'Distort' was your word, not mine, as in 'constantly favoured science distorted to fit an explicitly creationist view of the world'.
Do you think I'm suggesting that eugenics is valid science? It was presented as science at the time, and as MisterMook pointed out, was promoted by world leaders other than Hitler, and many influential people. It has no origins in religion and if religion got dragged into it when world leaders were justifying their crimes, it seems like a side issue. Plenty of data was collected to support the theory.
Saying science requires data as if that's the end of the story isn't very useful. The data may be meaningless or it could be interpreted incorrectly. The collection method can be faulty. There can be 'bad science' just like 'bad religion'.

Distorted science is non-science. Eugenics was a moral theory, science doesn't provide "oughts". Eugenics was never any more a science than rape is scientific. The problem with eugenics was that it was, quite simply, cruel. That said eugenics doesn't have to be cruel. Every time a foetus with a severe disorder is aborted we carry out eugenics in a victimless fashion.

The principal difference here, between science and religion, is that science can be corrected by more and better data. Religion can only be corrected by total, difficult, mind-bending revolutions, usually not in individuals. Science changes all the time, improving and improving. Scientists seek to change their own minds. Science is self-correcting. Learning. It's dynamic, and meaningful. Religion seems mostly to change one coffin at a time, usually as those who resist scientific discovery most vehemently die.

Bad science can be argued against on rational terms, using evidence. Bad religion can't be argued against because its proponents place little or no value on the reasonableness of their beliefs.

I think my main issue with religion isn't because I think it's silly, although I do - sort of like believing in magic or unicorns or whatever, it's because I have an intense dislike of the inherently political nature of organized religion without any, or little, regulation on those aspects.

I suspect I'd be upset with Trekkies and Foodies if they organized and became a power bloc in politics too, and started dictating strange policy decisions based on the Prime Directive and foie gras. Worse, they could decide to bring divisions within their ranks into the political spectrum, based on centuries old recipes or esoteric interpretations of the TOS pilot episode's original script. Sometimes silly things bring people happiness and I'm all for people being happy, there's very little of that enough that anyone can afford to pass it by, but the political aspects? They're just ugly.

Politics is a brutal enough reality without bringing fiction into the matter. Once you start killing people for salting their food, or because they didn't like DS9, or because they have a different interpretation of a bronze age compilation of religious sermons written by committee and assembled as an explicit tool to control a people suffering under the weight of a failed economy...

Sure, people kill people anyways. I can't stop that, but I can try to keep people from killing each other over unicorns and persecuting people for failing to acknowledge sweet potato fries.

Because it's an area where we differ, and it's an excuse to try to make others think like us. Everybody thinks they're right, and I guess some people find it entertaining to try to change the minds of others (though I think it's rare to see it happen via a discussion or lecture... or through force, for that matter).

The topic of religion gives people a reason to think they're better than everyone else (and that goes for both sides of the debate). As humans, that's one of our main failings -- and something that's caused a great deal of wars and heartache over the years.

I debate things because it forces me to think and rethink my own positions and clarify my own mind and reasoning. That's whether I'm debating religion or skim milk versus whole. It's not you, it's me.

and there you have one of the support beams of my agnosticism.

nobody knows.
NOBODY knows.
you can argue with me that you* know until youre blue in the face, but your perception is of no greater value to me as the next persons'.
i go by: anything is possible. anything.
but not everything is probable. and since these things are MUCH bigger than i am, i will admit that i as a human do not hold the capacity to understand or know everything and leave it at: i do not know.

and i do not expect what i know today to be what i know tomorrow, either. things change.

i do not know if there is or is not a god.
i choose not to clutter my psyche with questions that i will not know the answers to until my last breath. i see no point. to me, religion causes more pain than pleasure, from what ive seen in the lives of MOST, and i do not want that for myself.


and on a deeper note, i think the main thing that bothers me about atheism AND religion is that both sides claim to know. but nobody does. nobody knows for sure. and people change. its not so much what IS as what we WANT it to be. some people WANT a god to exist. some people HATE that idea and so they say one doesnt. either way we do not know what IS.



*general sense


EDIT: another thing that bothers me about the religion/anti-religion scene is that i see people on BOTH sides acting much the same way; condescending, arguing, using their beliefs as a wedge rather than just shrugging it off and getting on with their lives. i want no part in that.

I think most atheists are just agnostics using Ockam's Razor.

I don't know who Ockam is, but I agree with the razor.

It bores me to *fill in suitable religious swearing* how these threads about atheism or agnosticism always is taken over by the religious people wanting to spread their religion.

I also want to note that even Ghosts is more real then God, because they have actually been reported SEEN by a lot of people. So that makes it a rather more interesting discussion in my eyes.

I'm an atheist btw.

That's a good way to put it and probably rings fairly true about myself. I class myself as an atheist because I don't believe there is a god. I find the concept a little strange tbh. However I probably fall under agnosticism in the sense that I couldn't confidently say there is no such thing purely because, ultimately, I don't think we'll ever know for sure one way or the other. This is where Occam's Razor comes in - if we're never going to know then it's just easier to assume there is no such thing. I certainly don't believe in the existence of deities, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I know there are no deities. I still wouldn't class myself as agnostic though.

Occam's Razor: the principle that if you have more than one explanation for the same thing, the simplest is usually correct.

If you've looked through the Religion threads here you'll see that they were being taken over by atheist discussion, hence the creation of a non-Religion topic

I don't disagree with anything you wrote here. But I would say if we define 'bad science' as 'distorted science' e.g. twisting data to fit foregone conclusions, then we could define 'bad religion' as twisting religious texts to justify crazy things that you're going to do anyway.
And if 'good science' is made when scientists remain detached and follow the scientific method, then 'good religion' could be when believers are happy with their own belief system and don't think that everyone outside their belief system is wrong.

Comparing science and religion in parallel is the only way I can think to compare them. Science is based on a tool, the scientific method; religion is based on belief. I think the two things can theoretically coexist. Someone's belief in a god or gods is not in and of itself hurting anyone - someone's belief in no god is not in and of itself hurting anyone.

I agree. I don't really understand why atheists and agnostics are presented as two clearly distinct groups; very few atheists will actually say, "I know there is no God. I'm 100% certain." Most atheists are also agnostics. Agnosticism by itself is simply the view that the existence or non-existence of deities is unknowable (using the empirical evidence that is available to us). Hell, one can be an agnostic and a theist -- I daresay the theists who admit that it's impossible to prove the existence of deities without crossing over to the metaphysical realm are also agnostics...

Yeah, yeah, it's all semantics but not unimportant given that the general public seems to have the misconception that 'agnostic' is synonymous to 'open-minded' and 'atheist' is synonymous to 'rabid close-minded scientist holed up in the lab'. I'm sure this impacts discussions somewhat.


This may be a bit of a naive question but by choosing a particular belief system, aren't religious folks essentially disbelieving all the other beliefs and saying they are false? Or are there people who think that multiple beliefs can be simultaneously true? Sort of like, "Well, I believe in Vishnu but my neighbour believes in the Christian God so I dunno, maybe he'll get whisked away in the Christian heaven and maybe my Buddhist friend will get reincarnated."

Last edited by Princess Leia : 7th Oct 2010 at 07:01 PM.

Disbelieving? Yes. But are they wrong for believing something else? No. I do not think it is so much that they are all simultaneously true, rather as, we don't know so why does it matter? Who's right and who's wrong, it's a stupid question to ask, so don't bother asking it.

Also some believe that, in some respect, although they are different paths, there are core similarities which are the same (or just similar), and that basically, that is what everyone strives for; so they're all just different ways to those things.

As to why they're differentiated, perhaps it is a matter of outlook and vocal persona?

That's sort of part of what I believe, actually. But not in a literal sense. Hmmm... how to explain?

I do believe in an afterlife (as in, the continuation of consciousness), but I think it has more to do with what your beliefs were when you were alive than any one particular deity calling the shots. If you were a Christian, you'll probably see heaven and Jesus (unless you thought you were a sinner, in which case you might see hell and Satan). A Hindu might see Vishnu (or one of the other Hindu gods). A Buddhist might see... whatever Buddhists see (I'm not sure if they claim to see anything between lives... someone correct me if I'm wrong).

I guess this belief of mine comes from the idea that, while there might not actually be an Old Testament God or Krishna out there that we can see and touch, those ideas all come from the same source; people see the divine in different ways. So... my Christian friend probably will get whisked off to heaven and my Hindu friend will meet whatever gods he expects to meet.

But I understand that most religious people don't share this point of view. From what I've seen, it's either their way or the... "hell"way. I guess, in a way, I'm disbelieving those beliefs... but I believe that others believe they're real and valid. I'm not going to say they're "false"... because I don't know for sure.

Yes, I should've worded it differently. Because a believer probably is thinking other people are wrong who don't believe as they do. Maybe 'good religion is when believers think other religions are wrong, but also believe that that's between said other religions and God.'

I'm not sure what the wink is about. I thought my wording was clear that I wasn't applying my response solely to this discussion?

The last post was 10-11-10. I assess that the current topic has died down and it is safe for me to provide new discussion material. Today a pastor who visits me told me a story, that he insists is true, that stumped me. First, my position is a former Christian who has turned to Deism and I feel that God is good, bad, and everything in between. The pastor is there to convince me otherwise. And now, the story:

A little boy labored to build a toy boat with his bare hands and loved it. One day he was playing with the toy boat and he pushed it hard to see how well it could sail. The toy boat caught wind, drifted from the stream and into the river, and was swept up by the current. The boy ran after it with all his heart, but the toy boat got away and the boy was sad to see it go, thinking it was lost for good. Sometime later ( months, years? ) the boy saw the toy boat in a store. He asked the store's owner to give it back to him, who answered that he must pay for it. The boy worked for however long it took to get the money and returned. The store owner sold it back to him. As the boy walked away with his toy boat he said "You owe me twice. Once for making you and once for saving you.

The boy represents Jesus, who made you and put the money on the counter ( was crucified ) to save you. The store owner and their willingness to sell back the toy boat represents your merit as a person. As I said, it stumped me today because 1. the pastor is a fast thinker and talker, and he shifts gears a lot 2. he talked so much that I couldn't hear myself think 3. it is an abstract idea and I had difficulty translating the story into a logical argument, with premises and conclusions to examine because the pastor was talking and shifting gears.

From what I had learned in Bible studies: The wages for sin is death ( Romans 6:23 ). God had to introduce this measure as a response to the original sin, from what I understand ( I could be wrong ), to contain the spreading of evil by those who use their free will to turn away from God. I should have told that pastor that he forgot to mention that the boy had a gun to the store owners head and would pull the trigger if he refused to sell the toy boat back, because the wages of sin is death. But I can't pull this move unless I know that that death is caused by God. Am I right to append this story like that and throw it back at the pastor? In other words, who is ultimately responsible for the death when a person of free will turns away from God ( the Christian God )?

Well first of all I wish you had posted this in the Christianity thread.
So I read the story and had some trouble following it, but I'll throw some ideas out there. It seems to boil down to:

Boy Makes Boat - Boy Loses Boat - Boy Finds Boat In Store, Now Costs Money - Boy Earns Money, Buys Back Boat - Boy Guilt Trips Boat

Then I tried to line up the correspondences

Jesus Makes Person - Jesus Loses Person? - Jesus Finds Person (In Crack House Or Somewhere Similar? Playing Hooky From Church?Not Sure About This Part) - Jesus Saves Person Because He Died for Our Sins - Jesus Guilt Trips Person(First I Made You And Then I Had To Save You, So You Owe Me Twice)

So I'm not sure your argument that Jesus has a gun to the store owner's head is the best way to go. Because in the second story who is the store owner? And also people like the Pastor aren't interested in logic anyway. They have chosen to believe what they believe and there's really no arguing with that. You could spend days coming up with some fabulous irrefutable logic but he's not going to say, Wow I never thought of that! You're absolutely right! I actually think the whole story is kind of weak if it's supposed to be saying something about free will. Because the boat didn't do one thing on it's own - it was created, it floated away, got put in a store, was repurchased, all without any participation on its part.
And also wouldn't Jesus save someone anyway regardless of their merit as a person?

Last edited by RoseCity : 13th Nov 2010 at 01:30 AM.

The only thing I took away from that story is that Jesus likes using guilt trips and that he has a fragile ego that requires validation by creatures that are supposedly so worthless they shouldn't matter ("You owe me, you pissy little human!"). I would have thought that Jesus would be happy making and saving people out of the goodness of his heart and not expect anything in return.

Shows how much I know about Christianity, I guess.

Where would modern religions be without guilt trips and consequences? The Abrahamic religions usually teach moral guidelines that must be followed, and it is taught that following them will result in a good consequence after death and not following them results in Something Bad™. A good portion of them also require an admission of God/Jesus/Mohammed/Elvis as a savior, but I digress.

Buddhism has a great method, though: If you screw up and fail to attain nirvana, you go through "suffering", which is just another name for reincarnation. It's not even consequential reincarnation; what one is reincarnated to be (some sects believe it is always as a human, others don't) is completely random. No matter how many times you fail, you always get another chance. Most Abrahamic religions don't give mulligans.

Of course, atheism doesn't give consequences. Live like a saint? You die. Live like a jerkoff fuckface? Yeah, you die, too. Some people still believe that this sort of concept will lead to degradation in human society. Personally, I find this hypocritical, seeing as there have been countless people who've done inhumane things under the name of religious justice. I believe in human nature leading us the right way with or without religion.

And, failing that, I believe humanity will make reality TV shows that chastise assholes. Either way works.

The Church of Elvis?

Hail to the King, full of Grace... land.

What I don't like about the Abrahamic religions is the way the followers are taught to believe that they're nothing without God/Jesus/etc. I guess making people think they're stupid, powerless, and worthless is a great way to control them, though, which is why it happens. I just find it a little scary that people need to be told what to do all the time. That sort of power imbalance is ripe for abuse.

Wait, I just thought...the store owner = the devil who is holding the boat aka your soul for ransom. So in that case, you're right, why should the boy aka Jesus be a sucker and pay for the soul when he can just bust into the store with his cosmic uzi and take it back by force?

Last edited by RoseCity : 14th Nov 2010 at 04:55 PM.

Considering the number of morally corrupt people on the planet, Jesus would have his hands full will millions of hold-ups. Unless the devil kept all the souls in one place. One-stop shopping.

Of course, you first have to believe in the devil for that scenario to be possible. Most people on this thread don't.

Sorry - I got carried away. (I don't really believe in the devil.)

What I meant with Jesus having the gun was the actual passage: The wages for sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life. This is a fork that forces you to choose between two unequal paths with no options in between. There are also two passages in the Bible that have conflicting messages: 1. Either you're with me, or you're against me. 2. He who is not against me is with me.

The Pastor visited again and I got a little more info out of him. Before he was a Pastor he was a rebel who listened to rock & roll. He also hiked and took pictures of scenery with water. Once, he took a picture of a statue of an angel. When he developed the film he saw that the angel's reflection in the water was in the shape of a dragon ( the dragon represents the devil ). Since he had a song playing in his thoughts at the time it was a sign to him that rock & roll was the devil's music.

The turning point for him was when he woke from his bed and saw a dark cloud in the shape of a man standing by his bed. It left the room, but he had a bad feeling and he turned on the television. On it at the time was a gospel program, and it was just the comfort that he needed to hear. Thus, he decided to turn to the Lord ( out of fear ) and changed his life for the better. He believes that that cloud was the devil himself, might I add, the devil who was so smart that he convinced 1/3rd of the angels of heaven to join him against God.

That is some twisty logic he's employing there...