I'm guessing there's some sarcasm in there, but yes.
It also extends to needing a better reason to stick a fork in my eye than to not stick a fork in my eye.
Should science replace religion?
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
The same reason churches always want to regulate people's sex and reproductive lives: to keep the peons' noses to the grindstone. A woman with a baby to support is in no position to go on strike for better wages, or talk back to the boss, or be politically active; a wife who is forced to bear whatever number of kids her husband wants to make is never going to be independent and make herself heard.
Well oK... but by ridin the fence i sorta have the best of both worlds… an besides… i feel kinda special to say i have God beleifs.!!!
I've posted nothing of the kind. You know nothing about me, and nothing of my beliefs. And if you were paying attention, you'd see that I never suggested theistic belief is identical to other faiths. Where are you getting this? I've never denigrated anyone here, or anyone's belief systems. You do this a lot to Jan Ardena, and ruin perfectly good threads. You've labeled Bowser a racist in another thread. Please don't address/quote me any further. I think your posts are scary, to be honest.
Ah. The old "it doesn't say what I want, so it's an invalid poll" argument.
Now you're babbling.
It's an invalid poll because the question is poorly worded - it doesn't support the conclusion it drew.
I didn't actually check, though - maybe you misquoted the poll? I took your word for it, but you seem to be having trouble with my posts - I should have been more careful.
Meanwhile: Logic. Reason. They are important, even when you don't like where they take you. The fraction of creationists who do not screw around with micro vs macro evolution, and hold to the strict 10,000 years chronology, is disturbingly large - as the poll shows. But it is very far from a complete census of creationists.
And even a complete census of creationists in the US would be very far - an order of magnitude different - from a census of Christian creationists on this planet - the reference of the post you claimed to be responding to.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
The OP asks the question "Should science replace religion?". IMO, Science should replace the science in religion, otherwise they are two separate subjects. One answers empirical questions and the other is a philosophy to live by.
Were it not for the tendency of some to doubt scientific findings strictly because the Bible says otherwise, this would not even be a subject interesting enough to discuss. Science has nothing to do with religion if you don't try and make religion answer scientific questions.
No "circle jerk" required.
Were it not for the tendency of some to doubt scientific findings strictly because the Bible says otherwise, this would not even be a subject interesting enough to discuss. Science has nothing to do with religion if you don't try and make religion answer scientific questions.
No "circle jerk" required.
"Come all of you cowboys all over this land,
I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command:
To hold a six shooter, and never to run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns."
-- Woody Guthrie
I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command:
To hold a six shooter, and never to run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns."
-- Woody Guthrie
Never give up. Never give in.
I doubt that there is anyone--here, at least--who would disagree with this. That "one's beliefs must not harm others" is quite a caveat though.
But on the matter of "insults," well... 'fer instance, creationists--of the "God created humans in present form within last 10,000 years" variety--are dangerous idiots. Well, the ones in the affluent nations are; the ones without access to resources are simply ignorant, albeit still dangerous. This certainly sounds like an insult; however, it is also demonstrably true. There is really no other way with which to describe such person, other than to elaborate upon the myriad ways in which they are both dangerous and idiotic. That would certainly make for a more fruitful discussion, but it would not in any way alter the underlying fact.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
The fact is that there are a lot of people in this category too. It's not just the people you would imagine (Southern Rednecks). There are people who wouldn't disagree with most any commonly accepted scientific principles but...they just think that God created Man. It doesn't matter that if you follow that to its logical conclusion that a lot of commonly accepted science in all fields would have to change. They simply either don't realize that, don't want to realize that or don't care...to them God has to have created Man and that's it.
I've also noticed a tendency by some people, who are otherwise quite reasonable, to downplay the threat posed creationists. As though, by somehow keeping it out of the schools, out of the government, etc., the threat is somehow diminished or nullified. This doesn't work for racism or misogyny--legislation prohibiting discrimination and segregation help, but in no way address the root of the problems--and it doesn't work for human exceptionalism. Likewise, notions of "responsible stewardship" and the like might sound benign (well, to some), but they don't address the fundamental problem of people believing that everything under the sun exists solely for them and their kind.
Not to mention the recent elevation of Denial to the canon.
Now, that's dangerous.
Jared Diamond has security at his lectures now.
Interesting -- https://skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-of-scientific-denialism.html
Now, that's dangerous.
Jared Diamond has security at his lectures now.
Interesting -- https://skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-of-scientific-denialism.html
Last edited:
A few years ago, I read about “theistic evolution” which basically allows a believer to not have to choose between their Biblical views and science, when it comes to the origin of man. In summary, TE teaches that evolution was God-guided. Two obvious challenges with theistic evolution is that it still presupposes that humans have souls and how does one reconcile Genesis with ToE? Science conflicting with theism and vice versa, leaves me wondering at least, if this confuses more Christians than it helps.
Last edited:
That's why I confined my comments to your posting here. Unlike you, who projected unto me - and "atheists", even "all atheists" - lots of imaginary stuff - like "bad faith experiences" (which was, of course, another example of an apparent interchange of religion, theism, and faith.).
You have been repeatedly interchanging "faith" with theistic belief, in your posts. For example:
To emphasize: you are suggesting that I am attempting to speak for other people, and that I - as an atheist, according to your claim there - have no idea why people choose faith.
Aside from the fact that the whole post is a personal denigration of me based on false pretenses and misrepresentation of my posting, it also clearly separates atheistic people from those who know why someone would choose faith. Choosing faith/atheism - separated. See?
Now this is very common among theists, especially those raised in an Abrahamic religious society who post in places like this where there are atheistic folk around. They - you - have a hard time keeping faith, religion, and theistic belief, separated. Comes with the US territory. When it devolves to personal assertions, accusations, and innuendo, though, I confess to having lost patience. Ok, you are kind of fitting a preconception of mine that I try to keep from influencing my posts.
Sorry about that - but geez, aren't there any exceptions?
From your posts, which I take care to quote, so you can see for yourself.
btw: As an exercise, to illustrate my point: I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you have no idea, without taking the hint and rereading my posts more carefully, what my posted position on science and religion is. It's right here on this thread, in simple English sentences. It's a contribution to the thread discussion.
What drives this type of ignorance in an otherwise educated and prosperous society? Fear of abandoning their beliefs? Fear of questioning their beliefs? I wonder...
I’m surprised that I used the term “all,” when I’m always mindful to use “many,” for I rarely think in absolutes. So, it should have read “many.”
I’m not speaking for atheists and I separate faith from spirituality from religion. I’ve said that early on in so many words, but maybe got lazy as the thread went on. I assume for those following, that they know what I mean. If I may make a suggestion - Before you take a post personally, ask me to clarify next time. And I shall do the same before judging. I don’t know you, and my intent is not to insult anyone here. But, I can see your point.
Again, I know the difference. I was once a theist, then an atheist, then a deist and then now “just” a believer. No religion or theism attached. Again, if you ever wonder what I mean, just ask. : ) I don’t mean anyone harm.
Okay. Thank you...
I will go back and reread. Maybe I missed something along the way....
Last edited:
You are still posting otherwise. Your posts exhibit the confusion I pointed to. If you know the difference, don't post the confusion.
Ok: what do you mean by "bad faith experiences"?
You have now stated that you did not mean bad experiences with religion, religious representatives, or theists - you know the difference. But it's not clear what you did mean, that would affect so many atheists emotionally.
Wow.
Diamond isn't even a lefty.
Speculation: Diamond is an unusual voice in the arguments over race - he has a lot of experience as a scientist working with the most denigrated of the planet's racial groups (the lowest IQ, the least technically advanced, the most obviously "primitive", etc). He is going to trigger the bigots just by retailing the facts of his own experience, telling people about stuff he has seen and done personally.
If - as seems indicated by events - the racial bigotry endemic in the US since slavery is central to the politics also involved in science denial, Diamond is a two-fer in the triggering rack when he steps up to the podium.
I’m aware of the differences and I’m not posting as if all faith beliefs are the same. Why would I think this when I have identified with atheism, religion, and different faith beliefs on a personal level? This thread isn’t to test what I know about atheism, theism, religion, faith, etc. as if you are the authority. You constantly bring up Christianity as if that is the only religion, why? Because Christians are easy targets to insult? You don’t insult other religions, yet there are others that drink from a similar well.
You’re merely interested in insulting and degrading me so I’m done now. I would ask you to not reply, quote or address me further. Go bully someone else.
And as a general note, it’s not your questioning that is offensive, that’s what a forum like this is for. It’s how you question, as if you are trying to bait me and no answer will suffice. I gave you the benefit of the doubt yesterday, but I can see that was a mistake. So again, leave me alone on these forums. Thanks.
Last edited: