Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[nihilistcat]

It's not just lack of evidence concerning the existence of a god, it's the origins of the claims from which the human belief in god(s) arose, and an analysis of the conditions under which those claims and associated superstitions came about. Moreover, it's the fact that the narrative is continually changed from literal to figurative as science closes more and more of the gaps where god(s) have been fit into (due to scientific ignorance).

Clearly consideration is given to the condition under which those claims and associations came from.  Anyone who tells you the bible talks about everything and/or is the answer to everything is a nut or an idiot.  I believe you have mentioned the literal to figurative thing before and as I mentioned then I do not subscribe to sola scriptura (nor does any Catholic).  The bible was never meant to be taken literally or verbatim and it is as annoying to us as it is to you that evangelicals and protestants do so.  Unfortunately those groups make the foolish mistake of believing because the CAN read something they understand what they are reading (to which it may be said give them a quantum mechanics book.  They may can read the words, but that does not mean they grasp the meaning.)

You seem to credit the Catholic Church for being insightful enough to always give itself enough wiggle room and plausible deniability (drafting doctrines in ways that --although it may deviate sharply from the commonly held views the church itself allowed to flourish-- are obscure enough to amend in the face of new information), and you'd probably attribute this insightful approach to doctrine to divine guidance (while making all sorts of excuses for its horrible behavior over the centuries). Well, if you're going to attribute their supposed prescience (which I would characterize as merely good politics) to godly magic, then why wouldn't you hold them to a godly standard when analyzing their crimes (rather than defending the church by claiming they weren't quite as bad as other nations or institutions that existed during the same period that these atrocities took place)?

As you would say I am cherry picking so would I say you are.  As one opposed to religion and the Church you condemn the entirety if there are any particular acts of impropriety without any regard for the benefits, as well as condemnation of the Church for being flexible (but will also condemn it for its inflexibility...Go figure).  However, if I were to do the same in regards to all that was done in the name of science you would call me an idiot.  

Clearly science has resulted in the death of millions of people in far worse manners than religion has ever wrought.  In the name of science any number of atrocious experiments were conducted against innocent and ignorant people.  Now how will you make defense?  Naturally you will accuse the people of some other reason beyond science (tuskegee institute was out to hurt blacks with syphilis, Joseph Mengele was experimenting on Jews because he was  sick and deranged, US used the atomic bombs on Japan which was already about to surrender for reasons other than testing because...)  

In short you will claim people wanted to do bad things and justified those acts as being in the name of science.  However, instead of saying people wanted to do bad things and simply justified them in the name of religion you would say religion lead people to do bad things.  In which case I may just as readily say science lead people to do bad things.  I may further state science has lead to bad things resulting in the deaths of far more people than religion has ever done (250k from two atomic bombs alone!).  So I guess you should get rid of science since it drafts documents in a manner creating a fictitious explanation of phenomena that it just continues to refine without ever really finding the actual truth of the matter (though it modifies it just enough to be plausible while being flexible to fill in any gaps), all while leading people to commit atrocities on mass scales never conceived of or possible before science became prominent.

To paraphrase David Hume: "Generally speaking, errors in religion are dangerous, those in philosophy only ridiculous, and those in science catastrophic."  

Or

Martin Luther King Jr: "Our military power has surpassed our spiritual power.  We now have guided missiles and misguided men."

Needless to say science has provided many benefits to the world such that despite the harms and atrocities it has facilitated it should not be abandoned in it entirety.  The same may be said for religion.  And I will not special plead for religion to be held to a hire standard than science itself, as the calling of each exceeds that of men while each are instituted by mean with all their flaws and misappropriations therein.  

I could go on and on with this ... but why bother. Pseudo-smart people (who lack the distance from their own beliefs to critique or opine on those beliefs in any meaningful way) will continue on with their drivel, we will continue to contest their claims, yada yada yada. As we move forward, religion will continue to recede (to your chagrin). And yeah, oh well ... too bad so sad! More gibberish in the scrap heap of history

As a person who has dedicated the greater part of their life and study to the fields of science, philosophy, theology, and law I must say how sad it is for one to miss out on the grandeur of the whole integration do to the willful choice to exclude an entire range of knowledge for lack of evidence (which nothing may satisfy that is not tautological) or because they do not approve of the source (which may be considered an ad hominem).  At minimum I hope you may appreciate how all that gibberish lead to the creation of the kingdoms Europe, many prominent progressions in education, science, culture, art, music, and society.  Like it or not you live in a world religion created and may even speak out against that religion because of that very same religions teachings and beliefs.

Science is not based on repeating the same thing twice (a classic tautology). It's based on a continual accumulation of evidence and hypothesis testing.

At one time, I was (as many atheists were) somewhat religious. My family background is both protestant and catholic, so I have experience with both. Overall, not bad experiences, although I've never found religion particularly useful. Some may, and it may have utility, but that's different than debating the veracity of its claims.

Quite frankly, if we had the sort of society that produced good critical thinkers, the utility that religion may have right now, would probably evaporate.

I don't need myths to compel me to behave myself, treat others kindly, etc. Maybe some people do ... and in those cases, they (along with society) probably do benefit to some degree from religion. But anyway, as I've said, I'm not really interested in battling religion. I am interested in a more egalitarian and intelligent society that uses an evidence based approach to formulating public policy. What people do on Sunday's is their business.

And I also don't dispute the contention that science has been wrong, it's been abused, etc. The good news is, when we discover mistakes, we fix them, because we have no boogeyman who we think we'll anger by going against its fictitious doctrines. Unlike religion, we don't live by words like "immutable" in science, for precisely this reason. Basically, you're basing an attack on science on precisely the feature that makes it so awesome, which with all due respect, is sort of ridiculous (especially for someone who has a science background). As far as how science is used by industry or governments or whatever, this isn't really a scientific problem, this is a social problem. My personal philosophy is based on anti-authoritarianism. And under that construct, I agree with most of what you said, I just think your grievance is misdirected. Unfortunately, science doesn't happen in a vacuum. We depend on the society we live in for funding and eventual application of our work. But then, looking at the destructive creations of science, it's a very long conversation. Just think about the creation of the atom bomb. We were fighting the Nazi's on one hand and imperial Japan (who bombed Pearl Harbor) on the other. For all intents and purposes, it was basically the US (and tiny Britain) against the world. We did what we had to do. It wasn't pretty ... some may argue (post hoc) that some of the things we did wasn't necessary, but to expect perfection under such circumstances, is just absurd. So I would defend science on that count.

With regard to transcendent experiences or whatever, sure, maybe you can have a great experience (toss in some Gregorian chants and a little incense, I can see where one would feel like they're having a spiritual experience). Obviously this can be easily explained with conventional psychology and neuroscience, but nonetheless, if people enjoy these experiences, then they should enjoy them (and they have every right to do so). I enjoy an occasional jog (and if you run long enough, you do get a nice endorphin rush, which sort of feels transcendent .... if you want to phrase it that way).