Woot! Finally, equal time!

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:52 pm

Check it out!

http://www.reasonrally.org/

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:54 pm

Let's see how many death threats are issued by those dastardly Jews towards this atheist conference.

flip · Post by **flip** » Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:01 pm

Let's go TB. I wanna go reason too

EDIT: It's not reasoning if everyone there is on your side. That's a pep rally

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:08 pm

They lost me with “science is superior to religion”…they both have different jobs…duh.

vision · Post by **vision** » Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:40 pm

Spidey wrote:They lost me with “science is superior to religion”…they both have different jobs…duh.

Yeah, one makes you feel guilty, the other tells you why you feel guilty. I'll take the why.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:28 am

They lost me with “science is superior to religion”…they both have different jobs…duh.

Yes. Science is meant to explore and enlighten, religion is meant to control and close minds.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:04 pm

Rick Santorum has proven your position TB.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:40 pm

Here's my question:

They are hypothesizing that both Islam and Judaism are myths.... what have they done to test the theory?

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:43 pm

ThunderBunny wrote:
They lost me with “science is superior to religion”…they both have different jobs…duh.
Yes. Science is meant to explore and enlighten, religion is meant to control and close minds.

If you think about it, depending upon application, both can yield either result. Really it's a matter of "some people use <insert tool of choice here> to control and close minds, while other people use <insert tool of choice here> to explore and enlighten."

vision · Post by **vision** » Fri Mar 02, 2012 4:55 pm

snoopy wrote:If you think about it, depending upon application, both can yield either result. Really it's a matter of "some people use <insert tool of choice here> to control and close minds, while other people use <insert tool of choice here> to explore and enlighten."

You seem to be a mistaken in your understanding of science. Facts are facts. When new discoveries overturn previous ones, they necessarily need to be accepted. Otherwise we're stuck with things like Ptolemaic epicycles. Religion doesn't work that way. People will believe the same nonsense no matter what facts are presented to them. Science celebrates "out of the box" thinking -- but you still need things like facts, evidence, proof...

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:34 pm

Out with the old facts, in with the new facts.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:43 pm

vision wrote:Science celebrates "out of the box" thinking -- but you still need things like facts, evidence, proof...

Tell that to Andrea Rossie. The truth about scientific journals and research is that it's governed, via peer review, by fallible people who can (consciously or not) help or hurt advances according to their philosophical bias.

Here's the basic problem with the premise of pitting science against religion:

The pursuit of religion is, at it's root, a philosophical endeavor. Philosophy is primarily about people and their relationships... with other people, the world around them, and deities that might exist. Philosophy goes with human relationships.

The pursuit of science is about mechanisms. Science's main goal is to find out how mechanisms work. Science itself goes with mechanisms.

Third: Reason is a tool that we use to try to sort out everything that's out there. We apply reason both to philosophy and to science.

Thus, philosophy and science really deal with different realms. Everyone does some of both... know it, like it, or not.

Here's the problem: Our philosophy is really deeply rooted in absolutely everything that we do. Here's an example:

I was tempted, just earlier to say "Science's main goal is to find out how mechanisms work so that we can ......." But, in that statement, I'd be mixing science and philosophy. Our philosophy dictates why we should do science. Philosophy dictates why we get up in the morning, why we eat, why we act nicely to other people... absolutely EVERYTHING that we do is colored by our philosophy.

So then we get to people equating religion with closed-mindedness. Okay, sure. I'm fine with you claiming that "religious people" can be closed minded, and that "religious people" can use their beliefs to try to control those around them. What I'm not okay with is the pretense that naturalists or humanists or atheists can somehow perform their science in a vacuum from their per-conceived philosophical ideas, and that they are immune from philosophical bias. Naturalists, humanists, and atheists are fully capable of being just as closed minded, manipulative, and intolerant as "religious people."

The pictures at the beginning of the thread are a case-in-point. Someone out there has made the closed-minded conclusion that Islam and Judaism are mythical. There really is no way to use the scientific method conclusively prove that they are false, because they're not really subject to the scientific method. The nature of the beast is that our science is subject to our philosophy, but our philosophy really can't be subject to science. (NOTE: I say science, not reason.) So, we have an example of someone who's closed their mind to the possibility of either Islam or Judaism being true while the jury's still out on the matter. How about that for "exploring and enlightening?"

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:47 pm

tunnelcat wrote:Rick Santorum has proven your position TB.

Sure makes it clear why we dumped him in PA.

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:51 pm

The problem I have with atheists is it sounds like there's no chance they'd ever believe in god. I've decided I believe in god, because why not? I believe worm hole travel could be possible. I'm pretty sure I'll never to see it happen.

By atheist's definition, Batman is more real than god, because he doesn't need super powers. I like super powers. I've basically changed my position on this subject since I first joined the forum...

vision · Post by **vision** » Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:52 pm

snoopy wrote:
vision wrote:Science celebrates "out of the box" thinking -- but you still need things like facts, evidence, proof...
Tell that to Andrea Rossie. The truth about scientific journals and research is that it's governed, via peer review, by fallible people who can (consciously or not) help or hurt advances according to their philosophical bias.

Yes, and that sucks. I wish there were more initiative and more grant money to follow alternative science. But I firmly believe that real scientific discovery, the kind that changes humanity for the better, will always rise to the surface even if it takes hundreds of years for an idea to gather enough momentum.

I also agree with your statements about religion, philosophy, science and their relationship. But I guess I see some genuine overlap in areas. For instance, whenever we hear about these religious charlatans who claim to perform miracles, those can fall under the purview of science. If you are going to heal a sick person with the power of God, well, we can test that in experimental settings.

And I understand how atheists tend to sound close-minded about some topics. But if you look at it, much of the time we are intolerant of intolerance. The hottest faith vs reason arguments have to do with moral issues where some party is discriminated against. In every instance it's atheists against religious bigotry.

It would be great if science and religion didn't have areas of overlap and could remain exclusive. Maybe all those area will be resolved one day and we can all get along?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:19 pm

Snoopy's description of the divergence of science and religion is very well done. Simply put, you are dealing with apples and oranges. One is a system of personal belief, the other a system of ongoing questioning. Both involve fallable humans.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:42 am

vision wrote:In every instance it's atheists against religious bigotry.

I love how you characterize only the religious people as Bigots and not the Atheists

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

I have found that there are as many Atheist bigots as there are Religious bigots. don't show your bigotry by thinking otherwise

vision · Post by **vision** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:37 am

Cool story. Now please find me an example where the religious are trying to argue for more freedom, justice, and caring for all (not just the religious) against the evil atheists who are trying to separate individuals and control society. Should be easy to find, right?

It's always the religious going on about how they are soooo persecuted because they can't discriminate against people.

Being intolerant of intolerance does not make you a bigot. If I'm a bigot, I'm a bigot towards bigotry. If you can't see why we need to attack intolerance around the world with vigor, then I can't help you. In fact, we can't stop at moving from intolerance to tolerance. It's not enough to simply "tolerate" each other and live side by side. We need to continually work towards the most compassionate viewpoint for humanity and all living beings.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:32 am

vision wrote:Cool story. Now please find me an example where the religious are trying to argue for more freedom, justice, and caring for all (not just the religious) against the evil atheists who are trying to separate individuals and control society. Should be easy to find, right?

yeah, actually, it is. Try Russia from 1917 to about 1990 and China from 1949 to about the same time

We need to continually work towards the most compassionate viewpoint for humanity and all living beings.

I presume that your conclusion is that we must be moving towards your viewpoint.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:36 am

don't lie to yourself Vision. if you're going to be intolerant be intolerant of all.. not just those that have a Faith. because you are CLEARLY showing a Bias and Bigotry towards religious people. and you are CLEARLY not understanding the meaning of tolerance

tol·er·ance
[tol-er-uhns] Show IPA
noun
1.
a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2.
a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3.
interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

you are not being fair and objective. are there bigoted Religious people. yes, but there are also many Atheists that are bigoted as well, your intentional attempt at deceit is transparent.

Matthew 7:5 wrote:You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

you're not seeing clearly, you are doing just what you claim to hate.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:46 am

dissent wrote:I presume that your conclusion is that we must be moving towards your viewpoint.

Absolutely, because it's the best. No religion. No political boundaries. Nothing to separate and divide humans from each other, or even to divide humans from nature.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:49 am

vision wrote:
dissent wrote:I presume that your conclusion is that we must be moving towards your viewpoint.
Absolutely, because it's the best. No religion. No political boundaries. Nothing to separate and divide humans from each other, or even to divide humans from nature.

WOW

Tolerant in it's truest form exposed for all to see

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:53 am

vision wrote:
dissent wrote:I presume that your conclusion is that we must be moving towards your viewpoint.
Absolutely, because it's the best. No religion. No political boundaries. Nothing to separate and divide humans from each other, or even to divide humans from nature.

that viewpoint(often called 'Utopian') has been around forever. It never comes to fruition because men tend to seek power through division, tend to seek religion to explain away things they fear, and tend to exploit nature for their own benefit. If you can find me someplace tending away from all of those things, please point it out.
I disagree that such an ideal is intolerant, it simply views the things held dear by others as outmoded or unnecessary, not seeking to destroy such things, but wishing that they would fall by the wayside.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:00 am

NO.
he stated that HIS view is the best. that is intolerance in it's truest form. he left no room for any form of differing thought, opinion, or belief. dissent was crystal clear when he bolded YOUR in his post. he was saying that according to vision there is no other right way to live or believe. and vision confirmed that assumption

vision · Post by **vision** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:37 am

How awful of me to strive against separation and pick a wold-view free from the us vs them mentality. How pathetic that I reached old age and did not become cynical in my belief that humans can overcome their differences with compassion and empathy. I am a wretch. What a terrible outlook I have.

But in all honestly, I guess I can see how can think someone like me is deluded and not engaged in reality. Why would anyone be so optimistic?

*shrugs*

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:43 am

if you wish to debate then debate.
don't go all whoa is me when someone points out your hypocrisies. and make no mistake by your own words you are showing yourself to be a Hypocrite. you are expecting a behavior from others that you yourself are not wishing to adhere to.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:55 am

vision wrote:How awful of me to strive against separation and pick a wold-view free from the us vs them mentality. How pathetic that I reached old age and did not become cynical in my belief that humans can overcome their differences with compassion and empathy. I am a wretch. What a terrible outlook I have.

But in all honestly, I guess I can see how can think someone like me is deluded and not engaged in reality. Why would anyone be so optimistic?

*shrugs*

People don't have to agree in order to get along. They just have to agree to get along.

One of the main problems with Utopianism is that is goes against human nature. Oh, and against freedom.
People are different. It's in their natures. At the same time, people like to be in groups, more or less like themselves. It's in their natures.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:32 pm

Time to evolve. Time to grow up. Time to throw away selfish ideas. The world is shrinking.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:43 pm

vision wrote:Time to evolve. Time to grow up. Time to throw away selfish ideas. The world is shrinking.

agreed. now apply that to your own thinking and we have a start.

Matthew 7 wrote: 1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:37 pm

Matthew 7 wrote: 1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:25 pm

vision wrote:Time to evolve. Time to grow up. Time to throw away selfish ideas. The world is shrinking.

Evolution requires chance and trial-and-error. Furthermore, biological evolution has no ultimate direction, so your analogy to society does not fit the metaphor.

And the world is pretty much the same size it has always been. There are just a lot more people, on average, between each of us.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:25 pm

dissent wrote:
vision wrote:Time to evolve. Time to grow up. Time to throw away selfish ideas. The world is shrinking.
Evolution requires chance and trial-and-error. Furthermore, biological evolution has no ultimate direction, so your analogy to society does not fit the metaphor.

And the world is pretty much the same size it has always been. There are just a lot more people, on average, between each of us.

Biology isn't the only thing subject to evolution. Ideas evolve too. Culture evolves. Evolutionary systems don't need direction. Systems are continuously created and we keep the ones that help us overcome obstacles. Other systems fall out of purpose get discarded. It's why we don't have tails anymore, haha. Culturally, we've had lots of chance (ideas, inspiration) and lot's of trial and error (every kind of "ism"). Some systems work and we keep them around (democracy). Others get discarded (slavery).

And yes there are more people. We can't live in isolated groups anymore and occasionally war & pillage the neighboring tribes. Time to start looking for global solutions. We all have ideas. We are all "chance machines." Let's hope civilization as an evolving organism can adapt fast enough!

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:29 pm

vision wrote:[And yes there are more people. We can't live in isolated groups anymore and occasionally war & pillage the neighboring tribes. Time to start looking for global solutions. We all have ideas. We are all "chance machines." Let's hope civilization as an evolving organism can adapt fast enough!

actually, veering back to science, population biology would indicate that we are ripe for massive population crashes. That is, actually, the only 'global solution'......there has to be less of us, and that has to happen rather quickly, say a couple of generations at the most. There is no way to support 7 or more billion people on this planet.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:34 pm

That's not science, that's playing God--population control.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:47 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:That's not science, that's playing God--population control.

um, Thorne.....playing 'God' would entail my specifying who gets thinned out. Science dictates that at some point, a lot of people are going to get thinned out of the herd. It could be war, disease, starvation.....who knows? I know I don't, I am not some sort of seer. Still, population dynamics works, every time, for all species, with roughly ZERO exceptions. We can either control the population down via some sort of plan, or find out what will cause the population crash.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:00 pm

Human beings never want to make those "hard, ethical decisions", like how to control their burgeoning birth rates or wrestle with global pollution or deal with diminishing planetary resources. There's power in numbers and no nation wants to be the first to "control" their population growth for fear of other nations taking them over. So us humans will end up taking the fools way out when our numbers get too large for the planet to support. They'll just let nature do the culling and call it "God's will". Or, they will pray that someone comes to the rescue with some new technology that'll save the day like some superhero.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:54 pm

callmeslick wrote:
vision wrote:[And yes there are more people. We can't live in isolated groups anymore and occasionally war & pillage the neighboring tribes. Time to start looking for global solutions. We all have ideas. We are all "chance machines." Let's hope civilization as an evolving organism can adapt fast enough!
actually, veering back to science, population biology would indicate that we are ripe for massive population crashes. That is, actually, the only 'global solution'......there has to be less of us, and that has to happen rather quickly, say a couple of generations at the most. There is no way to support 7 or more billion people on this planet.

That's honestly not all that true, at least as far as I've been able to tell. I've heard various sources cite the human "carrying capacity" of Earth somewhere in the realm of 12 billion people. Our current population growth rate certainly isn't sustainable, but it's also not a long-term trend: as the developing world continues to do so, birth rates will significantly decline, just as they have in every industrialized nation. Now, the question then becomes what sort of overall lifestyle will be able to sustain that many people, but we're not facing any sort of impending population disaster.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:59 pm

Logan's Run
It depicts a dystopic ageist future society in which both population and the consumption of resources are maintained in equilibrium by requiring the death of everyone reaching a particular age.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:42 pm

I say we kill everyone with over 10 million dollars and disperse their money to the survivors out of fairness and equality

. Really is this the best people can come up with? Instead of innovation and adaptation, we hear hopes of genocide or pestilence to help thin the herd out. It's why I have lost my confidence in 'authority' and my utopian hopes.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:14 pm

So your desire is to control the population so that it doesn't control itself? That makes... no sense. The population never has controlled itself. It's not a scientific principle! It's people engaging in war, genocide, extermination, and careless/malicious policies that lead to starvation and disease! I guess in callmeslick's classroom that's "science!" at work, boys and girls. Take your science and try thinking about how we can keep from stepping on each others toes as we're each enjoying our 410'x410' plot of land as of this year (my numbers--figuring for 20% unusable land, and not counting children under 15 or the elderly over 79, but not figuring for things like apartment complexes multi-story city dwellings, or people NOT living like a bunch of damn hermits/bachelors/bachlorettes). People who go around with the term "population control" on their lips are either fools or evil. Population control should mean nothing more than controlling how many people can reasonable fit in this or that city. But, you know, property laws pretty much take care of that.