To our Muslim/Christian members & all faiths....

[Brian37]

Everybody knows all this, Brian.

The issue with theists is that their emotional attachment to their religion - their faith - overrides their logical mind. They are not incapable of logic, nor are they ignorant. It is simply that when it comes to this subject, emotion/faith > logic for them. We learned this years ago. You are beating a dead horse.  

I think most theists in the modern world accept evolution over creationism. Or at least intelligent design. But I think creationists are in the minority.

Still not the point. 

Religion does not propagate through neutral objective testing and falsification with control groups and independent peer review. It propagates mostly through being handed down by parents to youth. It is sold on appeal to emotion and appeal to tradition, neither of which are independent evidence, but social tropes the individual lives in.

Maybe in the west in more educated countries sure. But even China and Japan have their own religious superstitions and mythologies that when put under the scrutiny of independent skepticism fall apart when under the microscope.

It does not matter if people scrap Creationism or ID, sure that is fine, but they will simply find something else to excuse clinging to old mythology, they will simply find something else to hang their hat on.

But again, I am being fair to you CL this is the case with all religions in the world. It boils down to "Old habits are hard to break" and humans don't like their social norms being upset. So when a family or a sect or religious institution figures out their old arguments don't work, they simply try to invent new marketing.

The Cosmos series I mentioned touches on this a bit in each episode.  It is what I like to call "the gate keeper fallacy". Humans evolved to be curious so sure every part of the globe has made both big and small contributions to get to  where we are now. But that is not evidence that any religion is true or that any god exists.

[Astonished]

Is it even remotely possible that you can give one, just one, reason why anyone should click on that, and expect to find anything other than utter nonsense and/or deliberate fraud?

Thomas Nagel is one of the most significant philosophers of the 20th Century. His paper, "What is It Like to be A Bat" was an important contribution to philosophy of mind and is required reading in classes on the subject. Before you start accusing other people of ignorance, you might try reading a book. YouTube is not a substitute for actual study from original sources.

Now you both sound like quacks. But the fact that you used 'significant' as an adjective to describe a 'philosopher' was enough to convince me you have no fucking clue what the hell you're talking about. Thanks for saving me the trouble. And don't fucking patronize me, asshole, youtube is just the perfect medium for someone at your level. If I read a book it's going to be by someone who bases things on reality, unless I'm looking for popular entertainment. But I'll still be reading something more sophisticated than anything you're promoting.

[Minimalist]

Time for this:

[Astonished]

Nobody beats Carlin when it comes to stand-up about religion.

[Succubus]

Thomas Nagel is one of the most significant philosophers of the 20th Century. His paper, "What is It Like to be A Bat" was an important contribution to philosophy of mind and is required reading in classes on the subject. Before you start accusing other people of ignorance, you might try reading a book. YouTube is not a substitute for actual study from original sources.

Regarding the highlight: if philosophers would only stick to that sort of shite then I wouldn't have a word of criticism, crack on lads, fill your boots. But this>

"Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False"

He can fuck right off. What's his opinion on thermodynamics, or drug resistant tuberculosis, plasma physics? The moment these characters step outside of their niche they should be kicked in the shins and thrown into a pond.

[Astonished]

Thomas Nagel is one of the most significant philosophers of the 20th Century. His paper, "What is It Like to be A Bat" was an important contribution to philosophy of mind and is required reading in classes on the subject. Before you start accusing other people of ignorance, you might try reading a book. YouTube is not a substitute for actual study from original sources.

Regarding the highlight: if philosophers would only stick to that sort of shite then I wouldn't have a word of criticism, crack on lads, fill your boots. But this>

"Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False"

He can fuck right off. What's his opinion on thermodynamics, or drug resistant tuberculosis, plasma physics? The moment  these characters step outside of their niche they should be kicked in the shins and thrown into a pond.

My gripe after I looked him up just as a lark was that he thinks there's any significance to the fact that we can't scientifically account for things like our conscious experience. Uh, okay, and anyone or anything else does have an explanation? I mean, one that's based on facts and not Ken Ham style idiocy? The fact that there are a variety of different brain structures that generate different levels of sentience between species, and we can figure out what structural portions do what things within them, is all science, and it's the best fucking model we have for things. It certainly disproves the traditional notion of an eternal soul (where it's unchanging and unique to a single entity) if you can have multiple personalities within the same body and have a complete alteration of personality via the brain becoming damaged.

[Catholic_Lady]

Religion and science are 2 different fields, and need not be in conflict with each other, per se. Unless your religious doctrine teaches something that directly contradicts a proven scientific fact (like that the earth is 6000 years old or whatever), there's no reason why the 2 need to be mutually exclusive. We had science class in my catholic grade school, and we learned about space, evolution, the big bang, and dinosaurs. And then we had religion class where we'd learn about religious history and catholic doctrines. It never once crossed my mind for there to be an inherent issue between the 2 subjects. It was no diffetent than learning how to add in math class, and then learning how to read in english class. Just 2 different fields.

I did start watching the show last night when I got home from my friends house. It's very good. Thanks for posting it brian. I got to almost half way before turning in to go to bed because it was late. I will finish watching tonight if I don't stay out too late.

---

I think most theists in the modern world accept evolution over creationism. Or at least intelligent design. But I think creationists are in the minority.

Still not the point. 

Religion does not propagate through neutral objective testing and falsification with control groups and independent peer review. It propagates mostly through being handed down by parents to youth. It is sold on appeal to emotion and appeal to tradition, neither of which are independent evidence, but social tropes the individual lives in.

Maybe in the west in more educated countries sure. But even China and Japan have their own religious superstitions and mythologies that when put under the scrutiny of independent skepticism fall apart when under the microscope.

It does not matter if people scrap Creationism or ID, sure that is fine, but they will simply find something else to excuse clinging to old mythology, they will simply find something else to hang their hat on.

But again, I am being fair to you CL this is the case with all religions in the world. It boils down to "Old habits are hard to break" and humans don't like their social norms being upset. So when a family or a sect or religious institution figures out their old arguments don't work, they simply try to invent new marketing.

The Cosmos series I mentioned touches on this a bit in each episode.  It is what I like to call "the gate keeper fallacy". Humans evolved to be curious so sure every part of the globe has made both big and small contributions to get to  where we are now. But that is not evidence that any religion is true or that any god exists.

I understand that people throughout history have tried to find explanation for things about the physical world through religion, especially when we didnt have much technology or means of studying science. And that was a mistake obviously. Science is the study of the physical world, and religion deals with the spiritual realm. Trying to explain things in the physical world through religion is barking up the wrong tree. Just as trying to explain something that deals with spirituality or the supernatural by using the scientific method. I don't expect the existence of God or angels, etc, to be proven through science because those things are not of the physical world and can't be tested.

[Brian37]

Religion and science are 2 different fields, and need not be in conflict with each other, per se. Unless your religious doctrine teaches something that directly contradicts a proven scientific fact (like that the earth is 6000 years old or whatever), there's no reason why the 2 need to be mutually exclusive. We had science class in my catholic grade school, and we learned about space, evolution, the big bang, and dinosaurs. And then we had religion class where we'd learn about religious history and catholic doctrines. It never once crossed my mind for there to be an inherent issue between the 2 subjects. It was no diffetent than learning how to add in math class, and then learning how to read in english class. Just 2 different fields.

I did start watching the show last night when I got home from my friends house. It's very good. Thanks for posting it brian. I got to almost half way before turning in to go to bed because it was late. I will finish watching tonight if I don't stay out too late.

NO, they are totally unrelated, they are not equal in the slightest. Religion is a personal belief, science is an objective neutral tool. 

The trend to call religion and science separate but equal is more recent in the last century. And again Christianity is not the only one that that argues "separate but equal". 

Science DOES have something to say about religion. There is a biological evolutionary reason humans make them up and buy and sell them, that is the real reason religions exist, not that they are true.

Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" explains the evolutionary psychology as to why god claims get created and why religions get created.  

Ad to that two other books,

Victor Stenger, " God The Failed Hypothesis"

But more importantly his other book, "The New Atheism" which goes into more detail about science he also compares multiple world religions t point out that our species ability to be cruel or compassionate is in us, not the holy writings themselves. He points out the tropes of charity and compassion you find in Islam and Buddhism too. 

There is no "separate but equal". There is no splitting the baby. There simply is no polite way to say when the religions of antiquity worldwide were written nobody had any clue or had any way at all to know what we know as a species now. That was then, and it was understandable because we didn't know any better as a species. But we have far better tools now.

Religions DO create awesome artwork and do depict our species ability to be compassionate, but that is not where human compassion is really coming from. Our behaviors are evolutionary, both good and bad. I like you CL not because you claim a holy book, but because I see empathy in you. You are good because of your genes and personality, unfortunately religion sold you the idea that it is handed down to you and I am telling you it was already in you.

I am glad you accept evolution and the big bang. I would merely suggest that if you can accept that, then maybe that is a better path and you don't need to try to square it with the past.

But no, I will not demand your arrest or barbecue your kittens if you stay in your religion. Just trying to get you to consider some things you might not have considered. My mom as you may have read was Catholic till the day she died and she was my hero and I will love her till the day I die. Lots of people here including me like you, some are closer to you than me sure. But we don't question you or challenge you to burst your bubble or hurt you, but merely to put it out there for you to consider. 

Besides, how angry can anyone get at an ABBA fan. Never hear in the news about an ABBA fan blowing things up or shooting abortion doctors. Good part about me is the worst thing I kill is a 6 pack and yell at my TV when the Skins suck huge donkey balls.

Darth is still going to offer you those evil cookies though.

[Astonished]

Religion and science are 2 different fields, and need not be in conflict with each other, per se. Unless your religious doctrine teaches something that directly contradicts a proven scientific fact (like that the earth is 6000 years old or whatever), there's no reason why the 2 need to be mutually exclusive. We had science class in my catholic grade school, and we learned about space, evolution, the big bang, and dinosaurs. And then we had religion class where we'd learn about religious history and catholic doctrines. It never once crossed my mind for there to be an inherent issue between the 2 subjects. It was no diffetent than learning how to add in math class, and then learning how to read in english class. Just 2 different fields.

I did start watching the show last night when I got home from my friends house. It's very good. Thanks for posting it brian. I got to almost half way before turning in to go to bed because it was late. I will finish watching tonight if I don't stay out too late.

---

I understand that people throughout history have tried to find explanation for things about the physical world through religion, especially when we didnt have much technology or means of studying science. And that was a mistake obviously. Science is the study of the physical world, and religion deals with the spiritual realm. Trying to explain things in the physical world through religion is barking up the wrong tree. Just as trying to explain something that deals with spirituality or the supernatural by using the scientific method. I don't expect the existence of God or angels, etc, to be proven through science because those things are not of the physical world and can't be tested.

See, even someone seemingly as innocuous in their beliefs as you finally put your foot in your mouth. If you're not figuring out something through science, you're not figuring it out, period. You would have to demonstrate there is in fact something supernatural in order not to be talking utter nonsense, and to do that you'd have to show it empirically, i.e. scientifically. By definition the supernatural cannot be shown to exist because to determine if something is in fact supernatural, we'd have to be able to study it to the point where that could be the conclusion drawn based on the evidence and because that is not possible to do, the term becomes completely self-refuting. You want to pull a fast one and call it spiritual, same thing, that doesn't get it to pass smog.

You do no favors to yourself or the world trying to lug that dead weight around with you and that's in the best case scenario, at worst you're actually actively setting us back as a civilization and that I cannot abide. There is no excuse for that kind of thinking anymore, none. So much for saying that there's such a thing as someone whose faith-based beliefs are completely harmless, huh? Not that I ever fell for that anyway. You should be intelligent enough to understand this, too, I shouldn't have to explain why this is such a ridiculous position for you to hold. You already accept scientific theories with boatloads of evidence behind them and reject the majority of dogshit in your mythology, so what is keeping you going that extra step, when I and anyone with a layman's understanding of logic can show you why your beliefs are flatly wrong?

[vorlon13]

Religion and science are 2 different fields, and need not be in conflict with each other, per se. Unless your religious doctrine teaches something that directly contradicts a proven scientific fact (like that the earth is 6000 years old or whatever), there's no reason why the 2 need to be mutually exclusive. We had science class in my catholic grade school, and we learned about space, evolution, the big bang, and dinosaurs. And then we had religion class where we'd learn about religious history and catholic doctrines. It never once crossed my mind for there to be an inherent issue between the 2 subjects. It was no diffetent than learning how to add in math class, and then learning how to read in english class. Just 2 different fields.

I did start watching the show last night when I got home from my friends house. It's very good. Thanks for posting it brian. I got to almost half way before turning in to go to bed because it was late. I will finish watching tonight if I don't stay out too late.

---

Still not the point. 

Religion does not propagate through neutral objective testing and falsification with control groups and independent peer review. It propagates mostly through being handed down by parents to youth. It is sold on appeal to emotion and appeal to tradition, neither of which are independent evidence, but social tropes the individual lives in.

Maybe in the west in more educated countries sure. But even China and Japan have their own religious superstitions and mythologies that when put under the scrutiny of independent skepticism fall apart when under the microscope.

It does not matter if people scrap Creationism or ID, sure that is fine, but they will simply find something else to excuse clinging to old mythology, they will simply find something else to hang their hat on.

But again, I am being fair to you CL this is the case with all religions in the world. It boils down to "Old habits are hard to break" and humans don't like their social norms being upset. So when a family or a sect or religious institution figures out their old arguments don't work, they simply try to invent new marketing.

The Cosmos series I mentioned touches on this a bit in each episode.  It is what I like to call "the gate keeper fallacy". Humans evolved to be curious so sure every part of the globe has made both big and small contributions to get to  where we are now. But that is not evidence that any religion is true or that any god exists.

I understand that people throughout history have tried to find explanation for things about the physical world through religion, especially when we didnt have much technology or means of studying science. And that was a mistake obviously. Science is the study of the physical world, and religion deals with the spiritual realm. Trying to explain things in the physical world through religion is barking up the wrong tree. Just as trying to explain something that deals with spirituality or the supernatural by using the scientific method. I don't expect the existence of God or angels, etc, to be proven through science because those things are not of the physical world and can't be tested.

ARGH !!!!

It just GRIEVES me terribly to see a nice young lady like our CL commit such vile heresy.