Is atheism just big business subterfuge

jank

Pushtrak wrote: »

I'm not sure that is entirely true. But supposing it is, the question of "Is religion a force for good or evil" is of lesser importance to a question of "Is it true?" in my eyes at least.

Well the search for truth is a mix of science and philosophy. If there was one true truth then the world would be very simple. However, we all know its not.

Pdfile

why cant we just not care either way ?

its what the irish are good at!

Gumbi

Pdfile wrote: »

why cant we just not care either way ?

its what the irish are good at!

I don't - unless someone tells I'll go to hell if I don't agree with them... Etc etc

Eramen

dlofnep wrote: »

Ask Galileo what religion did for science.

I notice that some are quick to point this out, but while Galileo was an astronomer he was also an astrologist and alchemist. Galileo did not have the same prejudices as moderns would have. He did not see things as science vs religion, which is a childish false dichotomy in itself. The Papacy was well aware he was right (indeed his findings were not new and established in intellectual circles) but feared contradiction of their own [clerical] teachings.

dlofnep wrote: »

Religion is an obstacle for the advancement of our species. It doesn't serve any purpose, other than collective control over a population.

Religion? I'm not sure about that. Advertising, modern popular fashion, Hollywood culture, consumerist-economics, the 'religion vs science' :pac: dichotomy as examples are far greater obstacles to the advancement of our species..

Sarky

Eramen wrote: »

I notice that some are quick to point this out, but while Galileo was an astronomer he was also an astrologist and alchemist.

He's not remembered as an astrologer or alchemist because that sh*t doesn't work while the astronomy did. Same as Newton. Crazy into alchemy, but only his physics got results. So he's remembered as a physicist. Science doesn't hold on to stupid crap that doesn't work.

Eramen

Sarky wrote: »

Science doesn't hold on to stupid crap that doesn't work.

How wrong you are

Ever read any scientific material lately? I'm into physics and astrophysics myself, there is still much that doesn't work and still we use it as a crutch. Yes even science is imperfect and can prove to be backward.

Also it kind of bugs me the way the word 'science' is used oh so reverently by some on this thread, akin to some goddess. It is not. It is a tool to understanding the properties of the physical universe, not the type of tool for deciphering our foundational values, what we believe on an ethical level and so on. Therefore, intellectually speaking, the 'science vs religion' paradigm presented on this thread is laughable on account of it doesn't make any sense. It's all about emotionalism and ideology.

But then again, this argument has never been about truth, but power, money, undermining of people and culture in order to sell them increased quantities of unneeded trinkets. The religious and the atheist are the same in this at least - they fall for it!

Zab

Eramen wrote: »

Also it kind of bugs me the way the word 'science' is used oh so reverently by some on this thread, akin to some goddess. It is not. It is a tool to understanding the properties of the physical universe, not the type of tool for deciphering our foundational values, what we believe on an ethical level and so on. Therefore, intellectually speaking, the 'science vs religion' paradigm presented on this thread is laughable on account of it doesn't make any sense. It's all about emotionalism and ideology.

No, the word science is being used as if it's the best method we've come up with for generating information about the universe. Which, of course, it is. It's seen as "science vs religion" because religion, as usually meant when the word is used, means getting information about the universe via non-scientific methods, such as reading it in an ancient text. Science can obviously help us understand why we feel what we feel and why we hold whatever ethical stances that we hold. Why wouldn't it be able to? We are, after all, physical constructs. Whether it's capable of doing so at the moment is another question, as is whether we end up being able to accept its answers.

But then again, this argument has never been about truth, but power, money, undermining of people and culture in order to sell them increased quantities of unneeded trinkets. The religious and the atheist are the same in this at least - they fall for it!

Certainly all the things you mention exist and may be stronger forces than the search for truth, but that doesn't mean the latter doesn't exist also.

cloptrop

I found once I stepped out of this conversation people started discussing the subject. Maybe Im a bad influence .
I still do think money and power and the evil of man caused the worlds problems, blaming it on religion is just naive.
I watched a thing about stephen hawkings explaining the universe and it was all perfectly explained until he said there was nothing and no time before the big bang. His explanation of this was (now im simplifying it) its like digging a hole . The maths add up to zero .
Come on now Stephen you havnt proved anything have you . Its clutching at straws a bit . Until science can tell me that God didnt create the big bang Ill have no problems with people who wanna believe either .
I honestly cant see how the world would be different what people believe in . Thats why I started the thread .

Zab

cloptrop wrote: »

I still do think money and power and the evil of man caused the worlds problems, blaming it on religion is just naive.

Obviously it's all man's fault, but that doesn't get religion off the hook as religion is also man made. If religion vanished 50 years ago the world today would be very different, whether it be "better" or "worse" on some sort of suffering scale, but I don't accept the argument that it would be the same on that scale. Saying it would have to be the same would imply that humans can't do anything to change themselves, but I think the difference between now and a few hundred years ago shows that that clearly isn't true. Just so we're clear, I'm not claiming to have all the answers here and I in no way think that getting rid of religion would cure all of humanity's problems or mean the end of war.

Come on now Stephen you havnt proved anything have you . Its clutching at straws a bit . Until science can tell me that God didnt create the big bang Ill have no problems with people who wanna believe either .
I honestly cant see how the world would be different what people believe in . Thats why I started the thread .

Deism vs theism. This is where hard agnosticism comes into it for me. If the universe and time were created at the big bang, then "previous" to the big bang is a condition we have no way of experiencing and no reference for. As such, how can we possibly learn anything about this pre-big bang state, which for me makes theories such as an intelligent creator baseless and at the very best pure speculation. Arguments such as Kalām assume that causation existed pre-big bang and I don't see how such a claim can be supported (not to mention that it doesn't worry about what caused the creator).

Helix

Zab wrote: »

what caused the creator

dont you know? the creator doesnt need a cause, because he is outside the rules. but the universe DOES need a creator, because how could it have been caused otherwise?

gotta love that logic

Sarky

Eramen wrote: »

How wrong you are

Ever read any scientific material lately? I'm into physics and astrophysics myself, there is still much that doesn't work and still we use it as a crutch. Yes even science is imperfect and can prove to be backward.

Yes, being a scientist, I regularly keep up with my area of interest. Ideas are only held on to for as long as they're useful. In the last 6 months I've seen plenty of bits and pieces surrounding genetics and bacteriology get discarded because something better came along. Occasionally, I've been the one coming up with something better. It's quite an interesting time to be a researcher.

Do you have a short list of useless stuff that science in general is clinging to? Y'know, something that has no value as knowledge, or which isn't in any way practical or useful in approximating the way reality works? I'd love to see it.

Ooh, almost forgot, here's a wink, I hear they're great for looking smug.