is philosophically impossible. Hence, even though induction does not truly allow it (see Hume on whether the sun will rise tomorrow) we go on probability suggested by evidence. Its the best way to live. Otherwise, it is not insulting (even though you feel it ludicrous) for me to suggest that there is an invisible, fiery dragon residing in your kitchen. You can not find evidence to prove me wrong. Whats the probability that its correct though?

Why do you then have a different position in regards to this invisible entity? It's definitely got nothing to do with morality and "life philosophy" at all, when you take it down to the crux.

 

[Cookie182]

Yeah, but you're using it as a criticism against science, for not answering the "why" questions. Which itself begs the question: why do there have to be "why" questions?

I see an infinite regression.

Also, as I'm trying to demonstrate, atheism is a statement in regards to a proposition. I don't see how it at all precludes "why" questions.

 

[Iron]

Yeah, but you're using it as a criticism against science, for not answering the "why" questions. Which itself begs the question: why do there have to be "why" questions?

No, i'm criticising those who believe science can answer such questions - not science itself.