"God Bless America!"

[motherengine]

Overpopulation is caused by poverty.

 

actually poverty as we know it is a result of the industrial revolution which is the result of technology which is an applied science.

[Fishteacher73]

actually poverty as we know it is a result of the industrial revolution which is the result of technology which is an applied science.

 

The Industrial Revolution basicly created the middle class. Before that you essentiallly had the royalty and church with the money. Industrialisation allowed the common man to amass assets and wealth. It may be a bit tricky to imperically prove, but I would have to assume that the average standard of livinig is vastly better than it was 250 years ago before the begin of the IR (Just speaking in relativistic monetary terms).

[TacoChang]

"Wise men say things. Fools repeat them."

 

I stumbled upon this site a couple of nights ago. I have annoymously observed and have been pleasantly surprised. However, tonight I finally found it necessary to register and scratch an itch that has become a burning rash. That rash is 'Freethinker'.

 

Freethinker, you are too quick and vicious to judge. In your first post on this thread: "...they use this rhetoric to motivate and justify the forced promotion of ignorance and hatred. They stop the advancement of medical science and start wars because of their god beliefs." According to all census data currently available, a good deal more than 90% of the American and world popluation hold onto some kind of a belief in god-gods and/or religion. Einstien was religious: so was Newton and countless other scientists, philosophers, and world leaders. Only a small (albeit loud and active) percentage of people fall into the catergory of fundamentalist zealots. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. The zealots you deem so dangerous are seen by most of the scholars of their own beliefs as misinterpreting and abusing their doctrines and texts. Anything can be misused to be dangerous. Hell, If I tried, I could probably kill someone with a sponge. Let's run out and purge sponges from our society! As for the wars you mention, the underlying cause of most wars (modern or ancient) is power/land gain and food. Few wars are started for the pure, 'holy' good. Man, just like all the rest, is a self-serving animal. If political leaders didn't have religion they would find some other excuse to invade and plunder.

Also, in post #25 you quote Steven Weinberg:"With or without religion you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." This is not true. All it takes is a desire towards a certain end and an obsever with a belief in good and evil to judge an action either/or.

 

In post #27 you implore Aquagem to provide support for religion's "ability to make us feel good about ourselves." You state: "The data I have shows this to be wrong." Well, not all knowledge is derived through the intake of data, my friend. Step away from your books and charts for awhile. go out and interact with people. Visit a church. A synagouge. A mosque. See for yourself how many of these organizations simply strive to unite and better the communities they are in. Find out how important these functions are to their members. Not many of them are zealots.

 

Post #30:(among your many unwarranted attacks directed at MotherEngine) You correctly state science as a logical process of data collection and interpretation. Religions (for the most part) are not here to process data. Yes, since before the stone age (probably,) religion arose as the proto-science to help man interpret some of the more puzzling and frightening aspects of the world around him (e.g. Lighting). However, as mankind gathered into greater numbers, religion changed. It aided in the creation of cultures and (for better or worse) helping people establish guidelines for conflict resolution: the idea of right and wrong. When man first started to question the idea of things beyond his perception, religion was there to give him a place in the universe and (fictional or not) a sense of purpose. Thus have Homo-Sapiens existed for 150,000 years. Do you really think that we would have made it this long if science had been there from the get-go to point out a cold, meaningless universe with no purpose other than the fictional one we give ourselves?

By the way, overpopulation is caused both by science and religion. MUCH more so by science. People have been copulating at the same frequency, with the human population slowly and steadily growing since the dawn of primates. However, the advent of the Industrial Revolution and the medical understanding and advancements that came with it are at the heart of the suffocating, geometric explosion of our numbers. Yes, people in undeveloped areas breed more than those in developed areas but, that is only because of the socio-economic conditions to which they are subjected. Since the dawn of civilization there has been poverty, but not poverty in such concentrated numbers as brought about by the Industrial Revolution with so many people leaving the countryside for the new, bustling cities. With poverty comes unemployment and with nothing to do comes attempts at escapism: sex and drugs. So, the poor still have their religions as they did and they still abide by them as they did. Its just that now the knowledge of medical science is there (even in the worst areas) to ensure that more women survive childbirth, more children survive to adulthood and more adults live longer. People in developed areas simply don't have time to breed at the rates that concentrated poverty allows for. And I don't know

by how much you think the productive life span of humans has increased. People in ages past that died in their 30's, 40's, or 50's didn't die of old age. They weren't all decrepid and weak in their last years. They died of poor hygeine and the diseases we now associate with this. On average, a 60-year-old is showing his age physically now just as he did in ancient times.

 

Finally, few things annoy me as much as someone taking up the defense of science and the scientific method and ignoring it in the process. Freethinker, your writings permeate with the bias of your athesim. There is a reason why science has many theories and few laws (even these 'laws' are regarded as thories.) The underlying philosphy behind the scientific method is that there is no absolute knowledge. When you so righteously defend your opinion and condecend others you are being nothing but unscientific. You show yourself as just another zealot trying to beat his ideaology into other peoples heads. You are a very good debator with the written word. This does not impress me. So were many alchemists. So is Billy Grahm. So were many authors of the crusades and inquistions. It is my humble opinion that given the right variables of birth, you would be just as comfortable in an inquisitioner's robe as in a scientist's labcoat.

 

My apologies to the purveyors of this site, but I just had to get that one thing off my chest

[Stargazer]

actually poverty as we know it is a result of the industrial revolution which is the result of technology which is an applied science.

What on great green Earth are you talking about?

[Stargazer]

"Wise men say things. Fools repeat them."

Except for that particular quote.

 

Einstien was religious:

Even if that was true, which it really wasn't, since Einstein said he was an atheist, it wouldn't mean a thing.

 

so was Newton and countless other scientists, philosophers, and world leaders.

That political leaders admit they're believe in, and talk to mythological creatures is not very comforting.

As for Newton, he was even a creationist. Probably because religion was such an important part (artificially important, obviously!) of the times, that even the most brilliant people believed what they've been raised to believe. I'm not sure why.

 

Only a small (albeit loud and active) percentage of people fall into the catergory of fundamentalist zealots.

Which is more than enough. Religion has caused so much suffering and trouble, and standing in the way of science, and it continues today.

 

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive.

As concepts, they are opposed.

When it comes to scientific results and theories, they can't always be combined with a belief in myths. Some people then realise they were wrong, while others keep believing what they wish to be true, rather than what probably is. So you see, science and religion are not easy to combine.

 

The zealots you deem so dangerous are seen by most of the scholars of their own beliefs as misinterpreting and abusing their doctrines and texts. Anything can be misused to be dangerous.

The problem is that no one would have any idea of who is making the right interpretations. What is the magical god really like?

 

However, as mankind gathered into greater numbers, religion changed. It aided in the creation of cultures and (for better or worse) helping people establish guidelines for conflict resolution: the idea of right and wrong.

Other primates have shown behaviour that would suggest a sense of morals. To say that a sense of right and wrong appeared with religion is simply ridiculous. Somewhere along the path someone must have invented religion and inserted some moral codes into it. Since god is created by us, any moral codes we attribute to that god is really also created by us. Why the need to invent a god? What need is there to invent an all-powerful god that sometimes gets pissed off at us when we don't follow the rules? Answer is: it is to scare people to follow the rules.

 

When man first started to question the idea of things beyond his perception, religion was there to give him a place in the universe and (fictional or not) a sense of purpose.

Religion wasn't there at all. We invented it. Religion didn't give us a place in the universe, we made it up and then it was a religion.

 

Thus have Homo-Sapiens existed for 150,000 years. Do you really think that we would have made it this long if science had been there from the get-go to point out a cold, meaningless universe with no purpose other than the fictional one we give ourselves?

Oh, I don't know. For how long did the dinosaurs live? Or ants, or birds? Why we're still here is not because of religion. In the next paragraph you say that science prolongs our lives - and that's true. Knowledge about the nature around us will help us survive.

 

By the way, overpopulation is caused both by science and religion. MUCH more so by science. People have been copulating at the same frequency, with the human population slowly and steadily growing since the dawn of primates. However, the advent of the Industrial Revolution and the medical understanding and advancements that came with it are at the heart of the suffocating, geometric explosion of our numbers.

Right now though, the birth rates are going down in many industrialised nations.

 

Finally, few things annoy me as much as someone taking up the defense of science and the scientific method and ignoring it in the process. Freethinker, your writings permeate with the bias of your athesim.

Atheism is not a bias. It is, if anything, a lack of bias.

 

There is a reason why science has many theories and few laws (even these 'laws' are regarded as thories.) The underlying philosphy behind the scientific method is that there is no absolute knowledge.

That's why science is better and more honest than any religion.

 

When you so righteously defend your opinion and condecend others you are being nothing but unscientific. You show yourself as just another zealot trying to beat his ideaology into other peoples heads. You are a very good debator with the written word. This does not impress me. So were many alchemists. So is Billy Grahm. So were many authors of the crusades and inquistions. It is my humble opinion that given the right variables of birth, you would be just as comfortable in an inquisitioner's robe as in a scientist's labcoat.

How brilliant, to suggest that science and religious oppression would have anything in common. Brilliant because many people will believe it is true.

[TacoChang]

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

 

Thank you, Stargazer, for chirping in. How, ever could I have overlooked you?

 

Einstein said he was an atheist

 

Actually, his exact words were:"FROM THE VIEWPOIN OF A JESUIT PRIEST I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. YOU MAY CALL ME AN AGNOSTIC, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist ...I prefer an attitude of HUMILITY CORRESPONDING TO THE WEAKNESS OF OUR INTELLECTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF NATURE AND OF OUR BEING." Ahh, agnosticism; the only path of a true intellectual/scientist. Perhaps calling Einstein religious was a bit strong, and I regret mentioning political leaders as they have nothing, really to do with my argument, but you missed my point entirely:

 

When it comes to scientific results and theories, they can't always be combined with a belief in myths

 

No, I never said that scientific results ALWAYS concurr with religion. Don't try to make me defend the validity of any specific religious doctrine over scientific reasoning. I simply wished to point out that many reputable scientists/intellectuals can hold dear the philosophical ideals of values and morality of their religions without believing in the proto-scientific stories that many religions present (e.g. creationism.) Personally, if I see a conflict between religious doctrine and scientific reasoning, I take the side of the scientific process.

 

Other primates have shown behaviour that would suggest a sense of morals. To say that a sense of right and wrong appeared with religion is simply ridiculous...any moral codes we attribute to... god is really also created by us... Why the need to invent a god?... to scare people to follow the rules.

 

Actually, any of a large number of differnet, social mammals and birds display behavior suggesting not moral belief, but empathy towards others. An emotion mostly lacking in solitary animals and probably developed as a behavioral tool to help us get along socially. Anyway, evidence shows that cultural and religious behavior pre-dates homo-sapiens. Ancient, nomadic elders didn't create religion to control others. They were already in control. Mankind created religion to (as I already said) explain the world around him (when he started to ask these questions) and validate himself and his instinctive behaviors (as either right or wrong.) After all, the idea of right and wrong already implies some higher plateau of validity

 

Whatever good religion brings, it still has the baggage of non-realism or mythology, and I'm not sure why that is necessary or even desirable other than as entertainment.

Actually, here in Sweden...We're not very religious at all, and very very few ever go to church regularly.

 

This is interesting coming from you, seeing as how Sweden has the highest suicide rate in the entire world. Hmmm.

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

Voltiare

 

For how long did the dinosaurs live? Or ants, or birds? Why we're still here is not because of religion

 

Rewind 75 million years ago to the cretaceous period. Two Tyrannosaurs stand hunched over a dead Triceratops, enjoying an evening meal, together: their snouts and faces drenched and dripping with blood. Just then, one of them looks up at the starry sky and speaks:

"Reginald, I've been thinking.."

Reginald rolls his eyes and speaks in between swallowing:

"(mmpf, grlub). What now, (gulp) Stanley?"

"Well, why are we here? How did this all start? Is there a meaning to all of this? What about this poor chap?" (motioning to the dead triceratops) "Is this...right?"

Just then, a bird flies up, hoping to scavenge some scraps and responds:

"Actually dude, you had to do what you had to do. You gotta eat. You know what I think? I thinks there's this 'guy' lookin' over all of this. He's cool. This was his whole plan, man."

A prehistoric ant wanders near:

"Actually, I've been conducting some experiments and taking measurments. Your quite wrong, may aviary friend. The universe is nothing but a series of meaningless coincidences that finally resulted in us. We will all die and the universe will just go on. You two..." pointing to the two dinosaurs: "...all your kind will go extinct in...hold on." he pulls a pencil from behind his antennea and begins furiously writing calculations on a clipboard: "10 million years."

Stanley: "Oh."

Bird: "Whoa."

 

No wait. Stop. This never happened. You know why? Because ONLY HUMANS can philosopize. Pondering our existence was an inevitability. So, religion was there to give us answers that we could cope with. The cold reality that science offers would have been detremental to humanity in the place of religion. No other species of animal (as far as we know) has to deal with this.

 

So, in closing. I am simply trying to defend the benefit of religion in society, NOT the validity of any religious doctrines. Still, as a scientist, you HAVE to ask yourself: "is it possible?" As far as the existence of any type of god or gods is concerned; science has just barely begun to scratch the surface of alternate realities, dimensions and unvierses. As a tool, it is poorly equipped to tackle this question.

Answer this directly and specifically, 'Freethinker' and Stargazer: Are you saying that you KNOW that their is no God?

[motherengine]

What on great green Earth are you talking about?

 

poverty is a class oriented state of being introduced [in its present complexity] by the revolution. before industry what one refers to as poverty today did not exist.

[motherengine]

there is a film by deceased russian director andrei tarkovsky (who happened to be a most somber christian) called 'stalker' that directly touches on the dilema that occurs when certain mindsets clash. specifically to the film a believer is brutally confronted by a scientist and a philosopher who see his perspective as silly and weak and yet instead of being converted to their way of seeing the world he is emotionally devastated by the confrontation. i believe this work (which happens to be a quintessential expression of film as an artform) articulates the sad endeavour of one perspective insisting that it alone represents worth and truth and how absurd such a viewpoint is better than i ever could myself. check it out if you doubt.

[pgrmdave]

Sweden has the highest suicide rate in the entire world.

 

My sources show it to be high, but not the highest: http://www.nzhis.govt.nz/stats/suicidefacts5.html

[Stargazer]

Actually, his exact words were:"FROM THE VIEWPOIN OF A JESUIT PRIEST I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. YOU MAY CALL ME AN AGNOSTIC, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist ...I prefer an attitude of HUMILITY CORRESPONDING TO THE WEAKNESS OF OUR INTELLECTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF NATURE AND OF OUR BEING." Ahh, agnosticism; the only path of a true intellectual/scientist. Perhaps calling Einstein religious was a bit strong, and I regret mentioning political leaders as they have nothing, really to do with my argument, but you missed my point entirely:

Agnostic, then. Not too far away from atheism, really, since atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods - at least the new version people like to call "weak" atheism.

 

No, I never said that scientific results ALWAYS concurr with religion. Don't try to make me defend the validity of any specific religious doctrine over scientific reasoning. I simply wished to point out that many reputable scientists/intellectuals can hold dear the philosophical ideals of values and morality of their religions without believing in the proto-scientific stories that many religions present (e.g. creationism.) Personally, if I see a conflict between religious doctrine and scientific reasoning, I take the side of the scientific process.

But then what's the point of being religious if you don't believe in a religion, only the moral codes or whatever? Then you could simply just believe in that.

 

Actually, any of a large number of differnet, social mammals and birds display behavior suggesting not moral belief, but empathy towards others. An emotion mostly lacking in solitary animals and probably developed as a behavioral tool to help us get along socially. Anyway, evidence shows that cultural and religious behavior pre-dates homo-sapiens. Ancient, nomadic elders didn't create religion to control others. They were already in control. Mankind created religion to (as I already said) explain the world around him (when he started to ask these questions) and validate himself and his instinctive behaviors (as either right or wrong.) After all, the idea of right and wrong already implies some higher plateau of validity

But by now we should realise that religion is poor at explaining anything at all. As for right or wrong, we can certainly come to conclusions without inventing a god first.

 

This is interesting coming from you, seeing as how Sweden has the highest suicide rate in the entire world. Hmmm.

Not the highest at all... Also, can you see the correlation? Where is it?

 

But while we're misusing statistics, why not take a look at the USA, for example. Apparently the suicide numbers aren't as high. Then we could look at, say, gunrelated crimes, and the presence of death "penalty." Interesting.

 

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

Voltiare

We would think it to be necessary, but it really isn't. The only reason religion could ever be necessary in any way is because fiction seems to be.

 

No wait. Stop. This never happened. You know why? Because ONLY HUMANS can philosopize.

How do you know? Is it impossible for chimpanzees to think, for example?

 

Pondering our existence was an inevitability. So, religion was there to give us answers that we could cope with. The cold reality that science offers would have been detremental to humanity in the place of religion. No other species of animal (as far as we know) has to deal with this.

If life is pointless unless some people can convince themselves into believe that which is not real, then I feel sorry for them. (And I do so without being religious, how's that?) Science is "cold" because it tries not to be anything else than a set of tools to describe and explain the universe. But to me it's far from cold - just as a good book, a nice painting or well-composed music isn't cold. Also, religion is, in fact, useless. I'm not religious and yet I feel no desire to kill myself. I think it might have to do with the evolution. How could it possibly make anyone feel better to make a conscious decision that they will now believe something that is clearly invented? "I know this is fiction, but I choose to believe it." Surely there must be a nagging thought at the back of the head reminding that person of this? How could that feel good, consciously trying to push away reason? I know it's not true, but I decide to believe it. That's not a belief - that's more like... wishful thinking, if even that.

 

So, in closing. I am simply trying to defend the benefit of religion in society, NOT the validity of any religious doctrines.

In what ways did religion benefit society that couldn't have been achieved without religion?

 

Science...

* can make it possible for us to maximise the amount of food produced, it can tell us when food has gone bad

* makes it possible for us to transport goods, to trade, travel and communicate, which gives more possibilities to quickly send disaster relief, for example, or to spread knowledge

* can enrich our lives with printed and digitally stored entertainment, education and art

* tells us about the other stars, planets, comets, asteroids

* gives a good picture regarding the history of our planet, including the life, and how it evolved and continues to do so

* gives us a good picture of the history of the universe

* can help us predict the weather, and to a limited extent earthquakes, and when an earthquake has happened at the oceanfloor, it can help us predict a possible tsunami wave

* makes it possible for us to build houses and buildings that can withstand earthquakes

* gives the tools to detect and treat various injuries and diseases, through medicine and surgery

 

Religion...

* can give us a worldview rarely based on actual observations, and completely untrimmed by Ockham's razor

* gives us the tools to pray for others. This wont help anyone at all except for whoever it is talking to him/herself

* can result in people trying to convert other people, by a range of various methods

 

Oh, and the cathedrals look pretty cool.

 

Still, as a scientist, you HAVE to ask yourself: "is it possible?" As far as the existence of any type of god or gods is concerned; science has just barely begun to scratch the surface of alternate realities, dimensions and unvierses. As a tool, it is poorly equipped to tackle this question.

I'm not a scientist, I just love science. Anyway, yes of course it's possible. However, why should I believe in a god? And which one? Until there is a definition of this god, we can't find it.

 

If science is not equipped to find god, it's because it's not equipped to find the famous dragon in your neighbour's garage. The invisible dragon example comes from a Carl Sagan book, The Demonhaunted World. The idea is that your neighbour tells you that he's got a dragon in his garage. You'd probably want to see it to believe it, (curiously, this is something I suspect even religious people would say) but that's not possible, because you see, the dragon is invisible.

Then you might give the suggestion to throw out some flour all over the floor to see the footprints. Wont work, he says, because the dragon doesn't walk around - it flies around.

What about trying to look in the infrared to see the hot flames as the dragon shoots fire? Again, not possible. The flames are no warmer than the surrounding air.

 

Suggestion after suggestion on how to detect this dragon is refuted. Nothing will work.

 

Now, what does this tell us about the dragon? A dragon that can't be detected no matter what, not directly and not indirectly, how is that different from no dragon at all? Sure, there might be ways to detect it that we don't know of yet - and that's the problem. We don't know how to, or if we ever will be able to detect this dragon. Since your neighbour is obviously unable to demonstrate how he found the dragon in the first place, we could be safe in concluding that he doesn't know any way to detect it, either, which obviously is good evidence that he never did.

 

So we have this guy who claims to know there is a dragon in his garage, yet he can't demonstrate any kind of method to detect it, which means he never detected it.

 

After all this, the statement that there is a dragon in his garage sounds sillier than ever. Still, there are millions of people who have no problem exchanging the word "dragon" for the word "god."

 

Answer this directly and specifically, Freethinker and Stargazer: Are you saying that you KNOW that their is no God?

I'm saying that I am certain that all of the gods that we have invented were in fact invented - just like all other fictional creatures such as fairies and, yes here it comes, the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

 

Is there a definition on what god is? What are the evidence? Before we know what god is supposed to be, then surely we can't tell when we find her.

[Stargazer]

poverty is a class oriented state of being introduced [in its present complexity] by the revolution. before industry what one refers to as poverty today did not exist.

I have to agree with what Fishteacher73 said.

[pgrmdave]

Stargazer - I agree with many of your points, but when you describe what science and religion can do, you only describe the good points of technology - while it is possible to do much greater good, it also becomes possible to do much greater evil. The atomic bomb was created by science, as were guns, crossbows, spears, and all weapons. And you do admit that prayer can make the pray-er feel better, which is at least one good thing about religion.

[motherengine]

I'm not a scientist, I just love science. Anyway, yes of course it's possible. However, why should I believe in a god? And which one? Until there is a definition of this god, we can't find it.

 

i don't think anyone here is trying to convert you to christianity (which is what most zealous atheists are talking about when they attack 'religion') only to bring to your attention the inherent arrogance in the position that there is no god and anyone who believes otherwise is an idiot. for me it is a pipedream to think all sixplus billion of us could dismantle god from our vocabulary and find meaning and peace of mind and a reason to go on enduring the sufferances of existance with only a system of measurment to guide us. 'weak' agnostics are simply those who demonstrate the humility to admit that there is a world beyond their own minds and that they not the master of it. dragons, purple unicorns and such are bad examples for an argument against belief god because god is by definition intangible, a 'spirit'. and i strongly doubt a belief in purple unicorns gives anyone the kind of peace of mind concerning death that religion does. this is not to say god exists but that maybe criticizing and/or mocking someone elses belief is a adolescent and disrepectful activity that proves nothing but the weakness inherent in those who do so.

[motherengine]

If life is pointless unless some people can convince themselves into believe that which is not real, then I feel sorry for them. (And I do so without being religious, how's that?) Science is "cold" because it tries not to be anything else than a set of tools to describe and explain the universe. But to me it's far from cold - just as a good book, a nice painting or well-composed music isn't cold. Also, religion is, in fact, useless. I'm not religious and yet I feel no desire to kill myself. I think it might have to do with the evolution. How could it possibly make anyone feel better to make a conscious decision that they will now believe something that is clearly invented? "I know this is fiction, but I choose to believe it." Surely there must be a nagging thought at the back of the head reminding that person of this? How could that feel good, consciously trying to push away reason? I know it's not true, but I decide to believe it. That's not a belief - that's more like... wishful thinking, if even that.

 

so because you find religion useless it actually is useless for everyone. how is this not the epitome of arrogance and social ignorance?

[motherengine]

How do you know? Is it impossible for chimpanzees to think, for example?

 

wait a second. no evidence for god, god is a myth. no evidence for chimpanzee philosophers yet how do we know. chimpanzees do think and can be made to be self aware (as with dolphins) and they do teach and communicate, but they do these things on a rudimentary level only. they do not use symbols and so cannot develope advanced theories and philosophies about anything.

[motherengine]

I have to agree with what Fishteacher73 said.

 

fair enough. but however you see the progression of poverty it is not the cause of population growth but a symptom of it.

[pgrmdave]

Oh, and the cathedrals look pretty cool.

If there is one thing that I think all of us, even Freethinker, can agree on, it is that religion has given us some of the greatest art of all time.