Mitt Romney's halo

[Bryan Conner]

I have no beliefs about gods generally. Do you believe in Quetzalcoatl? What about Hera, or Lugh?

  Maybe, I do not know the name of the Creator.

There's always room for doubt in science. Unless you're claiming that all swans are white for instance.

  So far, you have proven that there is doubt on both sides. So the score is tied.

Ah, the ultimate get out - we'll have to wait 'til we're dead to find out. Except that we'll be dead.

  It is not a get out.  I do not have to "get out" of anything.  Or, are you trying to make me "believe" the way that you believe? 

Maybe both of us are wrong.  Maybe the "Hokey Pokey" really is what it is all about. 

So, now I am waiting with open eyes and an open mind to accept your proof that there is no Creator.  Heck, I can not even think of something without a Creator...except the Creator.

So, you can begin with giving me a list of things that exist without a creator...something that just appeared out of nothingness.

[Chairman Bill]

Maybe, I do not know the name of the Creator.

You don't know that there is a creator. You believe there is. Belief & knowledge are not the same thing

So far, you have proven that there is doubt on both sides. So the score is tied.

So many theists seem in so little doubt about things.

It is not a get out.  I do not have to "get out" of anything.  Or, are you trying to make me "believe" the way that you believe?  

Saying that we'll find out when we're dead, is indeed a get out. You can believe whatever you want, but saying that the argument ends until we're dead, means the argument is never likely to be solved.

Maybe both of us are wrong.  Maybe the "Hokey Pokey" really is what it is all about.

I'm sure that I'm wrong about all sorts of things. I'm not wrong about the fact that I don't believe in god(s).

So, now I am waiting with open eyes and an open mind to accept your proof that there is no Creator.

How would anyone prove the absence of something that possibly isn't there? You want me to disprove a negative? Can you prove the non-existence of the Lesser Spotted Three-toed Snortiblog?

Heck, I can not even think of something without a Creator...except the Creator.

Ah, argument from personal incredulity. I have no need of a belief in a creator. Where does that leave us?

So, you can begin with giving me a list of things that exist without a creator...something that just appeared out of nothingness.

How about your creator? If a complex, ultimate being can just pop into existence, or always exist, something we have no evidence for whatosever, then why not the cosmos (something we do have evidence for)?

[Bryan Conner]

How would anyone prove the absence of something that possibly isn't there? You want me to disprove a negative? Can you prove the non-existence of the Lesser Spotted Three-toed Snortiblog?

 

I will keep my eyes open for one, if I see one before either of us is dead, I will take a picture of it and send it to you.

Ah, argument from personal incredulity. I have no need of a belief in a creator. Where does that leave us?

 

Back to square one as I have no need for disbelief in a Creator.

How about your creator? If a complex, ultimate being can just pop into existence, or always exist, something we have no evidence for whatosever, then why not the cosmos (something we do have evidence for)?

Do we have evidence that the cosmos just popped into existence from nothing?  Do you believe that the entire cosmos just began?  I think that it could be possible as I have no information proving that it did not.  So, it is possible.

Could the existence of the cosmos be evidence of the existence of a creator?

The computer that I am using is definitely evidence of it's creator.

[Bryan Conner]

We know that people existed in the past because we can see the things that they created.  We can not see the people.  So just because we can not see the people, does that make the existence of what they created of no significance?

[Justinr]

Enough already…

Read your classics...

No point in bringing to this table any ideas that don't immediately accord with either side of the god/science argument as they will only be ignored.

If evolution is an effect what was the cause, and was that cause an effect of something else? Religion places the ultimate cause firmly in the hands of a god, deity or life spirit etc  whilst the scientists can see no further back than the big bang.  Neither side will satisfy the other that they have the real answer which leaves the non committed grasping for something else and that there may be 'something else', a compromise or even alternative between the two is an anathema to the zealots of either side.

[Chairman Bill]

No point in bringing to this table any ideas that don't immediately accord with either side of the god/science argument as they will only be ignored.

If evolution is an effect what was the cause, and was that cause an effect of something else? Religion places the ultimate cause firmly in the hands of a god, deity or life spirit etc  whilst the scientists can see no further back than the big bang.

And that is the difference. Scientists make no claims for that which is beyond their ability to enquire. Those asserting the reality of supernatural agencies tend to make such claims.

There's a humility involved in science, not least in the fact of scientists having to say "I don't know" in response to a variety of questions. Contrast that if you will, with the supreme arrogance of those who are equally (or more) in a state of unknowing, but who claim to know - goddidit.

And that is the root of it all. That is the two sides of this argument. Science saying "We don't know, & in the absence of evidence, we're not going to make claims to know", with various theists arrogantly saying, "Ah, but we know. It was God/Allah/Zeus/ etc."

... Neither side will satisfy the other that they have the real answer which leaves the non committed grasping for something else and that there may be 'something else', a compromise or even alternative between the two is an anathema to the zealots of either side.

But science isn't claiming to have the real answer. More straw-manning. Really, where is the zealotry in saying "I don't believe"? Where is the zealotry in saying, "show me the evidence"? Do tell.

[Justinr]

And that is the difference. Scientists make no claims for that which is beyond their ability to enquire. Those asserting the reality of supernatural agencies tend to make such claims.

There's a humility involved in science, not least in the fact of scientists having to say "I don't know" in response to a variety of questions. Contrast that if you will, with the supreme arrogance of those who are equally (or more) in a state of unknowing, but who claim to know - goddidit.


And that is the root of it all. That is the two sides of this argument. Science saying "We don't know, & in the absence of evidence, we're not going to make claims to know", with various theists arrogantly saying, "Ah, but we know. It was God/Allah/Zeus/ etc."
But science isn't claiming to have the real answer. More straw-manning. Really, where is the zealotry in saying "I don't believe"? Where is the zealotry in saying, "show me the evidence"? Do tell.

If science is so full of humility why do its more ardent  disciples insist on rubbishing religion at every opportunity? If it does not know all the answers then perhaps it should be a little more modest in decrying other peoples beliefs until it does.  Even your good self has suggested -

it will be science that explains the mechanism, not religion.

Hardly the most humble of thoughts and what evidence have you to support that assertion or is it just a belief you have. Do tell.

[jeremypayne]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUnH9NECSUU

This says it all.

[Chairman Bill]

If science is so full of humility why do its more ardent  disciples insist on rubbishing religion at every opportunity?

Maybe because various religionists would have us base our educational, health & social policies on the fevered ramblings of Bronze Age goat herders, who thought that you could change the colour of an animal's offspring by getting it to shag alongside different coloured sticks.

If it does not know all the answers then perhaps it should be a little more modest in decrying other peoples beliefs until it does ...

Again, you are free to hold whatever beliefs you want, but when theists (of various stripes) start making claims about reality that are faith-based, rather than being grounded in evidence, when religions make claims to know, when they have nothing more than fantasy & made-up shit, I think pointing & laughing is appropriate. 

As for thinking that it will be science, not religion that explains things - a simple matter of looking at the track record. Name one fact determined by religion.

[Justinr]

Maybe because various religionists would have us base our educational, health & social policies on the fevered ramblings of Bronze Age goat herders, who thought that you could change the colour of an animal's offspring by getting it to shag alongside different coloured sticks.

Oh yes of course, all religions base their beliefs on the reproductive management strategy of bronze age goat herders just as all chemists are still seeking to turn base metals to gold and naturally the searcgh for the perfect solvent continues. Then of course there is the scientific pursuit of eugenics....

Again, you are free to hold whatever beliefs you want, but when theists (of various stripes) start making claims about reality that are faith-based, rather than being grounded in evidence, when religions make claims to know, when they have nothing more than fantasy & made-up shit, I think pointing & laughing is appropriate. 

Eugenics is also shit.

As for thinking that it will be science, not religion that explains things - a simple matter of looking at the track record. Name one fact determined by religion.

Populations can be motivated by belief?

[Chairman Bill]

Oh yes of course, all religions base their beliefs on the reproductive management strategy of bronze age goat herders just as all chemists are still seeking to turn base metals to gold and naturally the searcgh for the perfect solvent continues.

Alchemists aren't chemists. Nice try though. 

Eugenics is also shit.

Here you're mixing up the science with what people choose to do with it

Populations can be motivated by belief?

Indeed. But can you name a fact that has been determined by religion?

[Justinr]

Alchemists aren't chemists. Nice try though. 

So where did chemistry originate, how much of our knowledge of the elements came from alchemy, does modern day science owe anything to methodology developed by the alchemists, when did alchemy end and science begin? Your superficial dismissal is disingenuous to say the least

Here you're mixing up the science with what people choose to do with it

And of course you are not by your blanket condemnation of all faiths and religions and how they are practised.

Indeed. But can you name a fact that has been determined by religion?

I'll give you a scientific fact determined by religion when you give me a religious fact determined by science.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Populations can be motivated by belief?

Indeed... into wars.

[Chairman Bill]

So where did chemistry originate, how much of our knowledge of the elements came from alchemy, does modern day science owe anything to methodology developed by the alchemists, when did alchemy end and science begin? Your superficial dismissal is disingenuous to say the least

The point is that religion is based on the beliefs of scientifically ignorant people. The whole god-concept is not one based on evidence & reason, but from uninformed superstition.

Alchemy deviated from science in a number of ways - not least the involvement of arcane symbols & other 'magical' concepts. Once those were stripped away, the science started to emerge.

And of course you are not by your blanket condemnation of all faiths and religions and how they are practised.

I'm generalising. Do you want a point-by-point refutation of every different belief emanating from every religion & cult?

I'll give you a scientific fact determined by religion when you give me a religious fact determined by science.

So that's a no then? I can give you facts about religion(s), but I'm not sure what would constitute a religious fact. Various religions make claims about how the cosmos is & came into being. We can test those claims & generally find them wanting. The point is this - given that Bronze Age tribes knew so little about physics and the like, given that we today put so little stock by their claims regarding the observable universe, why should we take any notice of their claims about gods, angels, demons, pixies & shit?

[Justinr]

Indeed... into wars.

And great monuments.

Modern wars tend to be about resources rather than religion, resources that science has shown us how to use in increasing the comfort of our lives. If it was not for science, and I include technology in that, would we be fighting over oil reserves? In fact, when was the last major war fought over purely religious differences?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Modern wars tend to be about resources rather than religion, resources that science has shown us how to use in increasing the comfort of our lives. If it was not for science, and I include technology in that, would we be fighting over oil reserves?

You, Sir, are known by now by incredible stretches of logic (e.g., WWII sacrifices and modern financial troubles), but you've outdone yourself here: wars fought because of religion paralleled by wars fought because of... science??? What!? Since future wars will probably be fought over another resource, water, shall we blame science for that too?

In fact, when was the last major war fought over purely religious differences?

Ah, Sir, by including those weasel words "major" and "purely," you wisely pre-empted any possible reply by not being "major" and "purely" enough for you. Well done.

But let me try nevertheless: all current conflicts in the Moslem world, Middle East, Asia have a significant religious component. Also the civil war in former Yugoslavia: Moslems vs. Catholics vs. Orthodox Christians, in various alliances. Or, closer to your home, the conflict in Northern Ireland.

[RSL]

The whole god-concept is not one based on evidence & reason, but from uninformed superstition.

Bill, you need to stop playing with words, step outside your dungeon, and look around you. The information to inform you is all there. All you have to do is open your eyes and look.

[Justinr]

The point is that religion is based on the beliefs of scientifically ignorant people. The whole god-concept is not one based on evidence & reason, but from uninformed superstition.

'God does not play dice' according to Einstein, and yet he acknowledges the presence of god, or a god, in that very sentence. Consider also the case of the latest Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby whose Wikipedia entry states -

Welby worked for 11 years in the oil industry, five of them for the French oil company Elf Aquitaine based in Paris. In 1984 he became treasurer of the oil exploration group Enterprise Oil PLC in London, where he was mainly concerned with West African and North Sea oil projects. He retired from his executive position in 1989 and said that he sensed a calling from God to be ordained.

A successful 11 year career in the oil industry is hardly the mark of "scientifically ignorant people"

So just what are you trying to tell us Bill. Those who choose to hold a faith are lesser and ignorant people? There are plenty of people who manage to live quite excellent lives without great knowledge of science, or any religion come to that.

Alchemy deviated from science in a number of ways - not least the involvement of arcane symbols & other 'magical' concepts.

But didn't those  arcane symbols and magical concepts serve well even though the assumptions that led to them proved false. They also served the purpose of keeping the 'research' confidential to the practitioners and their paymasters before we invented patents. The promotion of the 'magic' may have been as much about obscuring the actual recipes as it was religion. The advancement in pigment technology during the renaissance is a case in point. You should think a little wider. What is the Periodic table if not a modern arrangement of symbols?

Once those were stripped away, the science started to emerge.

Evidence?

I'm generalising. Do you want a point-by-point refutation of every different belief emanating from every religion & cult?

If you have the time then yes please.

So that's a no then? I can give you facts about religion(s), but I'm not sure what would constitute a religious fact. Various religions make claims about how the cosmos is & came into being. We can test those claims & generally find them wanting. The point is this - given that Bronze Age tribes knew so little about physics and the like, given that we today put so little stock by their claims regarding the observable universe, why should we take any notice of their claims about gods, angels, demons, pixies & shit?

Oh dear.

Bill, the only facts that are acceptable to you are scientific facts so when you seek to source them from the pool of religion you are bound to come away empty handed. That's the ultimate straw man argument! Religion is not about scientific facts but if that is your understanding of it then no wonder you struggle accept other peoples less blinkered view of the world and the way it works. If 'facts' were all that life was about then then every successful person in every field of human endeavour would be a scientist and obviously that is not the case.

Bronze age tribes have moved on a bit you know and so has the interpretation of what they believed in. Rather than pander to your rather unscientific fixation with the ancients and their goats let us look once again at the influence of later religions whose desire for symbolism led to flying buttress and vaulted domes, both of which were architectural developments which came about due to religion. I have already mentioned the improvement of pigments which was fuelled to a great extent by money from the church but art led us in all sorts of directions such as the desire for decoration and enlightenment, so lets celebrate the good that religion has brought us  rather than dismiss it's pagan origins and influence as being nonsensical and inconsequential

[Justinr]

You, Sir, are known by now by incredible stretches of logic (e.g., WWII sacrifices and modern financial troubles), but you've outdone yourself here: wars fought because of religion paralleled by wars fought because of... science??? What!? Since future wars will probably be fought over another resource, water, shall we blame science for that too?

Ah, Sir, by including those weasel words "major" and "purely," you wisely pre-empted any possible reply by not being "major" and "purely" enough for you. Well done.

But let me try nevertheless: all current conflicts in the Moslem world, Middle East, Asia have a significant religious component. Also the civil war in former Yugoslavia: Moslems vs. Catholics vs. Orthodox Christians, in various alliances. Or, closer to your home, the conflict in Northern Ireland.

B*llocks, much of the fighting is over land, which is a resource, religion is often dragged into disputes to merely justify the battles and that goes as much for the Irish situation as it does anywhere else.

[dmerger]

Everything in our existence (as we know it) is cause and effect.  Action and reaction.  

Bryan, your statement sounds like classic Newtonian physics, which in many respects has been supplanted by quantum physics.   Maybe it’s nitpicking in the broader context of this discussion about religion, but your statement does not reflect the generally accepted view of physicists.