Religion IS crazy!

[DeepState]

1. Not necessarily, the Big Bang theory doesn't rule out that something may have existed prior, eg a continually crunch bang cycle


2. No, but neither can religion. Science can tell you How you got here, if that's what you mean.

The purpose of your life can only be answered by you. Religion can't tell you what the purpose of your life is, everyone is different.

1. This is what I was referring to in relation to "turtles all the way down". The proposition basically says that this universe came from a prior one...and so on. Yet, this is obfuscation. Ultimately, something started it. Another example in the counter is that if God created the universe, who created God and who created the God that created God...? The desire to disprove the need for a beginning from a scientific perspective and the disprove the presence of God use the same argument. I think it is just avoiding the question.

2. Not really. I don't think science explains why questions like that are asked. These are very critical questions for a person. Science certainly can't answer them. They are philosophical. They are outside of science. When you ask those sorts of questions, they are unanswerable in a direct sense. Some will look to religion for a response...and they will find something (even if it was in them all along, but needed a can opener to get it out). Even if religion arises from mysticism which can be wound back by the progress of science, I believe religion's place as a life guide will remain a strong factor in a population. Religion provides much guidance on such matters. This is different to saying that the guidance is any good!

 

[Value Collector]

Your selective reading seems to have ignored all the times I said that religion is both good and bad. Everything I've heard from you indicates that you think it's all bad. I can't go with that approach, I don't think it's an unbiased view.

.

I think you will find I have regularly admitted that there are good aspects to religions, However I have said that none of those good parts are owned by religion and can be achieved through other ways, and due to the bad side effects of religions its best to go for those other ways, Much as you would avoid a pill that has bad side effects.

I have some ideas why you take a relentlessly negative approach to religion.

I take a negative approach because we all agree it has some nasty side effects, But no one has been able to name a benefit that can not be achieved in other ways.

 

[SirRumpole]

I take a negative approach because we all agree it has some nasty side effects, But no one has been able to name a benefit that can not be achieved in other ways.

It comes down to the individual as to whether they take or leave religion, not for you or I to decide. In this country we have a balance of secularism and religion which I think is beneficial. Maybe we should just leave it at that.

 

[Value Collector]

1. This is what I was referring to in relation to "turtles all the way down". The proposition basically says that this universe came from a prior one...and so on. Yet, this is obfuscation. Ultimately, something started it. Another example in the counter is that if God created the universe, who created God and who created the God that created God...? The desire to disprove the need for a beginning from a scientific perspective and the disprove the presence of God use the same argument. I think it is just avoiding the question.
!

So you don't think that it's possible the universe might be infinite and eternal, I don't know for sure but I wouldn't rule the possibility out that the universe is eternal, But although it's an interesting question its not one we have to worry about to much in our daily lives, just because we can't answer that question doesn't me an we should hold onto the broze age myths.

2. Not really. I don't think science explains why questions like that are asked. These are very critical questions for a person. Science certainly can't answer them. They are philosophical. They are outside of science. When you ask those sorts of questions, they are unanswerable in a direct sense. Some will look to religion for a response...and they will find something (even if it was in them all along, but needed a can opener to get it out). Even if religion arises from mysticism which can be wound back by the progress of science, I believe religion's place as a life guide will remain a strong factor in a population. Religion provides much guidance on such matters. This is different to saying that the guidance is any good

Can you give me an example of such a question?

 

[Value Collector]

It comes down to the individual as to whether they take or leave religion, not for you or I to decide. .

Totally agree, But as I said for religious freedom to exist, the government must be secular and mustn't favour any religion, and schooling must also be secular.

But, also it's not quite true that it is down to the individual, Children are often indoctrinated by their parents from a young age, and threats of hell fire can put a fear into even adults, and apostasy is a crime punishable by death in some religions and their are people serving jail terms for being open atheists, some have even been put to death.

 

[DeepState]

Yes, humans are incredibly violent also, as Darwin said, we have the indelible stamp of our lowly origins.

This is an awesome video, the message to it really affected me when I saw it.

Thank you. We have a degree of self-determination that indicates we can escape our primal history. Is it enough? Evidence suggests "room for improvement".

I formally examined Global Politics in the past. One of the courses I took was Conflict Resolution. I was engaging in conflict escalation by arguing with the lecturer about why it is that we denied that war was always inevitable. Quoting atrocity after atrocity which, to me, proved we were beyond help. We are the descendants of chimps. We fight. We wage war by instinct.

Then he provided a ton of evidence that man is not a tamed beast, but one which is inherently at peace and has to be aroused to war.

I think there is reason for hope.

 

[SirRumpole]

Totally agree, But as I said for religious freedom to exist, the government must be secular and mustn't favour any religion, and schooling must also be secular.

You can't guarantee a secular government in a society where religion exists. People with religious beliefs have a right to run for Parliament as does anyone else, that's democracy.

As for keeping religion out of state schools, I agree. But a lot of atheists send their children to private religious schools. Do you want to ban those schools and the freedom of choice ? Why are there few if any private atheist schools ?

But, also it's not quite true that it is down to the individual, Children are often indoctrinated by their parents from a young age, and threats of hell fire can put a fear into even adults, and apostasy is a crime punishable by death in some religions and their are people serving jail terms for being open atheists, some have even been put to death.

Yes, children are indoctrinated in many ways. If parents are beer swilling, pot smoking bogans then it's likely their kids will turn out the same way. What can you do ?

 

[Value Collector]

It implies that US military personnel are more secular than the general population whose stats I used to suggest there was something interesting going on between religion and the best of the best of the best in the Apollo program..

The cold war is over now, we are not fighting the godless commies anymore (at least not yet) instead we are fighting religious militants, during the cold war religion became part of patriotism. It was when "In god we trust" was put onto the US currency and "Under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance, I don't think we can discount the political climates influence on religion during that time.

 

[Value Collector]

You can't guarantee a secular government in a society where religion exists. People with religious beliefs have a right to run for Parliament as does anyone else, that's democracy.

yes but you can still maintain a secular government by having rules that separate church and state, and don't favour any religions or promote religion.

Your right its democracy, not theocracy.

As for keeping religion out of state schools, I agree.

Good.

But a lot of atheists send their children to private religious schools.

They are free to do that.

Why are there few if any private atheist schools ?

I already answered that for you.

Yes, children are indoctrinated in many ways. If parents are beer swilling, pot smoking bogans then it's likely their kids will turn out the same way. What can you do

You definitely don't actively promote alcohol and pot as good things, and restrict children's access to them. and teach children the dangers of them.

 

[DeepState]

1. So you don't think that it's possible the universe might be infinite and eternal, I don't know for sure but I wouldn't rule the possibility out that the universe is eternal, But although it's an interesting question its not one we have to worry about to much in our daily lives, just because we can't answer that question doesn't me an we should hold onto the broze age myths.

Can you give me an example of such a question?

You know as well as I that neither of us will find the answer to this definitively. But, as science looks to push the boundaries of physics, what they find is ever less likely to be useful to us on a day to day basis either. But we yearn for knowledge of our place and purpose. There is no real reason we have to find smaller sub-molecules than we can harness or spend a fortune on super-colliders or satellites to peel back another 0.5 secs into the Big Bang. We just need to know. This need to know fills up the days of a lot of people trying to find out.

I find it hard to conceive of the notion that a multi-verse or cosmos was always there and will ever be. That has very religious tones to it in the garb of theoretical physics (I know it's out there, but I can't see it and definitely prove to you it exists). Given that it is such an important part of science to find out...what is the evidence? In the absence of the ability to prove an always-been-around-universe, we must acknowledge the possibility of one which had a beginning. There is no where else to go - except to deny that we are real at all. So what caused a beginning? If you seek to place the burden of proof on those who value religion, ought the weight of evidence now also be shared equally by those who eliminate the need for God/beginning via the construct of a perpetual universe? Such evidence is necessary to regard the presence of some superior being as factually incorrect.

It is not necessary to chant around a figure of a Minoan Goddess to ask a question, "Why am I here? Why does this edifice exist? What am I supposed to do with my abilities?" They are just questions, but important ones for many. This may not include you. These questions are beyond proof and science. If you should seek the answer to that, is that something specific to the Bronze Age? Is someone likely to find the response in an examination of particle physics instead? If not science, it gets named religion.

 

[SirRumpole]

That would be a bit weird, it doesn't really make sense to have an "atheist" school, because as I said atheism is a default position, it has no doctrines to teach, I guess you could call any school that doesn't promote religion atheist.

The point of schooling as far as I see it is the educate people, some schools want to include religion so I guess they label them selves as catholic or Islamic etc. but if a school just avoids religion, there is no need to label them as an atheist school, they are just the default position of a normal school, you can't teach lessons on atheism, there is nothing to teach, after a 2 minutes description of it, the lesson would be over,

Private schools could openly advertise that they don't teach religion. Are there any that do to your knowledge ? I'm sure they would be very popular.

 

[SirRumpole]

yes but you can still maintain a secular government by having rules that separate church and state, and don't favour any religions or promote religion.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 116
Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

===============
We already have those rules

They are free to do that. (Atheists sending their children to religious schools)

Bit hypocritical don't you think ?

 

[cynic]

So your claim was that the bible talks about chromosomes, and since this knowledge was unknown at the time, its evidence that the bible contains revealed information.

But, In reality the bible doesn't say anything about chromosomes, your simply saying that a monk mistranslated the original text, and when the bible talks about making eve from a rib, it actually meant chromosomes. And your evidence for this is that when you remove a rib you have 23 ribs left, which is the same number of chromosomes passed to offspring.

If you can't see the confirmation bias this takes to believe, I don't think you can be helped.

For those that are interested, my response to the contents of this post by VC are already contained within the body of the earlier discourse. (I've managed to actually answer him the month before he joined ASF! How's that for prescience?!)

P.S. VC, did you have anything new to contribute or was your post primarily motivated by your desire to deliver further insults to those that don't happen to subscribe to your personal religion?

 

[Value Collector]

Private schools could openly advertise that they don't teach religion. Are there any that do to your knowledge ? I'm sure they would be very popular.

To be honest I have never looked. But as I said atheism is kind of the default position, Most people would not expect a school to push a faith unless they are an openly religious faith school. So I don't think it's something that needs advertising

Religions often start schools because it is a good way to push their agenda onto the next generation.

If I were to start a school I wouldn't advertise things we won't be teaching, I would focus on advertising the things we will be doing.

It would be like KFC advertising that they don't sell beef, It just wouldn't make sense.

 

[Value Collector]

Bit hypocritical don't you think ?

Well I wouldn't do it, But some people don't feel as strongly as I do, Some even think its a good idea to teach children to believe in god.

 

[Value Collector]

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 116
Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

===============
We already have those rules

yes, and they are very important rules, But we have to be vigilant to make sure they are maintained and enforced, We also have a lot of grey areas though, eg our head of state is also the head of the church of England, and religion is established in the military, and in my opinion is abused.

 

[SirRumpole]

If I were to start a school I wouldn't advertise things we won't be teaching, I would focus on advertising the things we will be doing.

It would be like KFC advertising that they don't sell beef, It just wouldn't make sense.

I think you would make a poor businessman. Business advertise those aspects about themselves that make them more attractive than their opposition. "Our cars don't pollute as much as our opposition" is analogous to "our schools don't teach religion" . If there is such a demand for religion-less schools, that would be a selling point.

Not necessarily, the Big Bang theory doesn't rule out that something may have existed prior, eg a continually crunch bang cycle

This model offers intriguing possibilities of an oscillating or cyclic universe (or “Big Bounce”), where the Big Crunch is succeeded by the Big Bang of a new universe, and so on, potentially ad infinitum. However, in the light of recent findings in the 1990s (such as the evidence for an accelerating universe described previously), this is no longer considered the most likely outcome.

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_bigcrunch.html

 

[Value Collector]

You know as well as I that neither of us will find the answer to this definitively. But, as science looks to push the boundaries of physics, what they find is ever less likely to be useful to us on a day to day basis either. But we yearn for knowledge of our place and purpose. There is no real reason we have to find smaller sub-molecules than we can harness or spend a fortune on super-colliders or satellites to peel back another 0.5 secs into the Big Bang. We just need to know. This need to know fills up the days of a lot of people trying to find out.

It is not necessary to chant around a figure of a Minoan Goddess to ask a question, "Why am I here? Why does this edifice exist? What am I supposed to do with my abilities?" They are just questions, but important ones for many. This may not include you. These questions are beyond proof and science. If you should seek the answer to that, is that something specific to the Bronze Age? Is someone likely to find the response in an examination of particle physics instead? If not science, it gets named religion.

It's more than just a need to know, we do a lot of good science that helps us in unrelated areas when we seek to learn new things,

Did you see this video I uploaded earlier?

 

[Value Collector]

I think you would make a poor businessman. Business advertise those aspects about themselves that make them more attractive than their opposition. "Our cars don't pollute as much as our opposition" is analogous to "our schools don't teach religion" . If there is such a demand for religion-less schools, that would be a selling point.

Yes, But people generally expect a school not to be religious unless its a faith school.

I would I would rather emphasize the strength of the rest of the school curriculum.

I would fear that if we advertised the school as an atheist school that it would be misinterpreted, people may think only atheists can attend or People like you may think its a school based on anti theism.

But as I said, The religions start schools as a way to push their agenda on the next generation, atheist don't really have a need to push anything, we don't have doctrines to teach, it takes about 30 seconds to learn what an atheist is, and because its a personal claim of belief, it can't really be taught.

 

[DeepState]

1. It's more than just a need to know, we do a lot of good science that helps us in unrelated areas when we seek to learn new things,

2. Did you see this video I uploaded earlier?

1. It is accidental if so. Do we journey out on a massive venture with a specific purpose in mind that does not make sense on its own justified only on the basis of accidentally discovering something useful along the way? How will pushing the n-th degree on the view to the Big Bang, which cannot be looked beyond because physics changes before time began, supposed to help?

2. Regarding the video...Why do you exist VC?
"That question doesn't deserve an answer".

Are you a good man VC?
"That question doesn't deserve an answer".

Was it important to you to serve the nation, with its gratitude, with valour?
"That question doesn't deserve an answer".

Do I love my wife more than life itself?
"That question doesn't deserve an answer".

That's nonsense and obfuscation from Dawkins. That video doesn't deserve a link. I actually like Dawkin's books too. There are very incisive arguments in them. This is not one of them.

How about the paragraph that was missed in the quote of my post? I'm interested in your view.

I find it hard to conceive of the notion that a multi-verse or cosmos was always there and will ever be. That has very religious tones to it in the garb of theoretical physics (I know it's out there, but I can't see it and definitely prove to you it exists). Given that it is such an important part of science to find out...what is the evidence? In the absence of the ability to prove an always-been-around-universe, we must acknowledge the possibility of one which had a beginning. There is no where else to go - except to deny that we are real at all. So what caused a beginning? If you seek to place the burden of proof on those who value religion, ought the weight of evidence now also be shared equally by those who eliminate the need for God/beginning via the construct of a perpetual universe? Such evidence is necessary to regard the presence of some superior being as factually incorrect.