Athiests - Who cares

One eyed Jack

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

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".

timetogo wrote: »

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

Unless I'm missing something particularly semantic lads, the above is just a re-wording of my post with the bits that provide context snipped out?

You're both being picky for the sake of being picky, and not actually adding anything of substance or value to the discussion?

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.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life?

Fair enough. No more context for that man!

Osgoodisgood

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

Bwahahahahahahahahaha

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

That'd be abiogenesis. Not evolution:rolleyes:

Maximus Alexander

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Unless I'm missing something particularly semantic lads, the above is just a re-wording of my post with the bits that provide context snipped out?

You're both being picky for the sake of being picky, and not actually adding anything of substance or value to the discussion?

Not at all, you claimed that theories are called theories because they lack evidence and have not been proven as fact, when the reality is the exact opposite. Theories have been proven with evidence and repeated testing and are accepted as correct.

What you are describing is a hypothesis. When a hypothesis has been proven, it becomes a theory.

This is not semantics - your definition of a theory was completely incorrect.

One eyed Jack

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

Bwahahahahahahahahaha


That'd be abiogenesis. Not evolution:rolleyes:

Useful contribution, but did you miss the point where I said that the theories of evolution offer an explanation for the origins of life?

That's what happens when you sweat the small stuff and miss the bigger picture.

One eyed Jack

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Not at all, you claimed that theories are called theories because they lack evidence and have not been proven as fact, when the reality is the exact opposite. Theories have been proven with evidence and repeated testing and are accepted as correct.

What you are describing is a hypothesis. When a hypothesis has been proven, it becomes a theory.

This is not semantics - your definition of a theory was completely incorrect.

I know what a hypothesis is, and I do understand the difference. A hypothesis is a proposition, such as the existence of extraterrestrial life. Evidence is then gathered to examine this hypothesis and a theory is formed - either there is, or there isn't, and until it can be proven as fact, it remains a widely accepted theory, until it can be either proven or disproven as fact. "Widely accepted as correct" IS semantics.

Saipanne

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Useful contribution, but did you miss the point where I said that the theories of evolution offer an explanation for the origins of life?

That's what happens when you sweat the small stuff and miss the bigger picture.

No, they don't.

Saipanne

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know what a hypothesis is, and I do understand the difference. A hypothesis is a proposition, such as the existence of extraterrestrial life. Evidence is then gathered to examine this hypothesis and a theory is formed - either there is, or there isn't, and until it can be proven as fact, it remains a widely accepted theory, until it can be either proven or disproven as fact. "Widely accepted as correct" IS semantics.

Wrong. Proof belongs only in mathematics. In the abstract.

One eyed Jack

Saipanne wrote: »

No, they don't.

Saipanne wrote: »

Wrong. Proof belongs only in mathematics. In the abstract.

Because it's a discussion forum, it'd help if you could expand on your answers rather than just a snappy "Computer says noo" type retort.

Maximus Alexander

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know what a hypothesis is, and I do understand the difference. A hypothesis is a proposition, such as the existence of extraterrestrial life. Evidence is then gathered to examine this hypothesis and a theory is formed - either there is, or there isn't, and until it can be proven as fact, it remains a widely accepted theory, until it can be either proven or disproven as fact. "Widely accepted as correct" IS semantics.

Suggesting that things are either theory or fact shows that you don't understand. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Theories don't graduate into facts, they are made up of them, they explain them.

Organisms change over time, for example. We call this evolution. Data gives you the fact. Theory gives you the how, and the why. Experimentation proves both.

A theory isn't a theory because it hasn't yet become fact - it will always be a theory. Darwin's theories are empirically correct - we're not waiting on anything to prove that.

It's not semantics, you're incorrect.

Rough Sleeper

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know what a hypothesis is, and I do understand the difference. A hypothesis is a proposition, such as the existence of extraterrestrial life. Evidence is then gathered to examine this hypothesis and a theory is formed - either there is, or there isn't, and until it can be proven as fact, it remains a widely accepted theory, until it can be either proven or disproven as fact. "Widely accepted as correct" IS semantics.

A theory is model or framework explaining a phenomenon. When a theory has withstood rigorous testing and has not been falsified it becomes regarded as a fact. A theory must remain potentially falsifiable to be regarded as scientific and thus nothing is ever proven is science, just shown to be very, very likely. A theory is still called a theory even when it is regarded as fact.

At the subatomic level energy becomes quantised; this is a fact. This fact is explained by quantum theory. All objects with mass attract each other. Gravity is a fact, and it's explained by the theory of general relativity (though not completely, as far as I understand).

Saipanne

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because it's a discussion forum, it'd help if you could expand on your answers rather than just a snappy "Computer says noo" type retort.

Meh, I doubt I'd convince you with a thesis worth of argument.

One eyed Jack

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

A theory isn't a theory because it hasn't yet become fact - it will always be a theory. Darwin's theories are empirically correct - we're not waiting on anything to prove that.

It's not semantics, you're incorrect.

Rough Sleeper wrote: »

A theory is model or framework explaining a phenomenon. When a theory has withstood rigorous testing and has not been falsified it becomes regarded as a fact. A theory must remain potentially falsifiable to be regarded as scientific and thus nothing is ever proven is science, just shown to be very, very likely. A theory is still called a theory even when it is regarded as fact.

Saipanne wrote: »

Meh, I doubt I'd convince you with a thesis worth of argument.

Can someone, anyone, please point out to me how any of the above is so contradictory to what I said as to be completely incorrect, which is what seems to have started this tangent?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

I'm open to correction of course, I'm here to learn, no need for a thesis on it either, a simple explanation as to why or where I'm incorrect would do, because genuinely I seem to be missing it.

shruikan2553

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

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

If you are able to research and publish a few papers then you should be able to give a reasoned response to

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Why Catholic and not Protestant, Mormon, Sikh, Muslim?

Baggy Trousers

shruikan2553 wrote: »

If you are able to research and publish a few papers then you should be able to give a reasoned response to

Why Catholic and not Protestant, Mormon, Sikh, Muslim?

I would like to see the answer to that question too but I imagine it will be avoided. I'd say the real answer is place of birth.

Curly Judge

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Can someone, anyone, please point out to me how any of the above is so contradictory to what I said as to be completely incorrect, which is what seems to have started this tangent?





I'm open to correction of course, I'm here to learn, no need for a thesis on it either, a simple explanation as to why or where I'm incorrect would do, because genuinely I seem to be missing it.

My take on it is that the only theory that could be reasonably said to have graduated to the level of fact is Quantum Theory.
And even then it has still some way to go.
That being said it is probably fair to speculate that the theory of evolution comes much closer to probable reality than the idea of an infinite supreme being, and certainly a supreme being who takes a personal interest in our existence and/or welfare.
After studying the problem for many years I have come to the conclusion that we, life, love and every subatomic particle owe our existence to one humongous cosmic accident.
A very unsettling conclusion for some, with far reaching moral and social implications, but nevertheless, the only logical one!

Rough Sleeper

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Can someone, anyone, please point out to me how any of the above is so contradictory to what I said as to be completely incorrect, which is what seems to have started this tangent?

As succinctly as I can:

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

That isn't why they're called theories. They're called theories because that's the correct scientific term for models or frameworks used to describe an observation or a set of observations. If there is enough evidence there for them to be regarded as fact (ie. very likely) they are still called theories. Even in mathematics, where you can have proofs based on a given set of axioms, you still have theories.

Wide acceptance of an idea should never be touted as evidence of it's truthfulness.

In the case of evolution the evidence for its truthfulness are the mountains of literature supporting the theory. The reason it's widely accepted within the scientific community are the mountains of data supporting its truthfulness.

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.

Evolution starts with the universal common ancestor (ie. after life had started) so I wouldn't rely on it at all to explain the origins of life, any more than I'd rely on electroweak theory or molecular orbital theory.

One eyed Jack

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

I would like to see the answer to that question too but I imagine it will be avoided. I'd say the real answer is place of birth.

Well I can't answer for nox, but for myself I have investigated a number of different religions, including those above, and some of the lesser well known religions in an attempt to rationalise the idea of why I place any significance in religion, why do I actually need religion, what religion gives me that I can't get from some other ideology, those sort of questions...

And I couldn't actually relate mentally to any of the other religions, partly of course yes, because I lacked the lived experience of the origins of those religions, and partly because I simply couldn't incorporate their ideologies into my way of thinking.

So why not? I simply couldn't relate to them. I also couldn't relate to my parents more "devout" (read "pious, pretentious, and controlling") hard line ideology of Roman Catholicism, I took a much more lenient and humanitarian view of my religion than they did, and that's why even though I would have certain views that contradict my religious beliefs, I'm ok with the cognitive dissonance it presents. That's why I identify as Roman Catholic, and why I also continue to work within the Church for change to their doctrines, rather than separating myself from that which I identify with, because then I know I wouldn't be happy. I know from past experience, having tried to separate myself from the Church, that I just wasn't happy.

Osgoodisgood

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Useful contribution, but did you miss the point where I said that the theories of evolution offer an explanation for the origins of life?

That's what happens when you sweat the small stuff and miss the bigger picture.

Evolution has exactly nothing to say about the origins of life. Evolution describes the process behind the diversity of life. How life began is the field of abiogenesis which is another subject altogether.

Where evolution and abiogenesis are commonly conflated is in the minds of creationists who get all itchy with both subjects because natural causes and explanations for both make their unsupported claims of gods and magic books all the more laughable.

Baggy Trousers

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well I can't answer for nox, but for myself I have investigated a number of different religions, including those above, and some of the lesser well known religions in an attempt to rationalise the idea of why I place any significance in religion, why do I actually need religion, what religion gives me that I can't get from some other ideology, those sort of questions...

And I couldn't actually relate mentally to any of the other religions, partly of course yes, because I lacked the lived experience of the origins of those religions, and partly because I simply couldn't incorporate their ideologies into my way of thinking.

So why not? I simply couldn't relate to them. I also couldn't relate to my parents more "devout" (read "pious, pretentious, and controlling") hard line ideology of Roman Catholicism, I took a much more lenient and humanitarian view of my religion than they did, and that's why even though I would have certain views that contradict my religious beliefs, I'm ok with the cognitive dissonance it presents. That's why I identify as Roman Catholic, and why I also continue to work within the Church for change to their doctrines, rather than separating myself from that which I identify with, because then I know I wouldn't be happy. I know from past experience, having tried to separate myself from the Church, that I just wasn't happy.

Yeah but it was very hard to relate to other religions when you weren't born into them and for want of a better word, "brainwashed" from birth.

Curly Judge

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Yeah but it was very hard to relate to other religions when you weren't born into them and for want of a better word, "brainwashed" from birth.

True...Marian apparitions are rather thin on the ground around either Mecca or Wall Street.

One eyed Jack

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Yeah but it was very hard to relate to other religions when you weren't born into them and for want of a better word, "brainwashed" from birth.

My sister was also as you would put it "brainwashed" from birth (I'm not gonna get picky about the word again because there's a bigger point to be made here), and she was able to relate easier to Islam. Two of my brothers identify as atheist (with a hefty dollop of facepalm inducing anti-theism), yet they still participated in the Roman Catholic rituals when it came to their weddings and baptism of their children (I'm Godfather to one of 'em), and my other two brothers aren't bothered at all about the whole thing, they aren't pushed, they just don't particularly care.

I think the closest of the other religions I investigated that I could relate to was the Baha'i faith, but because the Church is more than just it's commonly shared beliefs, there is that essence of community that I relate to that I just couldn't relate to the non-structural approach of atheism. There's an online community of an atheist movement, but from my perspective it's very disconnected and disjointed, effectively rendering it meaningless to me.

Saipanne

Imagine desiring so badly to want, nay, need to be part of something... ANYTHING, that you would be willing to believe anything just to avoid the pitiless indifference of reality... of the universe.

Now you understand the mind and motivation of the religious.

One eyed Jack

Saipanne wrote: »

Imagine desiring so badly to want, nay, need to be part of something... ANYTHING, that you would be willing to believe anything just to avoid the pitiless indifference of reality... of the universe.

Now you understand the mind and motivation of the religious.

Well you clearly missed the point. For me it wasn't a choice. I don't think you actually do understand the mind and motivation of a religious person, never mind the mindset and motivation of billions of people across the world.

Again, I can only speak for myself when I say my motivation is not in any way related to what you call "the pitless indifference of reality... of the universe" (Carl Sagan would also disagree with you that the universe is FAR from a "pitless reality"), and that's exactly where I was coming from with the comparison to a belief in extraterrestrial life beyond planet earth.

Imagine so badly to want, nay, need to be part of something that you would be willing to believe extraterrestrial life exists in the universe. We don't yet have the instruments to prove it, but I would say it's only a matter of time.

Now you understand the mind and motivation of a person who is interested in scientific research and discovery.


It really shouldn't come as a surprise to you that they may be one and the same person, unless of course you were too narrow minded to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of such a person... and that's only on this planet!

Maximus Alexander

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm open to correction of course, I'm here to learn, no need for a thesis on it either, a simple explanation as to why or where I'm incorrect would do, because genuinely I seem to be missing it.

Fair play to you for saying this, it's pretty rare.

I'll give it one last crack, as best I can.

You said:

One eyed Jack wrote:

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

This isn't true. A theory isn't something that's waiting to become fact - that can't happen, they're different things.

A theory is an explanation for natural phenomena. It needs to make falsifiable predictions about the natural world that can be tested. When these predictions are tested, data is gathered - facts that either support or discredit the theory.

When all of the predictions have been tested and verified, the theory remains a theory, but it is no longer in doubt. It is an accurate explanation for some element of the natural world. Theories don't graduate into anything, they don't become facts or laws, they simply either succeed in describing something, or they fail.

Take Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. It is a theory that describes something we observe, it makes predictions, over the last century those predictions have been tested and shown to be correct. It is supported by many lines of evidence; many facts. Relativity is not "just a theory", it is a description of gravity. It is not in doubt.

It may later be supplanted by something else, such as the "Theory of Everything". Indeed we hope it will be, but that won't make General Relativity wrong, just as General Relativity superseded Newtonian Mechanics without making it wrong.

In short, General Relativity will always be a theory, but it is not in doubt. The same goes for evolution.

I... hope this makes sense?

One eyed Jack

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Fair play to you for saying this, it's pretty rare.

I'll give it one last crack, as best I can.

You said:



This isn't true. A theory isn't something that's waiting to become fact - that can't happen, they're different things.

A theory is an explanation for natural phenomena. It needs to make falsifiable predictions about the natural world that can be tested. When these predictions are tested, data is gathered - facts that either support or discredit the theory.

When all of the predictions have been tested and verified, the theory remains a theory, but it is no longer in doubt. It is an accurate explanation for some element of the natural world. Theories don't graduate into anything, they don't become facts or laws, they simply either succeed in describing something, or they fail.

Take Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. It is a theory that describes something we observe, it makes predictions, over the last century those predictions have been tested and shown to be correct. It is supported by many lines of evidence; many facts. Relativity is not "just a theory", it is a description of gravity. It is not in doubt.

It may later be supplanted by something else, such as the "Theory of Everything". Indeed we hope it will be, but that won't make General Relativity wrong, just as General Relativity superseded Newtonian Mechanics without making it wrong.

In short, General Relativity will always be a theory, but it is not in doubt. The same goes for evolution.

I... hope this makes sense?

It does now Max, and I appreciate the time taken by yourself and the other lads to explain it. Cheers for that

Jamsiek

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

The census is the official way the country finds out this information and according to the census 83% of people in Ireland are catholic.

The government can quite legitimately hold up the census and say that the country is more than 3/4 catholic and therefore things like catholic schools etc should obviously remain.

Its hilarious how people want rid of catholic schools here when in places like the UK people jump through every hoop imaginable to get into them as they are far better schools.

I recently read that the fastest growing religion in Ireland is Islam so does that mean tax payers will have to pay for Muslim schools if they become the majority?

Grayson

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

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

Internally you can believe in God and still think like a scientist but that's where it stops. If you start believing that a man was born 2000 years ago who was actually God and that he came down so he could kill himself to make himself happy, that's not really compatible with science.

God and science though? that's ok.

Another example is the intelligent design argument. I actually like Intelligent design. I should clarify that. I like the original teleological argument, that's the original argument for intelligent design. It can be read as saying that God created everything, if we evolved from apes than that's Gods plan/design. It's a way for science and theism not to be in direct conflict.
Intelligent design as practised by fundamentalists is crazy. It aims to prove that Noah etc actually happened. It says that men and dinosaurs existed as the same time.
The problem is that the concept of God isn't in direct opposition to science but religious texts are.

(Just as a side note I don't believe in God. I think that rationally it's the only valid position. A lot of atheists who think like me would actually be appalled when I said that God isn't in opposition to science. What I mean is that it's possible to believe that God or a creator exists and still be able to be an objective scientist Editing to add: And I've caught up with the rest of the thread. A God that intervenes in everyday life through miracles etc isn't compatible with science. I just mean a God like Aristotle's efficient cause. The one that created the universe is compatible)

Akrasia

Johnathan Slow Pensioner wrote:

Of course you will root around until you find "facts" written to fit your views.

Huh?

You claim to be an educated person, yet you refuse to look at the evidence. You were the one who made a claim about 'the truth behind christmas'

Outside of fundamentalists, the vast majority of theologians will admit that the nativity story is a fiction. It's a myth, it's not truth. Believers will search for 'meaning' behind the stories and they will conclude that because you can learn from an allegory that it has some kind of deeper 'truth' than an simply being a true historical event, but if that is the case, then Animal farm is just as true as the nativity scene, in fact, it's much more true because it's messages are much more potent and relevant to society than some kid being born in a hayshed surrounded by donkeys and 'wise men'

Bootros Bootros

Jamsiek wrote: »

I recently read that the fastest growing religion in Ireland is Islam so does that mean tax payers will have to pay for Muslim schools if they become the majority?

Maybe before. We pay for anglican schools

Peist2007

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well I can't answer for nox, but for myself I have investigated a number of different religions, including those above, and some of the lesser well known religions in an attempt to rationalise the idea of why I place any significance in religion, why do I actually need religion, what religion gives me that I can't get from some other ideology, those sort of questions...

And I couldn't actually relate mentally to any of the other religions, partly of course yes, because I lacked the lived experience of the origins of those religions, and partly because I simply couldn't incorporate their ideologies into my way of thinking.

So why not? I simply couldn't relate to them. I also couldn't relate to my parents more "devout" (read "pious, pretentious, and controlling") hard line ideology of Roman Catholicism, I took a much more lenient and humanitarian view of my religion than they did, and that's why even though I would have certain views that contradict my religious beliefs, I'm ok with the cognitive dissonance it presents. That's why I identify as Roman Catholic, and why I also continue to work within the Church for change to their doctrines, rather than separating myself from that which I identify with, because then I know I wouldn't be happy. I know from past experience, having tried to separate myself from the Church, that I just wasn't happy.

So, place of birth then.

Akrasia

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

What Science? Scientists? The reason more and more people are turning away from religion isn't because of people, it's because of cover-ups, corruption, having to follow stupid rules so they won't be condemned, violence being committed in the name of certain religions etc. It's not because of outside influences.

I think that's part of the reason, but the main one is that religion is full of very very silly concepts, and for thousands of years, people 'believed' what they were told to believe by their family, and the power structures of the state and religious institutions. Most people didn't know anything about the theology behind their religion, most people could not read or speak latin and had no way of critically assessing the ideas behind their religion.

Religion in the 21st century is rapidly declining amongst the most educated people with the best access to information. Conversely, religion is thriving in the most uneducated and most restrictive societies where information access is much more tightly controlled.

The scandals in the church cause people to question their faith, but what causes them to lose their faith is the answers they get when they critically assess what it is they're supposed to actually believe in. 'Well, it's nonsense isn't it'

One eyed Jack

Peist2007 wrote: »

So, place of birth then.

Yes? What's your point?

If I were born anywhere else other than Ireland it stands to reason that I would most likely adopt the religion I was most able to relate to, be that Islam, Judaism, Voodoo, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christian, or any number of other religions you can think of?

Because that is the way my mind works. You're not making any special point by pointing that out. You might as well be saying to someone - you're only gay because you're gay!

Akrasia

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes? What's your point?

If I were born anywhere else other than Ireland it stands to reason that I would most likely adopt the religion I was most able to relate to, be that Islam, Judaism, Voodoo, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christian, or any number of other religions you can think of?

Because that is the way my mind works. You're not making any special point by pointing that out. You might as well be saying to someone - you're only gay because you're gay!

The point is related to the truth of your beliefs.

If you believe something because you have examined the evidence and conclude that the evidence supports the belief, this is an entirely different position than believing something because you were told to believe it as a child.

Also, the fact that you admit you would likely believe in other religions if you had been born into other cultures raises the obvious response of 'if those other religions contradict christianity, they can't all be true' And you've admitted that you would happily believe in things that aren't actually true based on accidents of birth.

You used the example of sexuality but it was not a true analogy. Sexuality in individuals is relatively fixed. Adults can not generally choose who they are attracted to. If you describe a gay man as a gay man, then this is an objective truth

If you were born into a culture that denied that homosexuality actually exists, and you happened to be gay, but lived your life as though you were heterosexual, it wouldn't change the truth of your sexuality. You might be able to convince yourself that you are straight and live as a straight person, but the truth would be that you were gay. (obviously, sexuality is not a black and white issue and there are a wide range of sexual preferences, but i'm ignoring these for the purpose of argument I'm only talking about someone who would otherwise identify as 100% gay)

One eyed Jack

Akrasia wrote: »

I think that's part of the reason, but the main one is that religion is full of very very silly concepts, and for thousands of years, people 'believed' what they were told to believe by their family, and the power structures of the state and religious institutions. Most people didn't know anything about the theology behind their religion, most people could not read or speak latin and had no way of critically assessing the ideas behind their religion.

I can quote you chapter and verse of the Bible in English, Latin or even Irish if you prefer? Ask anyone older than me and they will tell you they were taught Latin in school, and that only up until very recently in Ireland, masses were said in Latin. I'm pretty sure they're said in Latin in parts of Brazil too which the vast majority are Roman Catholics due to the earliest European settlers.

Religion in the 21st century is rapidly declining amongst the most educated people with the best access to information. Conversely, religion is thriving in the most uneducated and most restrictive societies where information access is much more tightly controlled.

That explains atheism among affluent white people in the US, it doesn't go anywhere near explaining black atheism in the same country?

The scandals in the church cause people to question their faith, but what causes them to lose their faith is the answers they get when they critically assess what it is they're supposed to actually believe in. 'Well, it's nonsense isn't it'

I think it's far more complex than just "I read <insert holy book or books of choice here> and now I'm atheist". That might apply to some people, but there are many more reasons people lose their faith, or people never had faith in the first place, or to put it rather simply - some people just don't give a shìt, nothing to do with thinking critically or any of the rest of it.

If you watch a couple of interviews with Richard Dawkins, you'll see how he is also quick to abandon critical thinking when it suits him, such as an interview with a BBC journalist in which within minutes of meeting him, Richard declares that both he and the journalist are "too intelligent for that" (referring to religion) simply because the journalist identifies himself as agnostic. In the Late Late Show interview with Pat Kenny, within minutes of stepping on stage, Dawkins dismisses most of the people in the audience as delusional. Now, he is, in MY opinion at least, either the biggest troll-hard to ever walk the face of the planet, an incredibly intelligent, astute and articulate individual that knows exactly what he's doing when he's either brown-nosing journalists or baiting an audience... or he's simply an arrogant, small-minded, angry, bitter little man with some massive chips on his shoulders.

I still haven't decided conclusively, but he's a bit like Marilyn Monroe for me - you can either love him or hate him, but you can't ignore him. I think I just pity him tbh. I only pity him because he comes across as an individual so full of seething bitterness at the fact that other people impose their will upon other people, so he justifies his own behaviour by doing the very same thing, only from the opposite end of the spectrum.

People don't suddenly become intelligent if they abandon their faith, and claims to that effect are indeed what's nonsense. A statement like that though, correlating a person's intelligence with their absence of belief (notwithstanding the fact that it's clearly unscientific), it plays well with those people who have an egotistical personality and think of themselves as intellectually superior to those around them already.

If these people genuinely were, or are that intelligent, then why are they not the people with all the power, instead of the hillbilly plebs like the Bush dynasty? Too many less intelligent people voting less intelligent people into positions of power? That doesn't sound right, does it? How can a minority of more intelligent people have less power than the vast majority of lesser intelligent people?

It'd be nice if someone could offer me a logical, hell I'll even take plausible, explanation for that one.

endacl

Yizzers are all wrong. And so amn't I.

\thread.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes? What's your point?

Having been raised in a Catholic country and attended a Catholic school, I can relate to Roman Catholicism much more easily than to fundamentalist Christianity, or any kind of Islam. If you like, I'm a Catholic atheist.

But relating to it does not mean I believe it is true.

It really makes no difference to you whether your religion is true or false, as long as you can relate to it?

kylith

Akrasia wrote: »

I think that's part of the reason, but the main one is that religion is full of very very silly concepts, and for thousands of years, people 'believed' what they were told to believe by their family, and the power structures of the state and religious institutions. Most people didn't know anything about the theology behind their religion, most people could not read or speak latin and had no way of critically assessing the ideas behind their religion.

As well as that, until relatively recently it was simply illegal to be an atheist, or if not actually illegal as good as since you would be a pariah in the community. There was huge social pressure to at least appear to be religious especially if, like scientists, you need to get funding or sponsorship from institutions.

Akrasia

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can quote you chapter and verse of the Bible in English, Latin or even Irish if you prefer? Ask anyone older than me and they will tell you they were taught Latin in school, and that only up until very recently in Ireland, masses were said in Latin. I'm pretty sure they're said in Latin in parts of Brazil too which the vast majority are Roman Catholics due to the earliest European settlers.

Simply reading the bible or understanding the mass does not make you fully informed on your religion. To fully understand anything, you need to approach it from multiple perspectives. Discourse needs to be open and free and people should be able to propose challenging perspectives without fear of reproach

The last few generations are not representative of the past 2000 years.
For the majority of human history, most people were illiterate and religion was heavily tied together with politics so that to challenge the ideas of the church, was not just blasphemy, but close to insurrection against the state and likely to get you hanged.

Books that challenged religious orthodoxy were routinely banned so even if you could read, the only books you could find were those that promoted the religion of the state.

In Ireland up until very recently, the state censors were amongst the most restrictive in the world. We couldn't even watch the life of Brian or The Meaning of Life because they contained religious satire.

That explains atheism among affluent white people in the US, it doesn't go anywhere near explaining black atheism in the same country?

Atheism is increasing in all demographic sectors of America, but the slowest increases are amongst the poorest least educated people. Poor uneducated people are the most likely to strongly believe in their faith. As people gain education, they are more likely to either leave the religion entirely, or move to a less fundamentalist version of their religion. In many parts of america, there are doubtless a great number of non believers who are afraid to identify as atheists because the culture in many parts of america is still dominated by religion, but this is changing, and changing fast.

I think it's far more complex than just "I read <insert holy book or books of choice here> and now I'm atheist". That might apply to some people, but there are many more reasons people lose their faith, or people never had faith in the first place, or to put it rather simply - some people just don't give a shìt, nothing to do with thinking critically or any of the rest of it.

You're right, it definitely is more complex than just reading books. it's not just individuals losing their faith, it's a social shift that involves entire populations.

As society becomes secular, the legal barriers to abandoning religion are removed along with social and cultural barriers. Religion thrives best when everyone believes the same thing, as religions become fragmented, the tide turns against religion and it becomes socially acceptable to stop believing
Social pressure is a massive barrier to leaving a religion and what we are seeing now, is a re-adjustment where people no longer feel any obligation to maintain the faith and are free to openly believe in what they find most convincing.

If you watch a couple of interviews with Richard Dawkins, you'll see how he is also quick to abandon critical thinking when it suits him, such as an interview with a BBC journalist in which within minutes of meeting him, Richard declares that both he and the journalist are "too intelligent for that" (referring to religion) simply because the journalist identifies himself as agnostic. In the Late Late Show interview with Pat Kenny, within minutes of stepping on stage, Dawkins dismisses most of the people in the audience as delusional. Now, he is, in MY opinion at least, either the biggest troll-hard to ever walk the face of the planet, an incredibly intelligent, astute and articulate individual that knows exactly what he's doing when he's either brown-nosing journalists or baiting an audience... or he's simply an arrogant, small-minded, angry, bitter little man with some massive chips on his shoulders.

I've watched many interviews with Richard Dawkins and I don't think he is bitter or angry or that he abandons critical thinking.
He thinks believing in things that are not real is a delusion, and he is correct. So to call believers in ghosts or fairies or gods delusional is simply a frank description of how he sees the world.

It's shocking to many people to have these beliefs questioned because it has long been culturally unacceptable to talk honestly about religion or to question someone elses faith. Religion has a privileged position in social discourse where it is considered impolite to challenge those beliefs.

By dawkins and others openly questioning the existence of god, and not tip-toeing around the sensitivities of believers, he is going to be viewed as a troll, but trolls by definition, are looking for arguments simply for argument sake, Dawkins firmly believes that we should believe things that are true and we should critically assess the evidence for things before we reach a conclusion.

People don't suddenly become intelligent if they abandon their faith, and claims to that effect are indeed what's nonsense. A statement like that though, correlating a person's intelligence with their absence of belief (notwithstanding the fact that it's clearly unscientific), it plays well with those people who have an egotistical personality and think of themselves as intellectually superior to those around them already.

Of course People don't become intelligent from abandoning religion, there are plenty of moronic atheists. But if someone learns the tools of critical thinking and scepticism (which often lead to atheism) then they will be better placed to make the most of whatever intelligence they have.

If these people genuinely were, or are that intelligent, then why are they not the people with all the power, instead of the hillbilly plebs like the Bush dynasty? Too many less intelligent people voting less intelligent people into positions of power? That doesn't sound right, does it? How can a minority of more intelligent people have less power than the vast majority of lesser intelligent people?

It'd be nice if someone could offer me a logical, hell I'll even take plausible, explanation for that one.

The skillset and personality traits required to be a successfull politician are not related to someone's 'intelligence'. The psychological processes involved in democratic elections are hugely complex and multi factoral and nobody should really expect that the very best leaders will always be elected and promoted to power.

One eyed Jack

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Having been raised in a Catholic country and attended a Catholic school, I can relate to Roman Catholicism much more easily than to fundamentalist Christianity, or any kind of Islam. If you like, I'm a Catholic atheist.

But relating to it does not mean I believe it is true.

It really makes no difference to you whether your religion is true or false, as long as you can relate to it?

That pretty much sums it up, yes, because for me, I think it would be utterly nonsensical to hold myself to a standard which I know I could never humanly achieve (I'd be a popular guy if I could turn water into wine, certainly, but scientifically speaking I know it's just not something I as a human being could ever do!). I don't believe everything I read in the Bible, but it makes for compelling reading nonetheless, and I regard it the same way I would the works of Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde or James Joyce. They are stories and accounts written by human beings that are not and should not (IMO) be taken literally, or as gospel if you like

The Bible, or the Quran or the Torah, etc, like any scriptures should only serve as a guide, and not an instruction manual. There are people who are far more well up on this stuff than I am, and just like I'd get a second or even third opinion from a doctor if I thought the first doctor was a quack who was telling me fairy stories, I would question a lot of what I read as the doctrines of the various religions.

I'm constantly questioning my faith, and that's how I formed my own ideology, taking bits from here, there and everywhere. I mentioned earlier that I tried to abandon my faith, tried to ignore it, tried to tell myself that such nonsense had no place in my life and wasn't for me, and that's why I used the sexuality analogy, because for me, from my perspective, my faith, the actual presence of a belief itself (religion only gives that faith context and a way to understand it), is as intrinsic a part of who I am as a person, as my sexuality is a part of who I am as a person.

I tried to ignore it, abandon it, cast it aside (used all manner of drugs, alcohol and even sex to suppress it), but none of those held the same equivalent meaning for me as accepting and understanding that the feelings and the thoughts weren't going to go away. I had to learn to embrace them and accept them in the same way as my friend who is transgender and also Roman Catholic had to accept that she could not pretend to be a homosexual man. It just isn't who she is as a person. It was through meeting her that I finally learned to accept that it's ok to be religious. The thing that's not ok is when you try to impose your way of thinking on other people. People who are content in themselves don't impose their way of thinking on other people, and people who are not content in themselves will tend to make it their business to impose their way of thinking on other people, and claim that anyone who doesn't think the way they do is somehow less of a person.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I get what you're saying there nozzferahtoo, but where do you actually draw the line between attacking an idea, and attacking the person who holds the idea so fundamentally as a part of who they are

I see no reason to draw any such line. I merely attack ideas, not people. How dearly or closely that person holds to that idea.... is wholly irrelevant to me. I see no cause or reason for me to pander to this at all.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you base everything you believe in on the presence, or indeed the absence of evidence, then you're missing the whole point of 'faith'.

I do not agree there is a "point" to it in the first place worth missing. To me this "faith" thing is just a word that means you believe something without evidence. Or, to be more accurate and pedantic, it is the practice of using the conclusion as evidence for the conclusion. The self confirmation bias of assuming the conclusion correct and fitting the evidence to it.

A great example I often trot out for this are 23ists. These are people who think the number 23 permeates all reality and is indicative of some conspiracy behind it. A Jim Carey film was made on the subject.

If you assume this to be true and view reality through this lense and seek or warp evidence that supports it, guess what, it works. Perfectly. The belief will be validated. Problem is it works for just about every other number too, especially prime numbers.

But the 23ist cult are convinced by it. That is "faith" to me. The practice of assuming the conclusion true as a necessary part of establishing the conclusion to be true.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

where does that leave you when someone tells you that they are not the gender they appear to be?

Probably not the best analogy because actually reason helps us quite heavily there. We have very strong and informative conclusions on why such people feel that way. Science has pretty much got this one answered, its just the formality of verifying it with the scientific method.

That is how science works. Anecdote is not evidence but it is an indicator of where we should direct our research. And we HAVE directed our research at people making this gender identity claim and we have made massive progress on explaining it. And their claims have strong merit.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Would you tell them that the idea they are not the gender they appear to be on the outside, is ridiculous, that it's all in their mind, that they are statistically of lesser intelligence because they believe in such nonsense with such fervor?

Not sure why you would even ask me this given my position on attacking the idea not the holder of it which you are replying to.

Clearly I would not make such comments because as I said I comment on the claims, not the people making the claims. Be it gender identity or religion, I have never ONCE suggested we should make comments about their "lesser intelligence" and actually I have several posts on this forum rubbishing the posts of those atheists who try to draw too much from correlation between religiosity and intelligence.

What we do in science is note the anecdote such people offer us and we research it when time and resources allow. If one single person reports this then clearly given limited resources they are not high on the prio list. If many people do, then clearly this pushes them up the list.

So what would I tell such a person? I would tell them all we know about the brain, give them the explanations we think currently explain, or are suggestive of an explanation, for their claims. And then stick them on the science To-Do list for later research.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So why then if someone identifies as Roman Catholic for instance, would you think it's acceptable to turn around to them and say "All the evidence says you're not, because you don't behave according to Roman Catholic doctrine, etc".

Have I ever done any such thing? If not, why are you directing this at me and not the people who have actually done it? Perhaps here, and in your comments about "happiness" you have mistaken me for some other user? As none of it appears to apply to me in any way. If someone enters into discussion with me on their being a Catholic then I would evaluate the Catholic Claims they are making. I would waste not a jot of energy evaluating, let alone commenting on, whether they appear to actually be catholic or not.

And why are you asking me about my opinion of Richard Dawkins? Again I have not mentioned him on this thread, he has nothing to do with me or anything I have said on this thread, and I care little for what one single man has said or done on the topic. If you feel Dawkins is not conducting himself in a cordial role or lacking in some decorum.... should it not be him you take this up with? I have no reason, nor motivation, to comment on him or his actions or words.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't believe everything I read in the Bible, but it makes for compelling reading nonetheless,

But as a Roman Catholic, you presumably recite the Creed every week. Out loud.

It goes "I believe in one God..." again, right? Like it did when I was a kid.

"I can really relate to the metaphorical concept of God..." is not quite the same thing. nox would probably not recognize your beliefs as being in the same religion as his, where he actually, literally believes in God.

Maximus Alexander

nozzferrahhtoo, I like you.

Akrasia

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I tried to ignore it, abandon it, cast it aside (used all manner of drugs, alcohol and even sex to suppress it), but none of those held the same equivalent meaning for me as accepting and understanding that the feelings and the thoughts weren't going to go away. I had to learn to embrace them and accept them in the same way as my friend who is transgender and also Roman Catholic had to accept that she could not pretend to be a homosexual man. It just isn't who she is as a person. It was through meeting her that I finally learned to accept that it's ok to be religious. The thing that's not ok is when you try to impose your way of thinking on other people. People who are content in themselves don't impose their way of thinking on other people, and people who are not content in themselves will tend to make it their business to impose their way of thinking on other people, and claim that anyone who doesn't think the way they do is somehow less of a person.

Fair enough

There really isn't any harm from holding a personal private belief and I don't know any atheists who would try to impose by force or law their own personal way of thinking onto others (nor would I choose to associate with such a person)

I know lots of people with all kinds of beliefs that I think are silly, and while I love engaging with them and exploring those beliefs with them, I would never dream of imposing my own beliefs onto them (as if I could)

I don't think the act of talking about something openly, or even the act of trying to convince someone else to change their mind is 'imposing' your belief onto them as long as it's not done in a way that 'compells' someone else to participate in the debate against their will.

It is for this reason that I oppose any religious involvement in legislation or education. Schools should all be secular. I oppose even private religious schools because I don't think parents have the right to forcibly indoctrinate their children (children as they get older can refuse to attend 'sunday school' if they decide they don't want to go, they can not refuse to attend school without long term consequences that will affect their life prospects)

nozzferrahhtoo

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo, I like you.

I strongly recommend you re-consider

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I see no reason to draw any such line. I merely attack ideas, not people. How dearly or closely that person holds to that idea.... is wholly irrelevant to me. I see no cause or reason for me to pander to this at all.

This, to me, simply reads as though you give no consideration to other people. You say you see no reason to pander to how dearly or closely that person holds their ideas, and if that is the case, then they will likely respond in kind, so there is no attempt made to understand each other. You simply end up talking over each other's heads.

I do not agree there is a "point" to it in the first place worth missing. To me this "faith" thing is just a word that means you believe something without evidence. Or, to be more accurate and pedantic, it is the practice of using the conclusion as evidence for the conclusion. The self confirmation bias of assuming the conclusion correct and fitting the evidence to it.

A great example I often trot out for this are 23ists. These are people who think the number 23 permeates all reality and is indicative of some conspiracy behind it. A Jim Carey film was made on the subject.

If you assume this to be true and view reality through this lense and seek or warp evidence that supports it, guess what, it works. Perfectly. The belief will be validated. Problem is it works for just about every other number too, especially prime numbers.

But the 23ist cult are convinced by it. That is "faith" to me. The practice of assuming the conclusion true as a necessary part of establishing the conclusion to be true.

Yep, you're definitely missing the point of faith. You want to argue whether something is true or false, when the whole point of faith is that you believe something to be true, not that you know for a fact whether it is true or false. I don't know for a fact that there IS a God or Gods, etc, but I believe that there is, not that I want to believe that there is. It's not something I have a conscious choice in. Religion gives people a common language to express this faith, some clearly more vehemently than others, and some people will indeed put their own spin on it.

Probably not the best analogy because actually reason helps us quite heavily there. We have very strong and informative conclusions on why such people feel that way. Science has pretty much got this one answered, its just the formality of verifying it with the scientific method.

That is how science works. Anecdote is not evidence but it is an indicator of where we should direct our research. And we HAVE directed our research at people making this gender identity claim and we have made massive progress on explaining it. And their claims have strong merit.

You missed the point of the analogy. A young child isn't aware of the psychology that explains why they may feel they are different from their ascribed gender, in the same way as a young child isn't aware of the psychology that explains why they have faith. It seems to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me as though you think everyone has a choice in the matter, and logic and reason will work that faith right out of them.

I just don't think it's that simple, and given you've stated earlier that you have no interest in the person, only in their ideas, given you think there's no point in faith, I don't think you'll ever understand why someone doesn't think the same way you do, because your mind is completely closed to the fundamental question as to why someone may have faith in the first place. I don't think it's as simple as "because they choose to", or "because they want to", or anything like the "self confirmation bias" ideas you're putting forward. I believe it goes much deeper than that. I believe that's the question science should be asking.

Not sure why you would even ask me this given my position on attacking the idea not the holder of it which you are replying to.

Clearly I would not make such comments because as I said I comment on the claims, not the people making the claims. Be it gender identity or religion, I have never ONCE suggested we should make comments about their "lesser intelligence" and actually I have several posts on this forum rubbishing the posts of those atheists who try to draw too much from correlation between religiosity and intelligence.

What we do in science is note the anecdote such people offer us and we research it when time and resources allow. If one single person reports this then clearly given limited resources they are not high on the prio list. If many people do, then clearly this pushes them up the list.

So what would I tell such a person? I would tell them all we know about the brain, give them the explanations we think currently explain, or are suggestive of an explanation, for their claims. And then stick them on the science To-Do list for later research.

I asked you the question simply because I was interested in your opinion, that's all. Has science ever questioned the reasons for why people have faith? How far up the priority list are they, given that evidence of people who have faith is a bit more than anecdotal at this point? To a person who has faith, have you tried to tell them all we know about the brain, give them explanations we think currently explain, or are suggestive of an explanation for their claims, and then stick them on the to-do list for later research? Have you ever researched this idea for yourself?

Have I ever done any such thing? If not, why are you directing this at me and not the people who have actually done it? Perhaps here, and in your comments about "happiness" you have mistaken me for some other user? As none of it appears to apply to me in any way. If someone enters into discussion with me on their being a Catholic then I would evaluate the Catholic Claims they are making. I would waste not a jot of energy evaluating, let alone commenting on, whether they appear to actually be catholic or not.

I didn't accuse you of doing so. I asked you would you think it was acceptable, not whether you would or wouldn't do it. I was directing the question at you because I was interested in your opinion. I haven't mistaken you for another user. You answered the question anyway so it's all good.

And why are you asking me about my opinion of Richard Dawkins? Again I have not mentioned him on this thread, he has nothing to do with me or anything I have said on this thread, and I care little for what one single man has said or done on the topic. If you feel Dawkins is not conducting himself in a cordial role or lacking in some decorum.... should it not be him you take this up with? I have no reason, nor motivation, to comment on him or his actions or words.

I asked for your opinion of Richard Dawkins because I was interested in your opinion of Richard Dawkins. It's a discussion forum nozzferahtoo, I like to discuss ideas and learn from other people who have different opinions to my own and see do we share any common ground or understanding. Dawkins doesn't seem to respect or regard anyone who has a difference of opinion to his own, and that's why I believe he is damaging to Atheism, he has been a negative influence on Atheism, rather than a positive one. I believe that anyone who isn't open to understanding a person as a whole, and where their ideas come from, that lack of understanding is going to be a stumbling block in enabling them to put forward their own ideas.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But as a Roman Catholic, you presumably recite the Creed every week. Out loud.

It goes "I believe in one God..." again, right? Like it did when I was a kid.

Well, not really "out loud", but I get what you mean. I do believe in one God, it doesn't say "I know there is one God". I don't know there's one God, and that whole "one true religion" thing, I don't buy that either. I think that all the different religions have pretty much the same thing in common though - the belief in the existence of a supernatural deity or deities. They just have different names for them, and there's nothing wrong with that IMO.

"I can really relate to the metaphorical concept of God..." is not quite the same thing. nox would probably not recognize your beliefs as being in the same religion as his, where he actually, literally believes in God.

I know what you mean, but in fairness I can't answer for nox. Two different people, so nox is going to read something one way, I'm going to read it another way and could relate to it completely differently to the way he does. One of the reasons why I ever began to question faith and religion and the whole lot in the first place wasn't simply because I read the Bible, but because my parents inflicted intolerable physical, mental and emotional cruelty upon me in the name of religion, and I felt that they were corrupting religion to justify their behaviour, which of course I couldn't explain at the time, but I felt that what they were doing was wrong. I had nothing to compare it to at the time, it was nothing more than instinct I had to go on.

Akrasia wrote: »

There really isn't any harm from holding a personal private belief and I don't know any atheists who would try to impose by force or law their own personal way of thinking onto others (nor would I choose to associate with such a person)

I know lots of people with all kinds of beliefs that I think are silly, and while I love engaging with them and exploring those beliefs with them, I would never dream of imposing my own beliefs onto them (as if I could)

I don't think the act of talking about something openly, or even the act of trying to convince someone else to change their mind is 'imposing' your belief onto them as long as it's not done in a way that 'compells' someone else to participate in the debate against their will.

That's cool, I know plenty of people who identify as atheist who would try and impose by force or law their own personal way of thinking on others, but I'm fortunate enough too that I know far more people who identify as atheist who think like you do. I don't think that's peculiar to atheism though, I think it's just dependent on the mindset of the individual.

It is for this reason that I oppose any religious involvement in legislation or education. Schools should all be secular. I oppose even private religious schools because I don't think parents have the right to forcibly indoctrinate their children (children as they get older can refuse to attend 'sunday school' if they decide they don't want to go, they can not refuse to attend school without long term consequences that will affect their life prospects)

I also oppose any religious involvement in Government or education and I believe State schools should be secular. I don't agree with interference in private schools or interfering in parent's decisions in how they choose to raise their children with regard to their religious beliefs or indeed their absence of belief, or anywhere in between. I don't think the State should be allowed to impose at that level, and I don't see how it could be legislated for or policed either. That's not a secular State, that's getting into fascism, and I for one would oppose such a move. I don't think you'd gain much support for such an idea either tbh.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This, to me, simply reads as though you give no consideration to other people.

If that is the spin you wish to put on it then sure ok. The point is that consideration for others has its place. And pandering to their vicarious offence if you question their beleifs is not one of them. Thinking consideration does apply in a given case, is not the same as me having absolutely no consideration for other people. That is like saying that because I do not eat peas, I do not eat anything.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

so there is no attempt made to understand each other. You simply end up talking over each other's heads.

I can not speak for anyone else in a conversation with me, or their attempts to "understand" me. But my not pandering to offence when I question ideas is not the same as me not trying to understand them. Quite the opposite in fact. I evaluate the claims they make. That involves understanding the claims. As above I think you are just putting some spin on something and coming up with a result that does not describe me at all accurately.

I will attempt to understand, then accept or rebut, a persons claims, position or ideas when they espouse them. Simple as that. Whether it offends them for me to do so or not.

Sometimes more so because while you might wax lyrical about pandering to such offence and how I should be more motivated to understand the other person and listen to them..... the fact is I do try to understand people and listen to them. But I have seen the "offence" card being used too often to shut down discourse and it is actually the person doing so, not me, that you should be directing your ire at for not being motivated to consider the other persons point of view deeply enough. As I say: Not pandering to such things is not the same as having no interest or understanding in them, or the other persons view point. Shutting down discourse because "It offends me" however: very much is.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yep, you're definitely missing the point of faith.

Nope. And you simply declaring that I am, does not make it so. I also think faith should be personal. If someone actively espouses or vocalizes their belief then I do not care if it is "faith" or not. They have made a truth claim, and it is fair game for evaluation, rebuttal, consideration or anything else. So it is not that I have "missed the point" of anything. It is that I do not think the "point" is applicable in the first place.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Religion gives people a common language to express this faith

Or, as is all too often that case, it gives them a way for other people to express it for them without them having to. Or to teach them what to think on the matter so they do not have to make any conclusions themselves.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You missed the point of the analogy.

The analogy being a poor one does not mean I missed anything.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It seems to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me as though you think everyone has a choice in the matter, and logic and reason will work that faith right out of them.

You are indeed wrong. It is the faithists that tell me I have "chosen" to reject belief in god when I have done no such thing. Belief for me is not a choice. I can not speak on anyone else. I can not choose to believe or not believe a claim. And I can not get into the head space of people who can. There is either compelling substantiation for a claim, in which case I can not help but subscribe to it, or there is not.

For the existence of your god, I am not aware of any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer from anyone.... much less you.... to suggest such an entity exists. IF pointing out this fact happen to offend some people.... bully for them. Not my problem and not for me to pander to in any way.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

your mind is completely closed to the fundamental question as to why someone may have faith in the first place.

Quite the contrary. I have studied this heavily. I find it very interesting as Human Psychology and neuroscience are top of my list of areas of interest and study. As is evolutionary biology. And I can write reams of pages on the subject of why our species has religious belief and faith and so forth.

I just think these things to be, while interesting, wholly irrelevant to the points I am making here about the evaluation and rebuttal of ideas.... and how (not at all as it happens) we should modify or structure that behaviour in the light of people getting antsy and haughty when we engage in it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I believe that's the question science should be asking.

Has science ever questioned the reasons for why people have faith?

And it does. At great length. There are some wonderful studies current on the matter too with people evaluating what "belief" even is at the level of the brain. Data and results from which will be massively interesting on the subject.

And we have looked at it from an evolutionary perspective too. Massively interesting here is the concepts of "The Intentional Stance" and "Hyper Active Agency Detection" both of which together explain the religious impulse quite powerfully and well. It is inate in our species, for good evolutionary reason, to view an object, or event, with the perspective of "Who did this and what is their intention towards me". And this is the core of the religious impulse when looking at the universe.

Further, due to the rise of mirror neurons and the ability to adopt the perspective of others, we are a species powerfully prone to anthropomorphic tendency. It is a small step to apply this to the universe and existence and then coupled with the IS and HAAD mentioned above, to simply see a mind behind it all and hence a god.

And on top of all these we are a pattern seeking animal to an extreme that means we see patterns where none actually exist. Which for people infected with this faith meme means they will quite quickly see evidence.... not actually there.... which will powerfully verify their religious notions to them. The "seeing a sign" type people and people who just see verification of the god claims in the world around them.

I could go on. And on. With more things like this that explain the religious impulse and why people have it, and when submission to these impulses and simply thinking true what our inate impulses have us feel is true, is about all the stock I put in what your "faith" actually is.

Suffice to say however, the answer to your question as to whether science has turned its eye to the question of faith is very much a yes.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn't accuse you of doing so. I asked you would you think it was acceptable, not whether you would or wouldn't do it. I was directing the question at you because I was interested in your opinion.

Whether it is acceptable? If it were to be shown to be true that the religious were of statistically lesser intelligence on average than people without religion, then of course it would be acceptable to point this out. It would be a fact. And I have no issue with pointing out facts. If facts offend people then, as I am sure you know by now, I do not actually care.

The fact is it is not true however. Religious people come from all walks of life and levels of intelligence and in fact there are good arguments as to why the more intelligent people can be more prone to religious thought. In our great scientific minds for example we see Hubris at play. There have been minds that, when they reached the limits of their ability to explain something, appealed to a god. Even Newton did this when he could not wholly explain the motion of the planets. The motivation for this being they feel if they can not explain it with their great intellect, then there must be a god at play behind it. So god beleif in them validates their own limitations to their great intellect.

But thats just one example. There are many reasons why highly intelligent people are religious. There have been some correlation with religious thought and intelligence and education levels. But I do not put much stock in them so far. I do not think being religious means someone is stupid, less intelligent or less educated. Intellectually lazy yes, in many many cases, but that is about all.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I asked for your opinion of Richard Dawkins because I was interested in your opinion of Richard Dawkins.

On the subject of religion I have few opinions about the man. He is a useful media presence in establishing atheism in the public consciousness and discourse. And a gateway point for people who have not consider the subject too deeply. I do not find him remotely as rude or condescending as many people try to make him out to be (motivated by their offence usually rather than any actual examples of lack of decorum from him in reality). Nor do I see any negative influence as you describe. And I tire of witnessing people misrepresent things he has said for their own ends.

Other than that, no real opinion on the man on the subject of religion. Most of my opinions of him relate to his work on biology.

One eyed Jack

Such grandiose verbosity, and yet nothing worth responding to.


"Gratiano speaks an infinite deal of nothing, more than any man in all Venice. His reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff—you shall seek all day ere you find them, and when you have them they are not worth the search."

The Merchant of Venice, Act 1, Scene 1.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Such grandiose verbosity, and yet nothing worth responding to.

Quite the cop out there. Reply to nothing, but throw in a baseless throw away remark to cover the departure. Especially given your own posts. Or perhaps you were referring to your own posts here. Quite accurately. I however do not cop out of replying to them despite this.

If you can not, or will not, reply to anything I have written then no one is forcing you to do so. But let us not act like the failing is mine, not yours.

nozzferrahhtoo

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I see no reason to draw any such line. I merely attack ideas, not people. How dearly or closely that person holds to that idea.... is wholly irrelevant to me. I see no cause or reason for me to pander to this at all.

I see no difference, an attack on my ideas or beliefs is an attack on me as far as I'm concerned.

nozzferrahhtoo

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

I see no difference, an attack on my ideas or beliefs is an attack on me as far as I'm concerned.

And that is your choice but as I said I am not seeing a reason for me to pander to this. Nor has anyone on the thread offered a reason.

If you wish to feel vicariously attacked on behalf of your ideas, that is by all means your choice to do so. It is entirely irrelevant to me and how I evaluate and discuss ideas however.