Athiests - Who cares

mrkiscool2

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

I am a scientist. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. In fact many many scientists are also religious.

Never said it was mate. I said that Science has shown that people need to question things that aren't based in fact (and even question things that are fact to further prove it). Hence people have become more sceptical which means they are questioning things like faith and religion. Just because you are a scientist doesn't mean you have to be an atheist.

I'm also a science graduate so I'm fully aware of how many scientists did or currently do believe in something like a God. Again, I have no thoughts on that. That's up to them to be honest. But saying that religion is a naturally good thing or that it is important in a childs upbringing is a bizarre thing to believe.

Maximus Alexander

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

I am a scientist. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. In fact many many scientists are also religious.

In fairness, religion and science may not be mutually exclusive, but catholicism (if you're not going a la carte) and science definitely are. There'd be some serious cognitive dissonance going on for a devout catholic who also trusted the scientific method, one of the pillars of which is falsifiability.

Bootros Bootros

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think Ireland actually IS for the most part a largely conservative country, and because of our size and our history, we've had the place to ourselves for a very long time. We don't have the diversity in our population that they have in mainland Europe and the US. Remember that France has only been a secular country for the last 200 years, and the US as we know it today isn't much older.

I can completely understand those people's reservations, but are we actually worse than other countries? In the UK and France, and even in Germany, there's much more diversity, which means there's people who are much more passionate and extremist in their views. In Ireland we're particularly lazy, because we've never had to adapt to anything that was different. We just went along with it, and we still do, which is why we still have 92% religious patronage in Irish education, we've still got Irish taught as our national language despite the fact that it's only spoken regularly in pockets of Ireland (the Irish language is an odd one because non Irish people seem to be gagging to learn the language, literature, music, dancing), when we Irish can't seem to abandon religion and the Irish language fast enough!

We like to think of ourselves as liberal, modern and cosmopolitan, but we've never actually been tested. The referendum on marriage equality will be a good litmus test to indicate just how liberal or conservative Ireland really is, because I would contend that despite the falling figures in Church and so on, Irish people are still very judgemental and conservative in their attitudes towards anything that differs from their perception of what is socially acceptable and what isn't. Religion was just one more way in which we could feel morally superior to our neighbours in our own communities, and the RCC provided a master class in exploiting Irish pride and how proud we are of ourselves.





Plenty of IT professionals working in Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Apple, to name just the big four more well known ones among hundreds of IT companies in Ireland. I don't think the blasphemy laws made any difference to companies that planned on locating here as much as our ridiculously low corporation tax. I can think of plenty more mind-blowingly stupid legislation the government has introduced that has had a negative effect upon Irish society than the inability to say religion is a load of bollocks!


(I'm still pissed off about the smoking ban really )

With regard to the marriage equality referendum, has anyone else wondered why the Government hasn't said they will also reform employment legislation that allows for State Schools under religious patronage to discrimate against employees on the grounds of their sexual orientation? That's a far more significant piece of legislation than blasphemy, yet the Government are still ignoring it, and banking on the Irish people to do the same, which we will for the most part, because we haven't been tested yet or affected by it yet enough, to actually give a damn.

I am pretty sure that ireland is now above the European diversity norm. Your whole premise not only fails on that grounds but on the while facts of how right wing groups organise across Europe.

I would agree that the RC hooked into a kind of santimonious hypocrisy now passed onto the PC priesthood.

SpaceTime

One eyed Jack wrote: »

With regard to the marriage equality referendum, has anyone else wondered why the Government hasn't said they will also reform employment legislation that allows for State Schools under religious patronage to discrimate against employees on the grounds of their sexual orientation? That's a far more significant piece of legislation than blasphemy, yet the Government are still ignoring it, and banking on the Irish people to do the same, which we will for the most part, because we haven't been tested yet or affected by it yet enough, to actually give a damn.

I can assure you the first successful prosecution under the Blasphemy legislation will have them all rethinking where to host data. Sure, the sales jobs and stuff might stay here, but there'll be a major rethink about whether you'd want to expose your customers to that kind of thing.

Zubeneschamali

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive.

Science excludes lots of religions, like Young Earth Creationism.

Sneaky religions where God only comes out when Science isn't looking, like Roman Catholicism, can claim the two are compatible, but in fact Science is only compatible with the fancy-schmancy high theology version of catholicism, where nothing supernatural ever happens.

The regular version many people believe, where God answers prayers with actual information and actions in the real world is false. The version where Pope John Paul II is a saint because a miracle happened is false. The one where St. Anthony can help you find your car keys is false. The one where people go to Lourdes and miracle cures happen is false. The one about Fatima and the one about Medjugore are false. The version where statues bleed or cry or dance is false, as well as being very funny.

And as a scientist, you know that very well.

Bootros Bootros

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

In fairness, religion and science may not be mutually exclusive, but catholicism (if you're not going a la carte) and science definitely are. There'd be some serious cognitive dissonance going on for a devout catholic who also trusted the scientific method, one of the pillars of which is falsifiability.

And yet so many scientists prior to the 20th century were christian and/or Catholic.

One eyed Jack

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Why have you ignored my 30% fact?

I ignored it too Baggy tbh because your sample size is way too small for a start to be able to offer anything conclusive that you could extrapolate out to a national context.

Would you hypothesise that your figures would be reflected across the country? You also didn't state whether the children were of another religious denomination or whether they were atheist or indeed simply non-religious as a reason for their non-participation in religion classes.

I mean, we could all pull anecdotes out of the air, put our own spin on it to back up whatever point we want to make, but it really wouldn't tell us a whole lot, and certainly I wouldn't encourage anyone to draw any hasty conclusions from such little evidence.

Zubeneschamali

Bootros Bootros wrote: »

I thought this thread was about sneering at new athiests(sic). Now it's run by them.

Actually, many atheists in this thread have said Dawkins is a knob.

But apparently, just voicing our opinions in a thread expressly about our opinions means we are "new", meaning obnoxious, atheists.

Maximus Alexander

Bootros Bootros wrote: »

And yet so many scientists prior to the 20th century were christian and/or Catholic.

Perhaps a bit of an oversimplification.

Peist2007

I would also say there is a difference between a scientist and someone with a science degree who soldiers through a 9-5 with Boston Scientific.

A scientist would see religion for the bunkem it is and would certainly see Catholicisms recent attempts to find a niche for itself beside science as exactly for what it is, cynical social positioning.

Bootros Bootros

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Actually, many atheists in this thread have said Dawkins is a knob.

But apparently, just voicing our opinions in a thread expressly about our opinions means we are "new", meaning obnoxious, atheists.

But that's what this thread is about. Sneering at the Santa haters ( cis it's lying) and the other self important crap from the people who never shut up about atheism. You have your forum for this bollocks. Be bores in there. This is about taking the piss out of you.

mrsbyrne

Ghost Buster wrote: »

One example? Just one please.

Ah theres loads of examples over numerous threads. Have a look yourself.
And don't get them started on the 6PM Angelus on RTE1. What sounds like a bell, ringing for ONE WHOLE MINUTE!!! Bong! Bong! Bong! Each bong driving a dagger of fire deep into their hearts! And its accounting for least €80 of their licence fee! And theres no way to avoid it! its thrust down your throat even as you struggle to close your delicate ears !Oh the persecution and the suffering! Its right up there with Saddam Hussein and the Kurds!

Eutow

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

More foolish people, more people let astray by outside influences, lacking faith and people thinking they are super cool and sticking it to the man by giving two fingers to religion is definitely a major one.

That doesn't suggest that in the future this trend will continue.

Less foolish people*, less people being influenced by Catholic teachings, more people questioning people of Catholic faith, Catholic teachings. It's got nothing to do with people thinking they are super cool - (a stupid comment to make from somebody that claimed to be "more intelligent than a lot of posters here")


In a previous post you stated it is "highly offensive to refer to Catholic teachings as fairytales" but you have no problem claiming non Catholics as foolish people, a claim that can itself be highly offensive to people not of a Catholic belief system.


*I don't conside people to have religious beliefs to be foolish.

SpaceTime

Bootros Bootros wrote: »

And yet so many scientists prior to the 20th century were christian and/or Catholic.

Prior to the 20th century they also believed that women's brains were inferior and incapable of studying science too.
Yet, we now (correctly) consider that an absolutely ridiculous suggestion. Yet, in the 19th century it was all the rage.
Times move on and now a huge % of the science community are female.

In the 19th century many doctors smoked pipes while doing open surgery.

I'm not really sure what your point is tbh?

In the 19th century it was also so outrageous to be an atheist that you'd probably have been booted out of university (don't forget most were still theocratic). So, I don't think many people in academia would have necessarily wanted to have been seen to challenge the Church (Catholic or Church of England) in those days either.

Sadly, Ireland just clung onto a big chunk of the 19th century until about 1978.

Zubeneschamali

Bootros Bootros wrote: »

This is about taking the piss out of you.

Not our fault you couldn't take the piss out of a bucket of piss with a piss ladle.

Baggy Trousers

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I ignored it too Baggy tbh because your sample size is way too small for a start to be able to offer anything conclusive that you could extrapolate out to a national context.

Would you hypothesise that your figures would be reflected across the country? You also didn't state whether the children were of another religious denomination or whether they were atheist or indeed simply non-religious as a reason for their non-participation in religion classes.

I mean, we could all pull anecdotes out of the air, put our own spin on it to back up whatever point we want to make, but it really wouldn't tell us a whole lot, and certainly I wouldn't encourage anyone to draw any hasty conclusions from such little evidence.

Hold on, my example was in response to Nox saying that people are falling over themselves in the UK to get into Catholic schools and that all Catholic schools in Ireland are packed. My point is that not all people attending those schools are practicing Catholics in the UK or Ireland.
He is from Galway so I provided a Galway example.

To be fair I think Ismael Freezing Tv has been very brave to argue his beliefs on this thread. I don't like that people accused him of trolling because I believe he believes what he is saying even if I think he is deluded.

SpaceTime

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Hold on, my example was in response to Nox saying that people are falling over themselves in the UK to get into Catholic schools and that all Catholic schools in Ireland are packed. My point is that not all people attending those schools are practicing Catholics in the UK or Ireland.
He is from Galway so I provided a Galway example.

The UK's full of anti-state school snobbery though which is what that's all about. The religious schools are private trusts and they tend to have a queue of parents who are interested in education, hence the results are better.

The religious ethos has nothing to do with it. It's all about exclusivity and barriers to entry.

The Tories love this kind of thing too... Snobbery, free market competition between schools, league tables and so on ...

Ireland does this with small fees charged to prevent access i.e. not really private schools, just a barrier fee to ensure the 'right type' of people go there. That grand a year to ensure that none of those rough children from the council estate get in, yet entirely state funded of course.

Tarquin, Fiachra and Snachta need to network with the right type of toddlers! Otherwise how do you expect them to get jobs in the bank or politics?!

One eyed Jack

Peist2007 wrote: »

I would also say there is a difference between a scientist and someone with a science degree who soldiers through a 9-5 with Boston Scientific.

A scientist would see religion for the bunkem it is and would certainly see Catholicisms recent attempts to find a niche for itself beside science as exactly for what it is, cynical social positioning.

Sure he would -


http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/03/the_muslim_scientist_who_birthed_the_scientific_method.html

Peist2007

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Ah theres loads of examples over numerous threads. Have a look yourself.
And don't get them started on the 6PM Angelus on RTE1. What sounds like a bell, ringing for ONE WHOLE MINUTE!!! Bong! Bong! Bong! Each bong driving a dagger of fire deep into their hearts! And its accounting for least €80 of their licence fee! And theres no way to avoid it! its thrust down your throat even as you struggle to close your delicate ears !Oh the persecution and the suffering! Its right up there with Saddam Hussein and the Kurds!

You think its the noise of the angelus or the length of time it takes to complete is the problem?

One eyed Jack

SpaceTime wrote: »

The UK's full of anti-state school snobbery though which is what that's all about. The religious schools are private trusts and they tend to have a queue of parents who are interested in education, hence the results are better.

The religious ethos has nothing to do with it. It's all about exclusivity and barriers to entry.

The Tories love this kind of thing too... Snobbery, free market competition between schools, league tables and so on ...

Ireland does this with small fees charged to prevent access i.e. not really private schools, just a barrier fee to ensure the 'right type' of people go there. That grand a year to ensure that none of those rough children from the council estate get in, yet entirely state funded of course.

We also have gaelscoileanna to ensure the 'right type' of student goes there, the 'Fuinneog' agus 'Doras' types :pac:

Again though, as you quite rightly point out - nothing to do with religion.

DamagedTrax

Peist2007 wrote: »

You think its the noise of the angelus or the length of time it takes to complete is the problem?

i suggest a 'god doesnt exist' minute at 7pm, where the sound of *pagans involved in blood orgies is played. i think im onto winner.

*i know, i know, i know. pagans had gods too...

Peist2007

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sure he would -


http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/03/the_muslim_scientist_who_birthed_the_scientific_method.html

Ha talk about grasping. A guy in the 13th century, brilliant.

Here is a quote from your article:

"Little is known about Ibn al-Haytham's life...."

I would also argue that the scientist on this thread has more scientific advances over which to re-evaluate his religious beliefs that a guy in the 13th century who it is admitted that very little is known about.

Maximus Alexander

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sure he would -


http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/03/the_muslim_scientist_who_birthed_the_scientific_method.html

A problem arises when you use people who lived under totalitarian regimes to 'prove' this point. In the 10th century someone doing this kind of work had no option but to claim to be doing it for God, regardless of what his actual thoughts may have been. There are indeed tales of the very same man lying about his mental state out of fear:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen wrote:

Legend has it that after deciding the scheme was impractical and fearing the caliph's anger, Alhazen feigned madness and was kept under house arrest from 1011 until al-Hakim's death in 1021

Regardless, cognitive dissonance is a real thing and people perform remarkable mental gymnastics in order to reconcile incompatible ideals. This in no way lends credence to the idea that science and catholicism are compatible and, by definition, they are not.

Peist2007

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i suggest a 'god doesnt exist' minute at 7pm, where the sound of *pagans involved in blood orgies is played. i think im onto winner.

*i know, i know, i know. pagans had gods too...

Ever notice how it is always backward looking though. No one takes into account the present at all when considering the merits of religion. "This is the way it was done in the past" etc. Such a (literally) backward way of thinking.

One eyed Jack

Peist2007 wrote: »

Ha talk about grasping. A guy in the 13th century, brilliant.

How is it grasping? Where do you think the scientific method scientists use today came from? It was a hell of a lot more useful in the 13th century than the unscientific nonsense perpetuated by the likes of Sam Harris, a neuroscientist who claims that religion is a mental illness, or the scientist in Uganda who claimed people are homosexual because magnets! My point is that nowadays science seems to be more and more dictated by popularly held belief than at any other time in human history. This is one of the reasons why medical professionals are beginning to ignore the DSM, because it's no longer a reliable reference source.

Here is a quote from your article:

"Little is known about Ibn al-Haytham's life...."

What's your point? How much do you know about Richard Dawkins life, apart from when he puts his foot in his mouth on Twitter?

I would also argue that the scientist on this thread has more scientific advances over which to re-evaluate his religious beliefs that a guy in the 13th century who it is admitted that very little is known about.

That would depend entirely on their field of scientific study now, wouldn't it? A microbiologist isn't going to know a whole hell of a lot about anthropology and vice versa.

DamagedTrax

Peist2007 wrote: »

Ever notice how it is always backward looking though. No one takes into account the present at all when considering the merits of religion. "This is the way it was done in the past" etc. Such a (literally) backward way of thinking.

when you want to keep the status qou, progress is the enemy. in both government and religion.

Sofiztikated

I'm not even sure who is arguing with who any more!!

nox, answer me one question, seeing as you have ignored all my others.

Why is your particular flavour of religion more correct than any others?

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The regular version many people believe, where God answers prayers with actual information and actions in the real world is false. The version where Pope John Paul II is a saint because a miracle happened is false. The one where St. Anthony can help you find your car keys is false. The one where people go to Lourdes and miracle cures happen is false. The one about Fatima and the one about Medjugore are false. The version where statues bleed or cry or dance is false, as well as being very funny.

I don't believe the they are false, if I did I how could I call myself a catholic?

Its hilarious how you sit there writing all the above being false as if you actually have a clue.

One eyed Jack

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

A problem arises when you use people who lived under totalitarian regimes to 'prove' this point. In the 10th century someone doing this kind of work had no option but to claim to be doing it for God, regardless of what his actual thoughts may have been. There are indeed tales of the very same man lying about his mental state out of fear:

Richard Dawkins doesn't live under a totalitarian regime, and yet he goes on as if he does, he's never made a claim he's actually had to stand behind, instead placing the burden of proof on other people to prove him wrong. When did science turn into "I can say what the hell I like, come out with any sort of nonsense I want, and it's up to everyone else to prove me wrong!"?

Regardless, cognitive dissonance is a real thing and people perform remarkable mental gymnastics in order to reconcile incompatible ideals. This in no way lends credence to the idea that science and catholicism are compatible and, by definition, they are not.

I agree with you, they're not compatible, but they're not opposed to each other either. The only people who set the two ideologies against each other are the likes of people like Dawkins, but that's because he is an anti-theist, nothing whatsoever to do with the fact he's a scientist.

Peist2007

Peist2007 wrote: »

I would also say there is a difference between a scientist and someone with a science degree who soldiers through a 9-5 with Boston Scientific.

Is that directed at me?

Peist2007

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's your point? How much do you know about Richard Dawkins life, apart from when he puts his foot in his mouth on Twitter?

My argument is that little is admittedly known about this guy's life. So i would then surmise that little is known about his beliefs and whether same beliefs came about through absolute devotion and unwavering belief or because peace and patronage would be easier to come by. Who knows?

Can you point to any science living side by side with religion in a secular context? Or in modern times?

Ps. When they say "we know little about his life" it means they dont know about his life. I dont like Richard Dawkins but, and this is crucial, he lives in 2015 and therefore has infinitely more scientific information to form his opinion than your friend from the 13th century. Plus i am sure his life is documented with easily verifiable facts. If only there was a Wikipedia in the 13th century.

Peist2007

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

Is that directed at me?

No. I am saying that calling oneself a scientist usually means feck all.

Maximus Alexander

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Richard Dawkins doesn't live under a totalitarian regime, and yet he goes on as if he does, he's never made a claim he's actually had to stand behind, instead placing the burden of proof on other people to prove him wrong. When did science turn into "I can say what the hell I like, come out with any sort of nonsense I want, and it's up to everyone else to prove me wrong!"?

I agree with you, they're not compatible, but they're not opposed to each other either. The only people who set the two ideologies against each other are the likes of people like Dawkins, but that's because he is an anti-theist, nothing whatsoever to do with the fact he's a scientist.

I don't really know why Dawkins is involved, but I agree with you - I have absolutely no time for him.

SpaceTime

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I'm not even sure who is arguing with who any more!!

nox, answer me one question, seeing as you have ignored all my others.

Why is your particular flavour of religion more correct than any others?

Strawberry or Chocolate. I'm not too keen on the Blueberry ones and that banana flavoured one.. yuck!

One eyed Jack

Peist2007 wrote: »

My argument is that little is admittedly known about this guy's life. So i would then surmise that little is known about his beliefs and whether same beliefs came about through absolute devotion and unwavering belief or because peace and patronage would be easier to come by. Who knows?

It says in the article though that he was a devout Muslim? Do you question everything Dawkins absence of belief with the same veracity or do you simply accept what suits your narrative? The point is he was a devout Muslim who devised the scientific method we understand is used today. In fact much of our modern science has it's origins in the Middle East, so it was hardly just one person. The early Egyptians for example were also accomplished engineers and architects, and need we really talk about how much the Ancient Greeks contributed to science, despite the whole Gods thing? Hell, even here in Ireland the Pagans came up with Newgrange!

Can you point to any science living side by side with religion in a secular context? Or in modern times?

I gave an example earlier with my attendance at The Young Scientist Exhibition the weekend just gone - above each of the projects were the names of the school, and the names indicated the schools were for the most part religious ethos schools.

Ps. When they say "we know little about his life" it means they dont know about his life. I dont like Richard Dawkins but, and this is crucial, he lives in 2015 and therefore has infinitely more scientific information to form his opinion than your friend from the 13th century. Plus i am sure his life is documented with easily verifiable facts. If only there was a Wikipedia in the 13th century.

If you'd prefer more modern, there are many prolific scientists to choose from, who have contributed far more to our understanding of the universe while Richard Dawkins isn't even out of the starting blocks. Albert Einstein for instance was a pantheist. Richard Dawkins is more well known for his rabble rousing anti-theism, than he is for his contributions to our understanding of the universe.

DamagedTrax

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you'd prefer more modern, there are many prolific scientists to choose from, who have contributed far more to our understanding of the universe while Richard Dawkins isn't even out of the starting blocks. Albert Einstein for instance was a pantheist. Richard Dawkins is more well known for his rabble rousing anti-theism, than he is for his contributions to our understanding of the universe.

but pantheism has little to do with god worshipping, and more to do with a spiritual oneness, you could call it a 'god' for ease of wording but it is most definitely not a 'god' in the way the catholic church teaches. more akin to spiritualism than religion.

SpaceTime

Attempts to start an Android vs iPhone debate and runs...

Zubeneschamali

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

I don't believe the they are false, if I did I how could I call myself a catholic?

You realize that if prayer had an effect, if miracles really happened, you (as a scientist) could design an experiment proving that your religion is true?

And that that would invalidate faith, and then God would disappear in a puff of logic?

And that most theologians in the Catholic church do not believe in the "St Anthony finds your car keys" folk religion?

One eyed Jack

DamagedTrax wrote: »

but pantheism has little to do with god worshipping, and more to do with a spiritual oneness, you could call it a 'god' for ease of wording but it is most definitely not a 'god' in the way the catholic church teaches. more akin to spiritualism than religion.

Well Catholicism (nearly typed 'Cod' there, Freudian slip ) is a monotheistic religion, whereas pantheism, you're right, isn't a religion, but the ideology is based on acknowledging the possible existence of deities -

pan·the·ism

\ˈpan(t)-thē-ˌi-zəm\
noun




1 :a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe

2 :the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also :toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire)

It's still not congruent with scientific study, but it doesn't claim to be either, so it's never going to be as big a target as organised religions for anti-theists.

The reason I make the distinction between atheists and anti-theists is because the vast majority of people who identify as atheist have no inclination to bother with, nor are they bothered by religion, whereas anti-theists on the other hand are actively opposed to religion.

Peist2007

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It says in the article though that he was a devout Muslim? Do you question everything Dawkins absence of belief with the same veracity or do you simply accept what suits your narrative? The point is he was a devout Muslim who devised the scientific method we understand is used today. In fact much of our modern science has it's origins in the Middle East, so it was hardly just one person. The early Egyptians for example were also accomplished engineers and architects, and need we really talk about how much the Ancient Greeks contributed to science, despite the whole Gods thing? Hell, even here in Ireland the Pagans came up with Newgrange!





I gave an example earlier with my attendance at The Young Scientist Exhibition the weekend just gone - above each of the projects were the names of the school, and the names indicated the schools were for the most part religious ethos schools.






If you'd prefer more modern, there are many prolific scientists to choose from, who have contributed far more to our understanding of the universe while Richard Dawkins isn't even out of the starting blocks. Albert Einstein for instance was a pantheist. Richard Dawkins is more well known for his rabble rousing anti-theism, than he is for his contributions to our understanding of the universe.

Why do you think i have any time for Dawkins at all? I have time for Charles Darwin.

Dayum

Regardless of whether or not God exists....surely any reasonable individual of sound mind would admit that God is truly beyond our human comprehension and that believing the pope or priests have any idea more than you do as to what it is is not only laughable but cringe-worthy. It must follow, then, that going to mass is complete waste of your time.

One eyed Jack

Peist2007 wrote: »

Why do you think i have any time for Dawkins at all? I have time for Charles Darwin.

I didn't ask whether you had any time for Dawkins or not though, I simply asked would you question the veracity of his atheism in the same way you question the veracity of Ibn al-Haytham's theism?

I wouldn't have any time myself for Charles Darwin, because he's dead, unless you know something I don't? I would however certainly question his theories of evolution, because if I didn't, then I wouldn't be able to find out whether his theories could in fact be true or false. That's why they're called theories, because they lack sufficient evidence yet to be proven as fact.

Wide acceptance of an idea should never be touted as evidence of it's truthfulness. Some people will accept anything you tell them as fact, I personally wouldn't happen to be one of those people, so while Darwinian theories of evolution may be popular and widely accepted among the scientific community, I wouldn't be relying solely upon them as an explanation for the origins of life.

Fighting Irish

harrymagina wrote: »

Had a friend going around telling the whole local pub he is an athiest after a few jars. I know another Athiest who loves telling people that he is an athiest and going on about how he has been arguing about his wife about baptising the child and keeps bringing it up. I don't care if you are an athiest just please stay quiet about it! How are your athiest friends?

I believe people like this are just looking for an argument where they know they'll come out on top

Maximus Alexander

One eyed Jack wrote: »

theories could in fact be true or false. That's why they're called theories, because they lack sufficient evidence yet to be proven as fact.

This is incorrect. The theory of evolution is a fact in so far as anything at all is fact. A scientific theory is an explanation for a phenomenon that has been repeatedly tested and confirmed. Should not be confused with the common use of the word "theory".

Peist2007

Peist2007 wrote: »

No. I am saying that calling oneself a scientist usually means feck all.

Luckily the three letter PhD after my name means I can in fact call myself a scientist without any possible doubt.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You realize that if prayer had an effect, if miracles really happened, you (as a scientist) could design an experiment proving that your religion is true?

There are many many things in science which are more or less accepted purely on theory and there is no experiment which can (or certainly which can be designed at this moment in time) to prove them. Not being able to observe something experimentally does not mean its false.

timetogo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's why they're called theories, because they lack sufficient evidence yet to be proven as fact.

If you're not sure of something you can look it up you know rather than guessing.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

One eyed Jack wrote: »

so while Darwinian theories of evolution may be popular and widely accepted among the scientific community, I wouldn't be relying solely upon them as an explanation for the origins of life.

That would be good because Darwins theories have nothing to do about the origins of life. They're about evolution. The hint is in the name.

Turtwig

SpaceTime wrote: »

Attempts to start an Android vs iPhone debate and runs...

Choose your side very carefully. The Atheism and Agnosticism forum already held this debate and one side was banned.

Just saying. . .:pac:

Bootros Bootros

Turtwig wrote: »

Choose your side very carefully. The Atheism and Agnosticism forum already held this debate and one side was banned.

Just saying. . .:pac:

So no iPhone users or libertarians? A&A needs a split.

Rough Sleeper

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

There are many many things in science which are more or less accepted purely on theory and there is no experiment which can (or certainly which can be designed at this moment in time) to prove them. Not being able to observe something experimentally does not mean its false.

This isn't M-theory though, is it? Assessing whether praying for someone else works or not isn't really any different to a standard observational medical study. In fact it has been studied and, surprise surprise, the more rigorous efforts carried out so far haven't resulted in any significant findings - though research in the area is admittedly sparse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer

I can see prayer having a role as a form of meditation or a coping mechanism for the individual carrying it out but I'm pretty cocksure that it doesn't elicit an affect on the physical world. If it did I'd actually find it a bit grotesque, the fact that God might spare the life of your drunken, gluttonous uncle after a wholly self-inflicted heart attack, while letting some African kid see his village slaughtered before he's dragged off to become a child soldier.

EDIT: what's the theory of prayer, anyway?

Zubeneschamali

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

Not being able to observe something experimentally does not mean its false.

Miracle cures at Lourdes could easily be shown to happen, if they happened, you'd just do a statistical study, same as any other cure.

Oddly, although this is very well understood science, it's not how the miracle-peddlers at Lourdes and elsewhere operate. The cherry pick unexplained remissions and call them miracles, and ignore all the failures. In science, this is what's called fraud, and we all know why they use fraud instead of science: because there are no miracles.

Prayers to St. Anthony providing supernatural assistance in finding lost keys could be easily demonstrated using a blind study. But nope - no-one is collecting all the prizes for demonstrating the supernatural. Because it isn't real.

And so on for every version of Catholicism that I listed as false.

The only version that is consistent with science is the completely unfalsifiable one which doesn't suppose anything supernatural is going on at all in the entire Universe, and that only long ago or after death do magic things happen.