For some "no reason" may be enough, for others it is not, and for them faith steps in. What is embarrassing to you may not be to others, it is not embarrassing to hundreds of millions of people in fact. You (the atheists) seem to be more concerned about "embarrassment of religion" than the theists themselves.
So basically, even though religion has no truth in it whatsoever, people "need a reason" and therfore "need faith"?
I agree with that...however, that doesn't lend any legitimacy to religion.
Not at all - the war between Atheism and theism may be ancient, but the war between science and religion is a different one, and not one fought by a majority of people. Atheists like to distort the argument and involve science, but science is accepted by many theists, it is practiced by many theists and it is advanced by many theists - so there is no overarching conflict between Science and theism.
The war between religion and science is ancient, not the one between atheism and science.
Throughout history, those who question the existing order have been ruthlessly put down by the faithful.
You can look through all of it....Greek, Roman, English, Indian, Persian....all the histories have detailed records of how the "unfaithful" were punished.
That is the gist of my argument....that whenever a new idea has challenged the predominant faith...the proponent of said idea have been tortured, tried, hanged and their works burned. Who knows how much knowledge was lost through the ages because of these religious fanatics?
As long as science doesn't challenge the prevailing dogma, things are fine....
What you do have is nonacceptance of specific scientific theories, such as the creation of the universe, by some theists, not a negation of all science. It is therefore disingenuous of atheists to cast the argument as one between science and religion.
Negation of one scientific theory, without offering an equally viable theory, is a negation of science itself.
I will explain why.
Both the theory of Gravity, and the theory of evolution, have been derived by the same methods. Both theories are supported by a wide ranging variety of proofs and evidence.
However, the religious have no problem with the theory of gravity, because there is nothing in their holy books that contradicts it. However, when it comes to evolution, they would put aside all the evidence, all the proof, and blindly accept what their "holy" book tells them.
This has been true throughout history. When someone proposed that the area of a circle is pi times the square of the radius, nobody complained. But when someone proved logically that the earth is a sphere, it conflicted with the bible, and irrespective of what proof was on offer, the proponents had to undergo the horrible primitive thing called inquisition.
When any ideology allows power without checks and balances to an entity, you have the potential for chaos. Stalin, Mao, some of the Latin American dictators etc. are all examples of "non religious" chaos.
It doesn't matter whether the dogma involves god or not.
It is the attitude that matters, the attitude of accepting an ideology on faith.
It is the system, not the ideology per se`, that causes chaos.
It is the the idea of an overreaching dogma, which religion encourages, that causes chaos.
It does say something about your attitude, that as an atheist you are just as capable of jumping to invalid conclusions and labeling others without any strong evidence, as any theist would be.
Yes, we are all humans, and we are all prone to prejudices, assumptions, and shortcuts in logic called "faith".
...all the more reason why such tendencies need to be curbed, not encouraged, and religion, dogma, and circular-logic needs to be discouraged.
On the issue of hormones, I don't find them attractive, its a subjective/relative thing. I also don't find most Asian women attractive - what does that say about "my attitude towards science"?
The emotional reaction towards an idea doesn't prove or disprove it.
However, the fact that you agree with some explanation because it is "beautiful" rather than "logical" means that you accept a theory by what you feel about it, rather than what its intrinsic merits are.
Science has a job - it is to explain observable phenomenon.
As I said, science as no "job". Neither does the world, evolution, or life for that matter.
In any case, science does explain observable phenomena.
Why does religion have to intrude in its own incompetent way and provide a fantastical explanation for anything and everything? It doesn't.
Why do we care to explain those phenomenon? The explanations provide us comfort in the material world in some fashion or another.
"Comfort" doesn't make it real.
Because this emotional crutch is encouraged, religions leaders become powerful and try to manipuate society for their own egos.
You cannot claim to know the answers for everyone, it is for the individual to decide, and those that decide in favor of religion find religion to be extremely relevant and useful.
Exactly, I fully support the right of the individual to decide what he wants to believe.
Religion is the very thing that forms the barrier between men and free thinking, by enforcing one particular view of the world, which by the way is completely unsupported by evidence. On top of that, it proclaims that what it says is true and everything else is lies.
If someone proves to me that Abraham agreed to sacrifice his son to God, I'll accept it. But till then, don't try to teach this in schools.
Islam has been reinterpreted throughout its existence.
Yeah right...it hasn't been "reinterpreted", it has tried to catch up, like every other religion, with the changes society.
Why are there so many sects in Islam, or denominations in Christianity?
In Islam, because the dogmatic inheritors of the faith couldn't decide on a successor, so they have fought bloody wars over something completely irrelevant since.
In Christianity too, inter-sect war and violence has a long history.
Faith has always been open to reinterpretation and nonrigid, it is those in power who have sought to keep it rigid, to perpetuate their status.
Faith has always been used by those in power, because it was designed, in the first place, to perpetuate power by controlling the thoughts and minds of its followers.
Communists were forbidden to think anything other than the communist agenda.
Christian were forbidden from questioning the Bible, and Muslims the Quran.
This wasn't done occasionally, but has been standard practice since the beginning of faith itself.
Don't take my argument out of context. I stated it quite clearly, and it was an argument related to the possible presence of rigidity in science, ideology and faith. Have scientists not been scoffed at throughout history for raising theories (validated later) that did not conform to the existing interpretations of science?
Being scoffed at, and being persecuted by a power structure of the dogmatic is quite different.
Sure, Einstein was scoffed at in the first few weeks after he proposed his theories, but after other scientists read his work and verified it, the "scoffing" was over.
Don't even compare this open debate (and at max clash of personalities) , with the systematic suppression, throughout history, of any idea that challenged the ones in power.
Rigidity and inertia against change exists in everything - that too is a human trait.
That's exactly what i have been saying. And i have also been saying that this human trait doesn't need to be encouraged by respecting beliefs without proof.
Sure, think and say what you want, that's free speech, but don't expect to gain any credibility by saying that "this is my faith".
Violence too is a human trait. That doesn't mean we encourage it by saying "Oh well, its human, let 'em kill each other".
Again, you distort my comments, and try to equivocate atheism and science. Atheism is not science, and theism is not against all science.
Wait...I was talking about science and religion, and haven't attempted to prove atheism thus far.
I don't remember saying that atheism = science.
What I do remember saying, is that the religious people assert their beliefs over all others, without a shred of proof.
The agenda is that of those in power - and those in power will use whatever is available to them - atheism, religion or any other ideology.
Which is why, credibility and respect needs to be taken away from dogmas and ideologies, the vast majority of which are religions.
Again taken out of context. I am not claiming that "many people" practicing religion makes faith true. I am saying that for "many people" the arguments advanced by scientists about the creation of the universe are not good enough. Even the scientists agree that they are not.
So what are you trying to get at? I agree that no scientific explanation exists that explains anything and everything.
I have also said that the lack of a scientific explanation does not automatically make the religious explanation true.
They are not created equal, hence the fact that more people like the idea of a "God creating the Universe" than the equally unprovable ideas advanced by scientists.
The theory of "god creating the universe" is not provable at all. Infact, not a shred of evidence, whether philosophical or empirical, exists for the "god" idea.
All the theories that justify a creator god have been defeated.
While Atheists may not claim to know everything, they do purport to tell theists that they know nothing and are "ignorant and superstitious" (in not so many words but that is the general argument). How is that any different from a theist telling an atheist that XYZ faith is the right way?
That's because the theists don't offer to engage in real debate. They simply should louder and louder, thinking that this somehow make it all true.
If theists want respect, they should offer reasonable explanations for what they believe in.
As I said, all ideas are not equal. Some are ridiculous, and there should be no hesitation among people in saying that "the emperor has not clothes".
I fully support the right of the religious to believe in their respective religions. However, when it comes to real decisions that affect the lives of people, religious views should be treated on par with any other views....and should be asked to show evidence.
[/QUOTE]If your complaintis about proselytizing, than atheists are equally guilty of that every time they denounce religion and say it is illogical and superstition. The Faithful do not purport to “know everything” – they argue that their God is the ultimate creator. To twist that into “know everything” is disingenuous.
I cannot argue against proselytizing, since I see atheists doing the same. However forcing ones views upon another is wrong, it is considered wrong in the tenets of most faiths, and is only practiced because faith has been hijacked to serve the purposes of men who desire power.[/QUOTE]
Again, don't bring atheism into it. I might be a Deist for all you know.
What i am saying, is that religion
is illogical, because the religious offer no explanation for what they believe in.
The faithful DO purport to know everything, and have done so throughout history.
Forcing ones views on another IS the agenda of most faiths, irrespective of what the modern adherents of these faiths have to say. All religions have, throughout their existence, resorted to violence and torture to spread their dogma and crush dissent.
On the other hand, free thinkers have always presented evidence for their ideas, and engaged in debate, rather than force their opinions on others by intimidation.
It was indeed Dawkins who said that (On National Public Radio). It wasn't an argument against compassion, it was more of a discussion of how compassion/morals does not seem to fit in with "logical arguments" supporting evolution.
Well it does, compassion is the result of evolution. Please provide me a transcript of the said interview so that I can make sure that his statements haven't been misinterpreted as usual.
Religion has in fact supported the advancement of study into ethics and morals. Where it has failed is when it ended up being corrupted by men who wished to limit exploration and development of religious thought beyond the boundaries that were prevalent.
Wrong. Religion has always tried to plagiarize the already preexisting ethical values, mix these up with dogmas, and present the combination as "Morality".
The very nature of religion is to impose boundaries on thinking. The very FACT that all religious books are "eternal" and "unchangeable" betrays this.
I find the concept of a "hell" for pedophiles, Tyrants, murderers, rapists etc. a very beautiful one.
I don't. The dreadful "torture forever" principle is just a tool to scare people into believing the lies.
What about hell for unbelievers? Reincarnation as a lower species for the "impure"?
