Comic Genesis Forums

shyal_malkes wrote:
and yet the scientific methode is so unstable for understanding the universe on a whole. think of it we believe in things through science as absurd as photons and electrons and theorize over gravitons, how long will it be before we realize that these things are actually made up and are in fact blah blah blah.
every new scientific discovery not only builds our knowledge (as most athiests never fail to point out) but also destroys years of previous scientific assumptions (which most athiests never seem to remember)

The thing is, Shyal, is that what you've described is the scientific process. The basic idea of science is to try to understand the universe, but acknowledge the fact that we may be proven wrong in our theories. The idea is to figure out what best fits the evidence available. When new evidence sheds new light on old theories, then the theories change to reflect what we now know.

This isn't 'Destroying' previous progress any more than creating a patch for a computer program, or refitting a ship with new electronics is destroying the previous work done.

The very instability that you accuse the scientific method of is the reason why it works so well: It is flexable enough to admit that, when we are proven wrong, we were wrong, and this is what we think it really is.

democracy, civil rights, tollerance? last I checked these were ideals foreign to athiesm. athiesm (being bleak after all) means that I can do anything the laws of physics allows me to do and the rest of you can die for all those laws care. there is no democracy, no civil rights, no tollerance no morals no scrupals, no laws concerning people anywhere in athiesm as I see it. (because you haven't refuted the bleakness yet)

Well, first off... you have yet to say that Athiesm is bleak, aside from the denial of an afterlife and the lack of a God to save us when the universe winds down in several trillion years. The second is understandable, but I doubt that humans will be as we are today when it occurs.

As for the first one, a lack of God does not mean a bleak existance by any means - all it means is an existance without a God, which is viewed by many people as desireable - to those people, an existance with a God is pretty bleak.

Even so, aside from those two points, you've yet to explain how Atheism is 'bleak', and your two points are rather... invalid. So until you can give me an arguement that I actually have to think about to answer, I'm going to assume that Athiesm is about as bleak as Christianity - possibly less so, compared to some branches.

As for the ideas of democracy, toleration, and civil rights being foreign to atheism... how in the seven hells did you ever get that idea? Even during the time period I was an athiest (I'm not now, but no - I'm not a Christian, and never will be. I still harbor some not very minor resentment for a religion that promotes certain actions, some that have occured to me, personally) I still respected civil rights, I still had toleration for alot of things (Except for Christians, but that was due to personal encounters), and I was all for democracy.

Last I checked, toleration comes from within, from each person, deciding that what is different from himself is still okay, to a certain extent. Toleration isn't deciding that, while you don't eat babies, other people eating babies is cool. Toleration is understanding that while you don't eat pork, for whatever reason, there are people who love it, and will probably order it when you eat together as resturants.

Democracy, last I checked, is a form of government in which the people come together to decide the laws, and the power of government comes from those people who work to decide the laws - or in representative democracy, decide who decides the laws for them. In no part of that does God play a direct part, nor religion. Does it affect the people who make the decisions? Yup, because religion comes with a code of ethics and beliefs all its own, and people will tend to use those. Do you have to have religion to participate? Nope.

And civil rights... comes from toleration and democracy. Its the understanding that other people are different from you, yet are still people. Religion can be a major help... but can also be a major hinderance. How many 'heathen peoples' were warred upon because they followed a different invisible man than we did? How many persecutions of the heretics occured? I don't see how civil rights can be 'improved' either way, with religion or athiesm.

And it the tone of this post when rapidly downhill towards the end, my apolgies. Halfway through, a very close friend decided to relate why he got extremely mad at me - over my inability to teach a game, and my apparent pissed-offness at his inability to learn. *sigh*

As for something about 'Laws of Physics' and thats all that Athiests believe in... My apologies if you really do think that... because you do not show any toleration, something you accuse athiests of not having.

Bengaley wrote: I'm not a Christian, and never will be. I still harbor some not very minor resentment for a religion that promotes certain actions, some that have occured to me, personally

What actions are you refering to?

I edit this post because I don't want to be the bad guy and the origional post was mean and hatefull.

I am done with this topic (mostly because everyone either discredits (without showing any proof) everything I say, or they ignore what I'm saying anyway)

Zobeid wrote:But it's not a search for truth. This is one of my main objections to the established, organized religions -- their dogma. You already have absolute truth, in the form of The Bible. It can't be tested. It can't be questioned. It can't be revised. It can't be amended. Anything not in it is assumed to be either false or unimportant. There is no room for anyone to search for any further truth beyond its covers.

A study of history will prove that wrong - it was the idea that God created the world that for many scientists the study of science became the path to "thinking God's thoughts after him". The Bible establishes a foundation on which to build knowledge (by establishing that the world actually exists, we can trust our senses, etc) but it doesn't answer all questions.

As for dogma you make that sound like a bad thing

To quote Dorothy Sayers, "the dogma is the drama". ]http://www.goodnewsmag.org/magazine/6No ... sayers.htm

Zobeid wrote:We actually have developed a pretty good scheme for seeking truth, it's called the scientific method. Science admits there's a lot we don't know -- important stuff, even. Science says, our ideas should be tested to prove or disprove them. Even our established beliefs should always be subject to re-examination or revision in the light of new evidence.

The scientific method is an excellent approach but having worked at the Smithsonian for several years I can tell you science has it's high priests and dogmas as well. Talk about absolutists!

Zobeid wrote:We have something in this country called democracy, remember? And we have something called civil rights. Democracy isn't perfect (Churchill called it the worst form of government -- except for all the others!), but it does usually keep the government from wandering too far away from the values of the people, or what they're willing to tolerate at least.

But upon what basis is democracy better than a dictatorship - other than you prefer democracy? Majority rules ethics?

Zobeid wrote:With God ethics is merely an exercise in circular logic, a snake eating its own tail.

Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. It isn't logical
You did not address the statement

Without God ethics and law essentially become whatever who has the biggest gun says it is.

American democracy is based on an appeal to "unalienable rights" granted by the creator. Without the creator there are no "rights".

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


Interrupting our regularly scheduled debate/argument:

Whether there may have been previous universes due to previous Big Bangs and Big Crunches, that point is irrelevant now.

It has been proven that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

Meaning, that unless there is some outside force (or Force ) stepping in and halting the expansion, the universe as we know it will expand forever and end up in a big black nothing. Even black holes will disappear and there will be nothing left. No intelligent life, no information, nothing.



That reminds me of my pastor's favorite passage from the Bible:

...but God [has a different plan]...

¡Zacatepóngolas!

Until next time, remember:

I

AM

THE

J.A.M. (a.k.a. Numbuh i: "Just because I'm imaginary doesn't mean I don't exist")

Good evening.

[WARP!!!]

Narnian wrote:The scientific method is an excellent approach but having worked at the Smithsonian for several years I can tell you science has it's high priests and dogmas as well. Talk about absolutists!

That I am well aware of, and it can be frustrating at times. But if the evidence is strong enough they eventually come around -- it may take years, possibly decades a few stubborn cases, but rarely centuries (as with Galileo).

But upon what basis is democracy better than a dictatorship - other than you prefer democracy? Majority rules ethics?

A government gets its authority from the consent of the governed. It's a good system, and prevents many (though obviously not all) abuses of power. What more do you need?

Zobeid wrote:With God ethics is merely an exercise in circular logic, a snake eating its own tail.

Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. It isn't logical
You did not address the statement

Without God ethics and law essentially become whatever who has the biggest gun says it is.

You gave me your conclusion without any explanation of how you reached it, and I responded with mine in the same manner. Seems fair to me.

If you really want me to criticize your line of reasoning, you'll have to give me more to work with.

Democracy--- Three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Republic--- the sheep gets to pick which wolf decides on what's for dinner.

America--- the sheep has a GUN, and a list of what's not on the menu.

leftism--- the method by which the wolves get the sheep to vote for a democracy.

RHJunior wrote:Democracy--- Three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Republic--- the sheep gets to pick which wolf decides on what's for dinner.

America--- the sheep has a GUN, and a list of what's not on the menu.

leftism--- the method by which the wolves get the sheep to vote for a democracy.

Sadly, the sheep cannot read or write, nor shoot the gun...

*snrk*

Sorry, couldn't resist that one. And aside from the joke-dig at the idea, I get to hear more dogma from Ralph, but no ideas or arguements ^_^ Fun times.

RHJunior wrote:Democracy--- Three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Republic--- the sheep gets to pick which wolf decides on what's for dinner.

America--- the sheep has a GUN, and a list of what's not on the menu.

leftism--- the method by which the wolves get the sheep to vote for a democracy.

Personally I find that analogy very amusing. And rather fitting.

I'm not going to argue that this is an unimportant argument, because for many people it's very important indeed.

I honestly can't imagine a world without religion, unless it's some sort of sci-fi dystopia. Many people point out that religion is merely an excuse to commit atrocities and crimes, but that's to be judged on an individual basis, and not meant to be critical of religion as a whole. No offense to atheists, but atheism just seems like a rut in which the despairing plant themselves in in order to avoid working to improve their mood. I like to think of myself as more optimistic than that.

The Bible may very well be heavily edited by mankind and distorted from God's original intention (yeah right), but it's the best thing we have, in my opinion. I think the aforementioned Churchill quote would apply to this situation.

I'm sure there's something else I can say in regards to this, but I have a short attention span. See yas.

My father once said that the best government is a benevolent dictator. I agree. Unfortunately, that is like saying the best source of energy is a perpetual motion machine, which I would also agree with. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, thanks to Original Sin. And let us say you get, by a miracle, someone who can resist this. What about his/her successor after he/she dies?

Just for laughs I hope, never can do so intentially, here in CA, the wolves are all starving and staring to eat at each other!

Zobeid wrote:A government gets its authority from the consent of the governed. It's a good system, and prevents many (though obviously not all) abuses of power. What more do you need?

What is your authority for making this statement? What do you appeal to that says this is true over someone who wants a dictatorship or some other type of government? That is what I am looking for.

Zobeid wrote:You gave me your conclusion without any explanation of how you reached it, and I responded with mine in the same manner. Seems fair to me.

If you really want me to criticize your line of reasoning, you'll have to give me more to work with.

Not true - I provided quotes (such as the D of C) where the founders say that the rights of the governed come from God (not the government) to which you have not answered with where you view the origin of such rights. The governed ceed some of those rights to the government for the establishment of social order.

I agree with many of your statements but I see a different foundation for those statements.

My position would tend to lean toward Immanual Kant.

Kant was of the view that while the existence of God could not be proven, we ought to come to a belief in God's existence by way of "logical understanding." Kant concluded that this world was not sufficient in itself, that an external power, which he identified with God, was a regulative necessity; and that God was a requisite for morality, it gives meaning to our life here on earth. The existence of God was, for Kant, but one of three postulates of morality, the other two being freedom of the will, and immortality of the soul. These moral axioms, unprovable as they are, existed for Kant simply because they were the sine qua non of the moral life.

BTW - I appreciate the tone this discussion has taken between you and I - we can be foreceful in our arguments with resorting to ridicule or sarcasm. I enjoy a plesant give and take.

Bengaley wrote:Sadly, the sheep cannot read or write, nor shoot the gun...

This one is armed and loaded for ... trout?

Zobeid wrote:

Narnian wrote:The scientific method is an excellent approach but having worked at the Smithsonian for several years I can tell you science has it's high priests and dogmas as well. Talk about absolutists!

That I am well aware of, and it can be frustrating at times. But if the evidence is strong enough they eventually come around -- it may take years, possibly decades a few stubborn cases, but rarely centuries (as with Galileo).

Galileo was an arrogant prig who got in trouble not for his heliocentric theories but for insisting that the Church must preach his theories and that the Church was wrong to insist on waiting for the theories to be proven. The final proofs for Galileo's assertions came in the 1838 when we finally got good enough at grinding lenses to detect parallax. It was and remains a reasonable thing for churchmen to wait for scientific evidence to come in and not go haring off after one unproven theory after another when the theology can be left vague enough to fit all of them. Theology's about getting to Heaven, not describing the heavens.

The Church screwed up in Galileo's case but it wasn't a crime against science that was the problem, but rather a crime against Christianity. You don't put a guy under house arrest for the rest of his life, even pleasant house arrest, just because he's arrogant, abrasive, and annoyingly opinionated about a field he is not expert in (in Galileo's case, theology). Eventually the Church recognized it, issued an apology, and did a penance. They took a lot longer about that than they did to recognize heliocentrism.

Tom Mazanec wrote: *snip* Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely... *snip*

Copout! Copout copout COPOUT!!

Never say that again! It's a damn lie and you know it! Or do you think God is the devil? By that reasoning, He should be!

Here. Scroll down to Point 3 and educate yourself. Then maybe we can talk.

Damn cliches... if you don't kill 'em early, they multiply like weeds...

StrangeWulf13 wrote:

Tom Mazanec wrote: *snip* Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely... *snip*

Copout! Copout copout COPOUT!!

Never say that again! It's a damn lie and you know it! Or do you think God is the devil? By that reasoning, He should be!

Here. Scroll down to Point 3 and educate yourself. Then maybe we can talk.

Damn cliches... if you don't kill 'em early, they multiply like weeds...

Correct version of quote, as coined by me in the 9th grade:

Abuse of power corrupts, and abuse of absolute power corrupts absolutely. The question is, what would constitute abuse, but as a general, undefined term for 'abuse'...

Never heard it put that way, but that is a more accurate way to put it. I've also heard something like, "If you want to test someone's character, give them power."

This is, of course, assuming the power itself is not inherently evil, like the One Ring. In that case, the power would be "abused" no matter what.

Hmm... perhaps Gandalf was worried about becoming a communist... they like to "help" people, and do "good works"... nevermind that their plans usually cause immense suffering, they're doing it for the greater good...

So, no touchie the Ring, mmkay?

Power is power. It is inately powerful; not good nor evil.

The explosive mixture of charcoal, saltpeter, and sulfur has many uses. Some can be used for good. Some for evil. The black powder itself is neither good nor evil.

A sword is not good or evil, it is the swordsman and how it is used that determines its actions.

Me? With absolute power, I'd goof off and have fun. But I wouldn't be corrupted as such; If I was given it for a certain job (Say, ensuring the survival of humanity), I'd work for that job... but nothing says I can't have fun once in a while with it, too. ^_^

Tom Mazanec wrote:My father once said that the best government is a benevolent dictator. I agree. Unfortunately, that is like saying the best source of energy is a perpetual motion machine, which I would also agree with. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, thanks to Original Sin. And let us say you get, by a miracle, someone who can resist this. What about his/her successor after he/she dies?

I think benevolent dictatorship is indeed the most efficient government - barring humanity's - um - humanity. In terms of actual people, constitutional democracy is best because it compensates best for human stupidity.