I think science and atheism have bond together. Maybe not directly but indircetly. But as I've sadi many times it's more of and word. It just a description. I would concider myself primary to be scientific.

(April 14, 2009 at 8:45 am)Giff Wrote: I think science and atheism have bond together. Maybe not directly but indircetly. But as I've sadi many times it's more of and word. It just a description. I would concider myself primary to be scientific.

I don't think they do except inasmuch as a rational outlook leads to science and to disbelief in things unproven ... IOW, both arise from the same basic outlook.

Kyu

(April 14, 2009 at 10:09 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(April 14, 2009 at 8:45 am)Giff Wrote: I think science and atheism have bond together. Maybe not directly but indircetly. But as I've sadi many times it's more of and word. It just a description. I would concider myself primary to be scientific.

I don't think they do except inasmuch as a rational outlook leads to science and to disbelief in things unproven ... IOW, both arise from the same basic outlook.

Kyu

In other words, each one can lead to the other. If your an atheist you probably get intrested in science and if you allready like sience you will probably become an atheist.

Don't think any serious scientist believe that the earth is 6000years and so on.

(April 17, 2009 at 11:02 am)Giff Wrote: In other words, each one can lead to the other. If your an atheist you probably get intrested in science and if you allready like sience you will probably become an atheist.

Well I don't think my disbelief arose out of science, it arose out of rational thought (science simply sealed my fate WRT religion and makes it impossible for me to backslide) but yes, I accept it might be that way for others.

(April 17, 2009 at 11:02 am)Giff Wrote: Don't think any serious scientist believe that the earth is 6000years and so on.

I don't even think our resident theists believe that, do you?

Kyu

(April 1, 2009 at 6:52 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: [*]Atheism provides no basis for morality: A brief survey of human history and culture demonstrates that morality varies implying it depends on culture, on society, on people. Religionists promoting this idea however tend to refer to scriptures that as often as not enshrine morally repugnant ideas.

I absolutely detest this misconception.

Just the other day, I was in a class in which we were debating court cases, their rulings and how those rulings may affect the public school system.

Long story short though, we talked about religion for quite some time (unfortunately my professor dodged the evolution/creationism debate, citing that it was "too controversial").

But anyway, the professor's personal belief was that religion, namely Christianity, should be taught in the American public school system. Claiming that there was no other way to teach our children basic morals like the ten commandments, and he went on to declare that all atheists are anarchists.

Unfortunately, to keep him from crucifying me, baffled, I kept my mouth shut.

I understand what I could have said to just anybody on the street who may have made such a claim, but what should I have said to the professor? Would it have been right to confront him in front of twenty other students?

Of course it would have been right. If you were having a class discussion, then both sides should be raised. You could have pointed out that the 10 commandments hardly cover everything. Where are the commandments against rape? Why do we have to refrain from coveting our neighbour's goods? Surely that can't be good for a capitalistic society (of which America is one).

Also bring up the point to him that if he didn't have the 10 commandments, would he go around stealing and killing? Can he really not see how these things are wrong for society, and not just to prevent eternal torment? If he disagrees, argue that atheists are then far more moral, since they abide the 10 commandments (at least the good ones) without fear of eternal torment, and are thereby doing it out of their own reasoning.

Obviously I believe it would have been right to challenge your professor's assertions however I recognise that that isn't easy ... you don't get to be a professor without good reason.

Adrian is right and I would also challenge the validity of the commandments as a basis for morality (they aren't a moral guide at all and nor is the bible) ... Adrian is also right to be cynical of the implication that if it weren't for the commandments we could do as we want, some people do bad things but I believe humans can be so much better than that (and they don't need no steenkin' gods to do it).

Kyu

Quote:

(April 17, 2009 at 11:02 am)Giff Wrote: Don't think any serious scientist believe that the earth is 6000years and so on.

I don't even think our resident theists believe that, do you?

Kyu

Yes some do.

I saw once a repotage about a univeristy in the U.S. which where planning to educate future Nobel Price winners. The only catch was that if you wanted to be in the school you couldn't believe in evolution.

So some theist and some theistic "scientist" do believe the earth was created by God and just some thousand years old.

(April 18, 2009 at 6:20 am)Giff Wrote: Yes some do.

I'm saying our resident theists (the ones that currently frequent our forum) ... I know there are creationists out there.

Kyu

(April 18, 2009 at 6:57 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(April 18, 2009 at 6:20 am)Giff Wrote: Yes some do.

I'm saying our resident theists (the ones that currently frequent our forum) ... I know there are creationists out there.

Kyu

Oh! Totally misunderstod you there!