The religions only exist because the people follow them. The people are the religion and the qualities of a particular religion are determined by the way people practice it.
if a group of people commit some heinous crime and use religion when the religion does not advocate the crime, that would be an inaccurate representation of said religion
the thing is there are many who try to interpret on the their own without being a scholar and the like
They don't have the credentials nor are they reputable
the average people will probably make misinterpretations because they haven't studied the text extensively
thus, they are more likely to take things out of context
an English professor with little or no background in geology would probably have a hard time filling the role of a geologist
No, it would be one representation of the religion. It may differ from the way other people practice the religion, but it is a form of that religion nonetheless. Any religious text (the Bible, the Quran) can be interpreted in infinite ways. If you read it right, you can find justification for anything. That doesn't make you incorrect or in contradiction to the religion.
if you look at my reply to Xavier right above your comment
I explain why I thought greed was a divider
And another thing is that some people merely say that they are doing it because of their beliefs, but their actions are actually because of their greed
I'm saying they use beliefs as an excuse or cover story
they follow the religion but people are people
they make mistakes
it's people that are causing the divisions
it's their greed
they can blame their faults on themselves
we have free will and in the end, our decisions are based on what we chose
we can try to blame it on religion, society, our parents, etc.
but it's still our decisions
Let's take a look at documentaries
They are factual, not fictional
but documentaries are still subjective in that they portray the perspective that the filmmaker wants
Another filmmaker can make a documentary on the same topic with a different perspective
What I believe is real may not be what you believe is real
and I don't understand why you say all beliefs are excuses
The scientific method is open to revision which means it is not a belief. It is trust based on empirical evidence. I disagree with the third definition. I don't 'believe' that it's wrong. If I am wrong and trust is a synonym for belief, then I will search for a better word. It might be more accurate to say I follow the scientific method, which is susceptible to rigorous proof.
Basically, in your argument, religion=belief, belief=rejecting reality, reality is not open to interpretation, so there is only one or no way to interpret society, Science is everything and explains everything, religion has always been the same, has never been revised, and is an excuse for not accepting reality.
This comment is very irrelevant and pointless and not that different from the rest of these.
I just said 'this comment is irrelevant and pointless' I should have put that at the top because it was a warning not to read it. I'll try to get it fixed.
Science supports the same about all red meat and several other foods. Faith singles out pork because of some ancient belief of cloven hooves being unclean.
you didn't answer my question
how is my belief about pork an excuse? (for what you said "not accepting the difference between faith and science")
and actually
pork usually has more toxins than other meats
pigs have this sort of digestive system that contributes to this
so generally speaking, pigs are more destructive to the health
Facts aren't beliefs. If pork were not the most unhealthy food and yet were believed to be that would be not accepting reality. Not accepting reality is a justification or excuse for overlooking reality in order to keep believing in what is untrue.
I agree, but it can also be a force for good. Depends on who the person is. Completely subjective.
But, whether religion is good or bad isn't relevant. This is asking whether or not it's useful. And honestly, it's not. Morality exists without religion. Charity exists without religion. War exists without religion. Greed. Murder. Love. Kindness.
Religion, I believe, isn't as big of a deal as the person. People compromise religion to fit their own personal morals. The part in the Bible about women being totally submissive? Nah. Most people don't follow that. No premarital sex? We can just ignore that. No gay rights? These are changing times!
I agree with you, I'm just following up that religion, really, isn't USEFUL in that it doesn't contribute to what hasn't already existed.
So, religion is the only way to control people? You know there's virtually no religion in China these days, and the people are absolutely controlled, manipulated and lied to by their secular government. Religion is too-often demonized as the sole cause of so many things.
No one said it was the ONLY way to control people. There are infinitely many ways to do that. Religion just works quite well. As do oppressive governments.
I was just picking a fight. I'm pissed off today. The office in Shenzhen is just dumping all its crap work on me since it's my last week in the company. They're squeezing every penny out of me. Anyway, it's not true that religion serves no good purpose or relevant purpose
I would like them to exist and the scientific method provides much more possibility for the existence of aliens than gods. But I don't believe in them.
Not at all. I don't know if they exist or not. Belief doesn't enter into it. In fact, most modern panspermia research lends much credit to the possibility that life on earth began elsewhere. We just don't know yet, regardless of what anyone believes.
I know that you are expanding it in order to play semantics. Science is not belief, no matter how much you believe that it is. Belief can not be tested and verified the way scientific truth can. Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
It is not the job of the disbeliever to prove that which they do not believe in. It is the job of the believer to provide evidence of what they do believe in. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is actually used by atheists to help illustrate this point. Religious people say, "God is real. Prove me wrong." But they are the ones asserting that something exists and therefore they have to provide the evidence.
You wouldn't if you were trying to have an honest intellectual discussion on religious faith and not the third synonym of the third definition of belief.
Not really.. You have to have faith or belief that the evidence is true, and you have to believe that the scientists conducting the experiments and that they've come up with a conclusion. Everything you're told about this universe these "facts" you believe can not be contested with when in fact our scientific knowledge is expanding and changing all the time! In the Victorian period doctors used to give their female patients orgasms to 'cure' their hysteria and that was based on what the scientific community at the time had concluded.
You have to believe in science just like anything else, particularly if you are using secondary and tertiary sources.
(I mean to say belief as you have to take a scientist word for it when a piece of information is presented)
How can you say there's no belief in science? Take Newton for instance, he made what he believed to be discoveries of truth, which were eventually replaced with new discoveries. The road to discovering true knowledge is long and arduous, and in the grand scheme of things we're not that far along it. I'm an atheist, but even I see the value of religious belief for most who have it. You are far too polarized on this issue and I don't think you really understand anything you're talking about.
I understand that scientific proof can be tested and belief can not. I also understand that telling people what they do not understand is bullying. Scientific truth is not belief, it is knowledge.
But before it becomes truth it has to start as belief. Someone has to first believe (or "hypothesize" as you might put it) that something is true or not before they put it to the test. So, aren't scientific proofs merely the result of tested beliefs?
Blind faith is worthy of criticism, particularly if its the only argument you can muster. But you too are demonstrating blind faith in scientific/empirical evidence/proof in things. I too would put more stock in science than religion, but I can see religion's current purpose. If you cannot, then you are just being naive. As Yoda might say...too sure of yourself you are.
I'd call it a hypothesis because that's what it is. Not a belief. A testable idea. I'm not sure of myself. I'm sure of science. It's naive to think you know what's in my head and just more bullying.
You call this bullying? Jeez. OK, calm down Nancy. Point is, a hypothesis is born out of initial belief. You can't deny that. And I still don't see how you can continue saying beliefs aren't testable. We could test how many prayers are answered for example. We could test with leaps of faith --- how many out of 1,000 believers will survive falling off a cliff based on their belief that God will save them. That's a test. These tests may all prove that religion is bull, but they remain testable. And like science, such tests serve to get us a step closer to knowing, rather than knowing everything outright. A good scientist will not claim to know for sure everything you seem to think they will. Science evolves and changes, and a scientists greatest achievement is usually when they show their previous "proof" to be totally erroneous. And you absolutely are too sure of yourself and of science. It's better to keep more of an open mind, trust me. As someone once said, wisest is he who knows he does not know.
A hypothesis isn't a belief. It is a testable possibility. An idea, a notion. A belief is something much different. Thoughts aren't beliefs and science isn't faith. I think you are a bully. I could be wrong. And I very well understand that science evolves. That's why I am sure of the scientific method. Because it can be as wrong as me. Faith and belief can never be proven wrong no matter how many believers are lying dead on the ground. God's not in the clouds? Must be further up, in the sky. Not there either? Must be in space. Still haven't found it? Well, nevermind, it still exists because we believe it does. Maybe it was god's will that those thousand people are dead. Or satan. That's what makes faith faith.
Call me Nancy. It doesn't make you correct. Just even more of a bully. I refuse to read anything else you have to type because you can only bully. It's very childish.
I had to call you nancy because you were being ridiculous. I think you are acting really naively, and that's based on things you actually said. You didn't like it so you say I'm a bully. I also notice you continue to refuse to acknowledge ANY of the many points I've made so far. If you wanna be a baby about it then just go spit your dummy out somewhere. Don't brand me a s childish when all you've done so far is present your naivety and then brand me a bully for calling you out on it.
Oh, and also, what about all the scientific theories and ideas that can't be tested? Are these just hocus pocus religious nonsense beliefs too? You oversimplify my friend, and it is your undoing.
Would you care to share your OWN view? Instead of regurgitating other people's? Your view here reminds me of Chinese and Americans who love to turn everything into black and white. Belief is NOT exclusive to religion. Furthermore, what is with you and not just answering my questions directly? How can you continue to deny that there is no element of belief in science? The beliefs might be easier to confirm, depending on what it's related to, but belief and faith are necessary components of the scientific method. And as I mentioned in the post you didn't reply to properly, there are dozens of theories in which people believe, but under current conditions are untestable --- does that make them less valid? The scientific method should be embraced because it can be used to help prove a belief one way or the other, whether it be a religious one, a scientific one or a political one. You are too quick to separate everything into its own "camp". That's where naivety shows.
I simply do not see faith in science. So, I don't see any point in having a quasi-semantic circular debate about this with you. I can deny belief in science because I do not think it is there. I hold that a thought is not a belief and that the scientific method is not some form of faith. I provided that link in attempt to show you that belief and faith are not elements of it. I appreciate what you are attempting to say about theories that people believe in. String theory would be a great example. Some people might say they believe in string theory. I would say that it is an interesting idea. Some people might say they believe in alien visitation. I would say that is an interesting idea. Personally, I would love them both to be true. But, until they are testable or verifiable, they are just wonderful ideas to me. And once they are, they should no longer be beliefs for anyone else. They become truths. Some people might say they believe in evolution. I would say that evolution is fact because it is observable. I respect that scientific truth can change. I also understand that religious truth resists change. That's why I see belief as an unscientific word.
It's evident you haven't fully grasped what I'm talking about. You are totally stuck on that one idea and are not addressing the points accurately. I suppose I have overestimated your ability to discuss.
Very rich, coming from someone who can't discuss anything without resorting to condescension and ridicule. You can't even grasp the meanings of words, yet all of your 'points' come down to semantics.
Why would the word "belief" definitely have to come up for what I'm saying to be right? The term heterosexual doesn't come up either...does that mean everyone involved in this is gay? Atheism is a system of belief, just as Theistic ones are. Science REQUIRES belief in a theory being true or false in order for it to be able to move forward. Galileo, Newton, Darwin and other eminent scientists were often slated for their proposals, called insane that they could even entertain the possibility of what they put forward was factual. In this way, we say how the word belief goes WAY beyond your blinkered view of what it means. It's not necessarily about having a faith, or praying to a deity, or it being "untestable" (which I already demonstrated was a flawed argument of yours anyway). The scientific method is deeply flawed itself, and so STILL requires people to have a measure of belief that what it proves is in fact accurate. A fleeting glance at the history of scientific achievement demonstrates this simple fact. They get it wrong sometimes.So your notion that science constantly and infallibly provides truth is erroneous.
What's going on in the middle east is not because of religion, it is because of corrupt powers aligning with European and American powers, and become further corrupted. What happened in the arab spring was a direct result of these puppet leaders being propped up by America to do their bidding and when the people finally got sick of all this corruption - and rightfully so - they overthrew the leaders, and of course America pretended like it was in favour of removing them too. What is happened in the middle east is a direct result of colonization. This is not religions fault and it's foolish of you to say so.
All modern wars are not because of religion but because of resources, land and/or corruption.
And historically, there were not that many wars that happened because of religion maybe like 1 in 1000, the rest was again land, resources and/or corruptiom
What's going on the Middle East is a product of malign western inteference in their affairs. You can thank the British and then later the Americans for generating the division and hatred that exists in the region. I'm not so naive as to think it would have all been rosy without that, but it would have played differently, and considering how crap it is now, it would be worth taking a chance on that if we could.
And you can thank religion for malign American and British interference in the region. Both nations believed that it was their right, endowed by some creator, to take ownership of the region. Manifest density.
You think the British Empire was built on religious foundations? Deary me. And you think America's actual motivations now are religious? Double deary me with a side of facepalm. I'm not talking about the crusades here. If I were I would be talking about the English and mainland Europeans' inteference.
Yes I'm sure it is, and I'm also sure that it has absolutely nothing to do with the trillions of pounds worth of resources, the strategic location in relation to enemies an allies in the region, the sheer pretige garnered from controlling it and whatnot...they're just sub-factors are they? Get an education, Nancy.
Wow, such an amazing demonstration of ignorance. You evidently know very very little about how minor a role religion played in anything England/Britain did after the civil war and the end of Cromwell's tyranny. You demonstrate this ignorance with your oversimplified, ill-informed nonsense that stinks of grumpy teenage know-it-all. And if you actually think a single factor like the religious one can successfully drive the foreign policy of a western power now, you're deluded as well.
For the record, i reckon more have been killed for other reasons. It would be hard to prove otherwise. Didn't you see that South Park where the world turns atheist? It makes a good point, that it's "isms" generally that drive people crazy, not just the religious ones.
I'm not religious in the slightest, but no. Some people feel the need to be convinced to do good things, where religion is helpful. Other people turn to religion because their life sucks and they need answers. It's poor execution often, but it can be helpful.
It's pretty dumb to be one of 'those' atheists. You can't be much more universally hated than being the kind of atheist you have so far. The 'what I believe MUST be right and I'm very sensitive about it so I'll condescendingly insult other belief systems.' You give the smarter atheists a bad name
But, it is stupid to believe in fairy tales. I don't care how much people hate me. The truth might hurt, but that doesn't make it less true. If you take umbrage at me calling a belief system a fairy tale, could it be that it hits a little too close to home?
I'm an atheist champ. I don't see how anything beyond us could logically exist in a surreal way. But no one can know for sure and that includes me, so I don't try to indoctrine people and I especially don't make fun of what they believe because it's just as likely that they are right as it is that I am right. So I try to keep condescension out of my tone and only talk about it if other people want to hear it. Then you come stumbling in here, run a train of comments throughout the post being kind of a dick. Then finish off with the kind of comment atheists get stereotyped for. 'don't believe in fairy tales' 'don't believe in an imaginary friend' 'I don't think I'm right, I know it. Your belief system is FAIRY TALES but my belief system is the pure unbridled truth'. And people come on this site and read that and get a crappy impression about all atheists because of people like you and it effects the rest of us who aren't, for the majority, arrogant assholes. Understanding that what you believe isn't the truth any more than anyone else's belief will be a big step in your maturity.
You DO have a bit of an attitude problem. Never mind though, I had one too before I was cast out into the real world and met different types of people. You'll get over it, hopefully.
We have quite an argument going in the comments but the OP said that there is no use for religion. S/he did not say there is no room for religion. So calm down.
The former is connected to the latter. Take a council for example, saying there's no "use" for you is saying that there is no place for you --- IE, no room for you. Nah, I know what you mean. But in my mind, it's perfectly simple to negate the OP on this issue. It really is hard to argue FOR it in fact.
Yeah, I had taken it to mean the same thing and had agreed with it. However, as anonon pointed out, religion is not an absolute necessity for either good or evil. So, there is no use for it because we'd be doing everything we are doing even if no religion existed. But there clearly is room and longing for religion amongst most people.
Yes, probably. But it remains impossible to say it serves absolutely no purpose. It's naive to put things in such basic and simple terms like that quasi-troll XOX is doing on here. I did it when I was a teenager and looking back I definitely sounded retarded, insensitive and ignorant.
Religion is the greatest force for division in the world
I think greed is one of the greatest forces for division in the world
and some people just use their "beliefs" as excuses or cover stories
That's true, but those excuses wouldn't fly if the people didn't agree with them.
But many times religions don't advocate the actions
When people agree with those excuses, it's the fault of the people
it's not the fault of the religions
The religions only exist because the people follow them. The people are the religion and the qualities of a particular religion are determined by the way people practice it.
if a group of people commit some heinous crime and use religion when the religion does not advocate the crime, that would be an inaccurate representation of said religion
the thing is there are many who try to interpret on the their own without being a scholar and the like
They don't have the credentials nor are they reputable
the average people will probably make misinterpretations because they haven't studied the text extensively
thus, they are more likely to take things out of context
an English professor with little or no background in geology would probably have a hard time filling the role of a geologist
something similar applies to this
No, it would be one representation of the religion. It may differ from the way other people practice the religion, but it is a form of that religion nonetheless. Any religious text (the Bible, the Quran) can be interpreted in infinite ways. If you read it right, you can find justification for anything. That doesn't make you incorrect or in contradiction to the religion.
if you look at my reply to Xavier right above your comment
I explain why I thought greed was a divider
And another thing is that some people merely say that they are doing it because of their beliefs, but their actions are actually because of their greed
I'm saying they use beliefs as an excuse or cover story
they follow the religion but people are people
they make mistakes
it's people that are causing the divisions
it's their greed
they can blame their faults on themselves
we have free will and in the end, our decisions are based on what we chose
we can try to blame it on religion, society, our parents, etc.
but it's still our decisions
We're now going in a circle and this argument will never end.
All religions advocate awful acts.
Most of the disunity in the world is from non-religious acts
such as for money, power, resources, etc.
that's why I said that greed was one of the biggest divider
All beliefs are 'beliefs'.
I put the quotations because those specific beliefs are better defined as excuses
All beliefs are excuses for not accepting reality.
http://amirite.com/754182-persp...-elses-amirite
I'm sure you have beliefs as well though
I hold the belief of finding fault with poo poo eaters (with the exception of things like starvation)
this belief is not an excuse that rejects reality
It is if you need to provide exceptions to your own belief.
Let's take a look at documentaries
They are factual, not fictional
but documentaries are still subjective in that they portray the perspective that the filmmaker wants
Another filmmaker can make a documentary on the same topic with a different perspective
What I believe is real may not be what you believe is real
and I don't understand why you say all beliefs are excuses
tell me about a belief you have
Documentaries are not reality, they are perspectives on film as you stated. I have no beliefs. I have trust in the scientific method.
well can you say that what you see is reality because it's based on your perspective?
I think you are limiting the meaning of belief
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief?s=t
your statement about the method is a belief in itself
The scientific method is open to revision which means it is not a belief. It is trust based on empirical evidence. I disagree with the third definition. I don't 'believe' that it's wrong. If I am wrong and trust is a synonym for belief, then I will search for a better word. It might be more accurate to say I follow the scientific method, which is susceptible to rigorous proof.
Do you believe in aliens?
Basically, in your argument, religion=belief, belief=rejecting reality, reality is not open to interpretation, so there is only one or no way to interpret society, Science is everything and explains everything, religion has always been the same, has never been revised, and is an excuse for not accepting reality.
This comment is very irrelevant and pointless and not that different from the rest of these.
Also I couldn't find a way to fit this(http://amirite.com/80639-to-be-...ered-regulated) But I think this is an interpretation and reality is open to that.
Thank you for calling my comment irrelevant and pointless. I have more class than to say the same of yours.
I just said 'this comment is irrelevant and pointless' I should have put that at the top because it was a warning not to read it. I'll try to get it fixed.
a lot of things have exceptions
or things would be too rigid
for instance pork is something I can't consume
but in a life or death situation
an exception is made
science has exceptions too
http://www.tutorvista.com/conte...ns-science.php
Abnormalities and mutations are the life-blood of evolution. Exceptions for belief are excuses.
excuses for what?
Excuses for not accepting the difference between faith and science.
so how is my belief that pork should not be consumed an excuse for not accepting of what you say is the difference?
science supports that pork can cause health issues depending on the amount consumed, with diseases, etc.
Science supports the same about all red meat and several other foods. Faith singles out pork because of some ancient belief of cloven hooves being unclean.
you didn't answer my question
how is my belief about pork an excuse? (for what you said "not accepting the difference between faith and science")
and actually
pork usually has more toxins than other meats
pigs have this sort of digestive system that contributes to this
so generally speaking, pigs are more destructive to the health
If this is true about pork, then it is not a belief.
that doesn't answer my question from both of my previous comments
I'm still not hearing why you think they're excuses
Facts aren't beliefs. If pork were not the most unhealthy food and yet were believed to be that would be not accepting reality. Not accepting reality is a justification or excuse for overlooking reality in order to keep believing in what is untrue.
I never said that pork was the most unhealthy food
so I wasn't going against reality
reality says pork is one of the most unhealthy meats
and I agree
I hold the belief that a pig is unclean and reality supports that
I'm accepting both my belief and reality
Reality isn't open to interpretation unless you're under the influence of drugs or faith. (same difference)
You lost me here. Everything is open to interpretation. Nothing is understood completely.
The scientific method is.
it's possible that people fall under either or both of those situations
I agree, but it can also be a force for good. Depends on who the person is. Completely subjective.
But, whether religion is good or bad isn't relevant. This is asking whether or not it's useful. And honestly, it's not. Morality exists without religion. Charity exists without religion. War exists without religion. Greed. Murder. Love. Kindness.
Religion, I believe, isn't as big of a deal as the person. People compromise religion to fit their own personal morals. The part in the Bible about women being totally submissive? Nah. Most people don't follow that. No premarital sex? We can just ignore that. No gay rights? These are changing times!
I agree with you, I'm just following up that religion, really, isn't USEFUL in that it doesn't contribute to what hasn't already existed.
Agreed. Well said.
How could you say that? Religion is great if you want to control people.
So, religion is the only way to control people? You know there's virtually no religion in China these days, and the people are absolutely controlled, manipulated and lied to by their secular government. Religion is too-often demonized as the sole cause of so many things.
No one said it was the ONLY way to control people. There are infinitely many ways to do that. Religion just works quite well. As do oppressive governments.
I was just picking a fight. I'm pissed off today. The office in Shenzhen is just dumping all its crap work on me since it's my last week in the company. They're squeezing every penny out of me. Anyway, it's not true that religion serves no good purpose or relevant purpose
Well, religion lets you do it without weapons.
Carlin is always relevant.
It's been a good while since we had a good ol' religious debate
I would like them to exist and the scientific method provides much more possibility for the existence of aliens than gods. But I don't believe in them.
Then you hold the belief that aliens don't exist
that is your belief
so it's not that you have no beliefs
is this belief an excuse?
Not at all. I don't know if they exist or not. Belief doesn't enter into it. In fact, most modern panspermia research lends much credit to the possibility that life on earth began elsewhere. We just don't know yet, regardless of what anyone believes.
I think that you're still limiting the meaning of belief
I know that you are expanding it in order to play semantics. Science is not belief, no matter how much you believe that it is. Belief can not be tested and verified the way scientific truth can. Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
I believe that he exists mostly in dreams
but I also think it's possible for him to exist elsewhere
Provide evidence.
I have none
but I don't think this belief is an excuse
you said you don't believe in aliens
how would you prove that?
and what about your belief about the spaghetti thingy?
It is not the job of the disbeliever to prove that which they do not believe in. It is the job of the believer to provide evidence of what they do believe in. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is actually used by atheists to help illustrate this point. Religious people say, "God is real. Prove me wrong." But they are the ones asserting that something exists and therefore they have to provide the evidence.
but by definition, those are still beliefs
and they don't have to be excuses
They aren't beliefs or excuses. It's called the scientific method. But your semantics are an excuse to not have a real debate.
I'm trying to argue that not all beliefs are excuses
why wouldn't I use the meaning of belief to prove so?
You wouldn't if you were trying to have an honest intellectual discussion on religious faith and not the third synonym of the third definition of belief.
what you're saying about me not having an intellectual discussion isn't proving your point
you're trying to discredit my side
but even the first definition says "something believed"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief?s=t
I wasn't even debating about the post with you
I was debating your reply to my comment when you stated all beliefs are excuses
I'm trying to show that not all beliefs are excuses
and that you have beliefs as well
of course the meaning of belief is going to come into play here
I obviously meant religious beliefs. I'm not trying to discredit your side, just your debating technique and reliance on semantics.
It wasn't obvious that you meant religious beliefs especially in the beginning when I said that your trust in the scientific method was a belief
you argued that it wasn't a belief
you could've clearly stated there that you're not talking about all beliefs but only religious beliefs at that point
since we were talking about a scientific belief there
Scientific belief is an oxymoron. There is scientific knowledge and there is religious belief. Different creatures.
Not really.. You have to have faith or belief that the evidence is true, and you have to believe that the scientists conducting the experiments and that they've come up with a conclusion. Everything you're told about this universe these "facts" you believe can not be contested with when in fact our scientific knowledge is expanding and changing all the time! In the Victorian period doctors used to give their female patients orgasms to 'cure' their hysteria and that was based on what the scientific community at the time had concluded.
You have to believe in science just like anything else, particularly if you are using secondary and tertiary sources.
(I mean to say belief as you have to take a scientist word for it when a piece of information is presented)
Science can be tested. Belief can not.
How can you say there's no belief in science? Take Newton for instance, he made what he believed to be discoveries of truth, which were eventually replaced with new discoveries. The road to discovering true knowledge is long and arduous, and in the grand scheme of things we're not that far along it. I'm an atheist, but even I see the value of religious belief for most who have it. You are far too polarized on this issue and I don't think you really understand anything you're talking about.
I understand that scientific proof can be tested and belief can not. I also understand that telling people what they do not understand is bullying. Scientific truth is not belief, it is knowledge.
But before it becomes truth it has to start as belief. Someone has to first believe (or "hypothesize" as you might put it) that something is true or not before they put it to the test. So, aren't scientific proofs merely the result of tested beliefs?
Blind faith is worthy of criticism, particularly if its the only argument you can muster. But you too are demonstrating blind faith in scientific/empirical evidence/proof in things. I too would put more stock in science than religion, but I can see religion's current purpose. If you cannot, then you are just being naive. As Yoda might say...too sure of yourself you are.
I'd call it a hypothesis because that's what it is. Not a belief. A testable idea. I'm not sure of myself. I'm sure of science. It's naive to think you know what's in my head and just more bullying.
You call this bullying? Jeez. OK, calm down Nancy. Point is, a hypothesis is born out of initial belief. You can't deny that. And I still don't see how you can continue saying beliefs aren't testable. We could test how many prayers are answered for example. We could test with leaps of faith --- how many out of 1,000 believers will survive falling off a cliff based on their belief that God will save them. That's a test. These tests may all prove that religion is bull, but they remain testable. And like science, such tests serve to get us a step closer to knowing, rather than knowing everything outright. A good scientist will not claim to know for sure everything you seem to think they will. Science evolves and changes, and a scientists greatest achievement is usually when they show their previous "proof" to be totally erroneous. And you absolutely are too sure of yourself and of science. It's better to keep more of an open mind, trust me. As someone once said, wisest is he who knows he does not know.
A hypothesis isn't a belief. It is a testable possibility. An idea, a notion. A belief is something much different. Thoughts aren't beliefs and science isn't faith. I think you are a bully. I could be wrong. And I very well understand that science evolves. That's why I am sure of the scientific method. Because it can be as wrong as me. Faith and belief can never be proven wrong no matter how many believers are lying dead on the ground. God's not in the clouds? Must be further up, in the sky. Not there either? Must be in space. Still haven't found it? Well, nevermind, it still exists because we believe it does. Maybe it was god's will that those thousand people are dead. Or satan. That's what makes faith faith.
Love,
Nancy
Call me Nancy. It doesn't make you correct. Just even more of a bully. I refuse to read anything else you have to type because you can only bully. It's very childish.
I had to call you nancy because you were being ridiculous. I think you are acting really naively, and that's based on things you actually said. You didn't like it so you say I'm a bully. I also notice you continue to refuse to acknowledge ANY of the many points I've made so far. If you wanna be a baby about it then just go spit your dummy out somewhere. Don't brand me a s childish when all you've done so far is present your naivety and then brand me a bully for calling you out on it.
Also, you didn't answer my question about scientific "proof" being just the results of tested beliefs.
Oh, and also, what about all the scientific theories and ideas that can't be tested? Are these just hocus pocus religious nonsense beliefs too? You oversimplify my friend, and it is your undoing.
I'm undone: http://atheism.about.com/od/phi...ificTheory.htm
Notice how the word 'belief' never comes up.
Would you care to share your OWN view? Instead of regurgitating other people's? Your view here reminds me of Chinese and Americans who love to turn everything into black and white. Belief is NOT exclusive to religion. Furthermore, what is with you and not just answering my questions directly? How can you continue to deny that there is no element of belief in science? The beliefs might be easier to confirm, depending on what it's related to, but belief and faith are necessary components of the scientific method. And as I mentioned in the post you didn't reply to properly, there are dozens of theories in which people believe, but under current conditions are untestable --- does that make them less valid? The scientific method should be embraced because it can be used to help prove a belief one way or the other, whether it be a religious one, a scientific one or a political one. You are too quick to separate everything into its own "camp". That's where naivety shows.
I simply do not see faith in science. So, I don't see any point in having a quasi-semantic circular debate about this with you. I can deny belief in science because I do not think it is there. I hold that a thought is not a belief and that the scientific method is not some form of faith. I provided that link in attempt to show you that belief and faith are not elements of it. I appreciate what you are attempting to say about theories that people believe in. String theory would be a great example. Some people might say they believe in string theory. I would say that it is an interesting idea. Some people might say they believe in alien visitation. I would say that is an interesting idea. Personally, I would love them both to be true. But, until they are testable or verifiable, they are just wonderful ideas to me. And once they are, they should no longer be beliefs for anyone else. They become truths. Some people might say they believe in evolution. I would say that evolution is fact because it is observable. I respect that scientific truth can change. I also understand that religious truth resists change. That's why I see belief as an unscientific word.
And there's no need to believe in any theory in order to test or verify it. There's only the need to entertain its possibility.
It's evident you haven't fully grasped what I'm talking about. You are totally stuck on that one idea and are not addressing the points accurately. I suppose I have overestimated your ability to discuss.
Very rich, coming from someone who can't discuss anything without resorting to condescension and ridicule. You can't even grasp the meanings of words, yet all of your 'points' come down to semantics.
Why would the word "belief" definitely have to come up for what I'm saying to be right? The term heterosexual doesn't come up either...does that mean everyone involved in this is gay? Atheism is a system of belief, just as Theistic ones are. Science REQUIRES belief in a theory being true or false in order for it to be able to move forward. Galileo, Newton, Darwin and other eminent scientists were often slated for their proposals, called insane that they could even entertain the possibility of what they put forward was factual. In this way, we say how the word belief goes WAY beyond your blinkered view of what it means. It's not necessarily about having a faith, or praying to a deity, or it being "untestable" (which I already demonstrated was a flawed argument of yours anyway). The scientific method is deeply flawed itself, and so STILL requires people to have a measure of belief that what it proves is in fact accurate. A fleeting glance at the history of scientific achievement demonstrates this simple fact. They get it wrong sometimes.So your notion that science constantly and infallibly provides truth is erroneous.
More people have been killed in the name of god than any other reason. Look at the crusades, or the current wars in the Middle East.
What's going on in the middle east is not because of religion, it is because of corrupt powers aligning with European and American powers, and become further corrupted. What happened in the arab spring was a direct result of these puppet leaders being propped up by America to do their bidding and when the people finally got sick of all this corruption - and rightfully so - they overthrew the leaders, and of course America pretended like it was in favour of removing them too. What is happened in the middle east is a direct result of colonization. This is not religions fault and it's foolish of you to say so.
All modern wars are not because of religion but because of resources, land and/or corruption.
And historically, there were not that many wars that happened because of religion maybe like 1 in 1000, the rest was again land, resources and/or corruptiom
Preach brotha!
What's going on the Middle East is a direct result of people believing their religion endows them with said resources.
What's going on the Middle East is a product of malign western inteference in their affairs. You can thank the British and then later the Americans for generating the division and hatred that exists in the region. I'm not so naive as to think it would have all been rosy without that, but it would have played differently, and considering how crap it is now, it would be worth taking a chance on that if we could.
And you can thank religion for malign American and British interference in the region. Both nations believed that it was their right, endowed by some creator, to take ownership of the region. Manifest density.
You think the British Empire was built on religious foundations? Deary me. And you think America's actual motivations now are religious? Double deary me with a side of facepalm. I'm not talking about the crusades here. If I were I would be talking about the English and mainland Europeans' inteference.
If you don't know that the goal is to open Zion for Jesus's second coming, I can't help you.
Yes I'm sure it is, and I'm also sure that it has absolutely nothing to do with the trillions of pounds worth of resources, the strategic location in relation to enemies an allies in the region, the sheer pretige garnered from controlling it and whatnot...they're just sub-factors are they? Get an education, Nancy.
Resources endowed by god, enemies that god told them to kill and vice versa, control that will be used to enforce another holy empire. Got any more?
Get a reality.
Love,
Nancy
Wow, such an amazing demonstration of ignorance. You evidently know very very little about how minor a role religion played in anything England/Britain did after the civil war and the end of Cromwell's tyranny. You demonstrate this ignorance with your oversimplified, ill-informed nonsense that stinks of grumpy teenage know-it-all. And if you actually think a single factor like the religious one can successfully drive the foreign policy of a western power now, you're deluded as well.
I may demonstrate my ignorance of English politics as well as you do yours of American foreign policy.
For the record, i reckon more have been killed for other reasons. It would be hard to prove otherwise. Didn't you see that South Park where the world turns atheist? It makes a good point, that it's "isms" generally that drive people crazy, not just the religious ones.
A very good episode indeed. I'm not an atheist, though. I'm just a human.
I'm not religious in the slightest, but no. Some people feel the need to be convinced to do good things, where religion is helpful. Other people turn to religion because their life sucks and they need answers. It's poor execution often, but it can be helpful.
prepares for infinite downvotes
RELIGION! YEAH!
Religion on amirite: "with this post, I'll save every Internet atheist ever!"
Religion on amirite: "with this post, I'll finally enlighten those dumbass Christians!"
It goes both ways.
It's pretty dumb to believe in fairy tales.
It's pretty dumb to be one of 'those' atheists. You can't be much more universally hated than being the kind of atheist you have so far. The 'what I believe MUST be right and I'm very sensitive about it so I'll condescendingly insult other belief systems.' You give the smarter atheists a bad name
But, it is stupid to believe in fairy tales. I don't care how much people hate me. The truth might hurt, but that doesn't make it less true. If you take umbrage at me calling a belief system a fairy tale, could it be that it hits a little too close to home?
I'm an atheist champ. I don't see how anything beyond us could logically exist in a surreal way. But no one can know for sure and that includes me, so I don't try to indoctrine people and I especially don't make fun of what they believe because it's just as likely that they are right as it is that I am right. So I try to keep condescension out of my tone and only talk about it if other people want to hear it. Then you come stumbling in here, run a train of comments throughout the post being kind of a dick. Then finish off with the kind of comment atheists get stereotyped for. 'don't believe in fairy tales' 'don't believe in an imaginary friend' 'I don't think I'm right, I know it. Your belief system is FAIRY TALES but my belief system is the pure unbridled truth'. And people come on this site and read that and get a crappy impression about all atheists because of people like you and it effects the rest of us who aren't, for the majority, arrogant assholes. Understanding that what you believe isn't the truth any more than anyone else's belief will be a big step in your maturity.
Calling somebody an asshole is mature? Good show!
At this point we recognise you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
Ahhh. So you know what's in my brain and behind my motivations? You must be this 'god' everyone is so defensive about.
You DO have a bit of an attitude problem. Never mind though, I had one too before I was cast out into the real world and met different types of people. You'll get over it, hopefully.
We have quite an argument going in the comments but the OP said that there is no use for religion. S/he did not say there is no room for religion. So calm down.
The former is connected to the latter. Take a council for example, saying there's no "use" for you is saying that there is no place for you --- IE, no room for you. Nah, I know what you mean. But in my mind, it's perfectly simple to negate the OP on this issue. It really is hard to argue FOR it in fact.
Yeah, I had taken it to mean the same thing and had agreed with it. However, as anonon pointed out, religion is not an absolute necessity for either good or evil. So, there is no use for it because we'd be doing everything we are doing even if no religion existed. But there clearly is room and longing for religion amongst most people.
Yes, probably. But it remains impossible to say it serves absolutely no purpose. It's naive to put things in such basic and simple terms like that quasi-troll XOX is doing on here. I did it when I was a teenager and looking back I definitely sounded retarded, insensitive and ignorant.