"God Bless America!"

[bumab]

I'd have to agree,

 

critical thinking does not equal skeptism.

 

Fishteacher is right, also- historical relevance has no bearing in a scientific dialog. Of course, this is hardly a scientific dialog at this point. It's more of a dialog on the usefullness of religion...

[motherengine]

People have had many differnt faiths that had huge implications on mankind that we now scoff at the idea of (but still many cling to the old man in the sky for some reasson). The religions of the ancient Egyptian, Romans, Greeks, etc. all had huge impacts on how and why mankind did what it did, yet the concept of a god that controls the rain is thought a bit foolish today. Historical relevance has no weight in a scientific dialogue. Earth centered universes and flat Earths had huge historical impact on society, but they were wrong and the affect on the population is of little use in determining their scientific merit.

 

actually what is thought to be 'foolish' today is far from as universal a thing as you are suggesting. believe it or not there are still scientists (not creationists) who are not atheistic fundamentalists. history is an important aspect of archeology which is a science and religions have cultural significance within as well as without that arena. and historical relevance has enormous weight because it is the basis from which we are talking now and religion is part of that weight because it has left impressions that effect PHILOSOPHY and philosophy is a fundemental aspect of the scientific process. and as this is a philosophy forum i wish people would stop demanding that everything said here be empirically based. but the main point i was trying to make is that purple unicorns and god are not the same thing. if they were we would not have freethinker condeming religion for causing atrocity. this is historical and relevant to the discussion. if you want to talk about historical relevance justifying religion feel free but i was not. i was reffering to it to point out the differance between two things that ARE different. or should we just generalize the hell out of anything in order to condem it?

[Fishteacher73]

It seems that most people dismiss the pantheology of many of the early civilizations as a bit missguided because we now understand the natural phenomenon that many of these gods were atributed to thier actions. We have over time consistantly found evidence that supports a naturalistic methodology in what is around us.

 

We have consistantly demonstrated the naivete of atributing phenomenon that mankind has yet to solve to devine action. It seems that accepting a creationist ideal that one would just as easily accept the origin myths of any other religion as possibly valid when much of the theology is obviously flawed. I know of no modern scientist that accepts the idea of Promytheus as the originator of fire, but I am sure there were many anciet thinkers that did accept this idea. One does not have to be universally corerect to have wise thoughts and insights into the woorkings of the natual world(Einstien refuted plate tectonics). I am unaware of any respected scientist that offers theological explanations inside the realm of science. What they do at home is their own buisness.

[motherengine]

fishthinker, are you talking to me? i am not a creationist or arguing to support creationism or even that the bible is based on truth so if you are debating my comments you are shadow boxing. just curious.

[Fishteacher73]

the main point i was trying to make is that purple unicorns and god are not the same thing.

 

I was simply pointing out that you seem to want to segregate "God" from other ideas of gods.

[Queso]

the concept of almost everybody worshiping god is almost as insane as a bunch of people worshiping a purple unicorn!

both things, well in my opinion, do not exist.

did anybody see that south park episode where the catholics were worshiping a giant spider?

ahh i love that show.

[motherengine]

I was simply pointing out that you seem to want to segregate "God" from other ideas of gods.

 

and i was simply pointing out that integrating the term god with santa clause and purple unicorns or turquoise flying monkeys for that matter is an irrelevant argument for dismissing religious belief.

[motherengine]

the concept of almost everybody worshiping god is almost as insane as a bunch of people worshiping a purple unicorn!

both things, well in my opinion, do not exist.

did anybody see that south park episode where the catholics were worshiping a giant spider?

ahh i love that show.

 

ahh south park, what a fount of intellectual argumentation. insanity is not believing in what one cannot see or prove empirically but a severe mental break from reality. all jokes aside there is a big differance here. though i don't think almost everyone worships god.

[Fishteacher73]

and i was simply pointing out that integrating the term god with santa clause and purple unicorns or turquoise flying monkeys for that matter is an irrelevant argument for dismissing religious belief.

 

 

I do not think you can segregate any "unknown" from another. I believe there is a Hindu sect that believes that the universe is a large disk resting on the back of three elephants riding through the cosmos on the back of a giant turtle. Why would you have less faith in that belief (which is a religious one) and any other "unknow" in the faith world? To argue that you cannot prove the "non-existence" of your god would validate any other theological or mythical position that could not be "disproved".

[lindagarrette]

and i was simply pointing out that integrating the term god with santa clause and purple unicorns or turquoise flying monkeys for that matter is an irrelevant argument for dismissing religious belief.

You seem to be missing the point. The pink or purple unicorn analogy is used is a thought experiment to show how futile it is to prove that god exists (or doesn't). Unlike with the unicorn, people are so indoctrinated in the god belief, evidence in that case is not an issue. The point is that people will believe what they are told by a perceived authority, especially if it appears that everyone else also believes.

[motherengine]

You seem to be missing the point. The pink or purple unicorn analogy is used is a thought experiment to show how futile it is to prove that god exists (or doesn't). Unlike with the unicorn, people are so indoctrinated in the god belief, evidence in that case is not an issue. The point is that people will believe what they are told by a perceived authority, especially if it appears that everyone else also believes.

 

i disagree. i think the purple unicorn analogy is used specifically to degrade belief in god because it draws something many people take very seriously into the realm of things no one take seriously. authority and conditioning are not the cornerstones of religious belief either. there are as many preconceived notions from those who do not believe in god concerning those who do as the reverse.

[motherengine]

I do not think you can segregate any "unknown" from another. I believe there is a Hindu sect that believes that the universe is a large disk resting on the back of three elephants riding through the cosmos on the back of a giant turtle. Why would you have less faith in that belief (which is a religious one) and any other "unknow" in the faith world? To argue that you cannot prove the "non-existence" of your god would validate any other theological or mythical position that could not be "disproved".

 

santa clause and purple unicorns are not historical unknown (please don't go on about how historical information is not scientific because it does not have to be to secure my point). there is no actual god per say in hinduism but an ultimate reality refered to as brahman. i suppose one could argue this is a type of god. but i think that the referance to 'god' as connected to purple unicorns here was a referance to a personified deity like the god of the bible. whether you think so or not there exists a differance between the biblical god and the easter bunny that exists objectively beyond whatever personal views one may have concerning the validity and provability of both.