Religion and Atheism

[Stubby]

Stubby, 

This is the same thing you were doing in the transfusion example.  Note: law, in the sense of what should be done, or what must not be permitted cannot be based on "actual facts".  At some point, a value judgment must enter into the equation.

If the law valued the life of the mother  more greatly, the law would still not be based on fact; it would be based on a different values alignment.

I don't know if it's fair to call all values judgments akin to religious positions, but they are closer to that than they are to facts, as such.  Ergo, when a religiously-based law reaches a different conclusion than you about the best desired outcome, no matter how many facts you state about what science can do or prove, you are not proving that religion conflicts with science.  You are proving only that a given religion's values conflict with yours.

Unless you are positing that moral positions can themselves be scientifically proven good or bad?

So what you are saying is: religion is not interested in facts.

You just proved my point.  It is not "fundamentally wrong-headed" to suggest that religion has more conflicts with science than just creationism and/or cosmology.  This is the case because religion doesn't care about "how many facts" are stated.  By your logic, any situation where religion sets out an opposing view to science is reasonable because religion doesn't care about facts.

And here's an interesting fact.  I certainly wouldn't want to live where I could be forced - against my will - to comply with someone else's belief system and values in the manner in which a medical condition is treated.  For example, I am a diabetic. It would very bad for me to participate in Ramadan.  If I were forced to it might kill me, it might leave me severely disabled or it might just leave me fucked up for a month.  What right does a govt have to force it's beliefs onto me - not just in the absence of facts but in spite of facts discovered by science - in that situation?

How the fuck is that not a "conflict between religion and science" in real-world terms?

[Lord Mord]

Stubby,

Just to be clear, the critical feature here is that whatever the facts assembled, at some point a gut decision is required.  What is best or most important in life?  No scientific study can answer that and no argument by itself suffices.  You simply have to prefer one outcome or another, which is exclusively the domain of feelings.  You may well choose to argue that in assessing your feelings you have first taken great stock of the facts, but in the critical moment of the decision, per se, there were some features that the facts alone couldn't tell you.  You just had to choose which outcome you liked more.

This is totally okay, and no one, to my knowledge, is saying that a gut decision of this kind informed primarily by religious background is preferable or morally equivalent to one which doesn't.  At the least, no one is saying they are necessarily morally equivalent, because everyone is just as interested as you are in ensuring a good outcome, and most of the people you're arguing would probably agree with you on what is the best outcome.

The point is that while no one is arguing that the two methodologies -- religious and a-religious -- are morally equivalent, I am arguing they are scientifically equivalent.  Science is the process of testing propositions by the accumulation of data, which cannot tell us what the preferred outcome should be.  The most it can do is tell us what the likely outcome is, and not whether that outcome is good or bad.  That takes our personal quirks, our instincts -- our caprices and our character. For some, perhaps, the preferred outcome in the abortion matter you cited is the death of the mother, if both cannot be saved.  In such a case, the same science which you say means we must choose to save the mother actually works against you, because of course the science didn't say that at all.  Your prejudices -- righteous as I may feel them to be, they are just that -- did.  If your logic held up, in such a case we'd have to say that science conflicted with science, even though it's the exact same study.

Surely, the clearer and more accurate explanation is that values were conflicting with values.

[Stubby]

Stubby,

Just to be clear, the critical feature here is that whatever the facts assembled, at some point a gut decision is required.  What is best or most important in life?  No scientific study can answer that and no argument by itself suffices.  You simply have to prefer one outcome or another, which is exclusively the domain of feelings.  You may well choose to argue that in assessing your feelings you have first taken great stock of the facts, but in the critical moment of the decision, per se, there were some features that the facts alone couldn't tell you.  You just had to choose which outcome you liked more.

This is totally okay, and no one, to my knowledge, is saying that a gut decision of this kind informed primarily by religious background is preferable or morally equivalent to one which doesn't.  At the least, no one is saying they are necessarily morally equivalent, because everyone is just as interested as you are in ensuring a good outcome, and most of the people you're arguing would probably agree with you on what is the best outcome.

The point is that while no one is arguing that the two methodologies -- religious and a-religious -- are morally equivalent, I am arguing they are scientifically equivalent.  Science is the process of testing propositions by the accumulation of data, which cannot tell us what the preferred outcome should be.  The most it can do is tell us what the likely outcome is, and not whether that outcome is good or bad.  That takes our personal quirks, our instincts -- our caprices and our character. For some, perhaps, the preferred outcome in the abortion matter you cited is the death of the mother, if both cannot be saved.  In such a case, the same science which you say means we must choose to save the mother actually works against you, because of course the science didn't say that at all.  Your prejudices -- righteous as I may feel them to be, they are just that -- did.  If your logic held up, in such a case we'd have to say that science conflicted with science, even though it's the exact same study.

Surely, the clearer and more accurate explanation is that values were conflicting with values.

So let me get this straight.  Because religion is uninterested in facts, atheists are "fundamentally wrongheaded" for asserting that religion and science "have no real conflicts" other than wrt to creationism and cosmology?

I could just as easily say that religious believers are "fundamentally wrongheaded" for believing in stuff in spite of facts, but I won't go that far. Jo498 could resolve this whole issue by admitting that there was a degree of hyperbole in the opening remark that lead to this whole discussion.

Following your logic, a religious believer can get away with forcing another human into any situation beyond that person's control if it could be justified by that believer's ignorance of facts and reliance on 'values'.

 

[Gears of the Beast]

No need to mince words, the statement isn't hyperbolic it's simply wrong. 

[Erik of Hazelfield]

While I agree that religion doesn't conflict with science in the field of ethics, the two do conflict in a whole lot of other disciplines, like cosmology, geology, evolutionary biology, paleontology, mammal anatomy, human history and so on. For instance, the bible clearly states that Moses divided the Red Sea. This is a historical claim, that could at least in principle be studied scientifically. Whether prayer works or not can be scientifically tested. 

And I'm not 100% convinced that the existence of God itself isn't, in principle, a scientific question. Science seeks to explain what the world looks like - it might not be able to tell whether there's a god or not, and likely it never will, but that fact wouldn't move the question out of the realm of science, just out of its reach.

[Lord Mord]

Stubby, 

Following your logic, a religious believer can get away with forcing another human into any situation beyond that person's control if it could be justified by that believer's ignorance of facts and reliance on 'values'.

Emphasis mine.

 

"Just" is an adjective which must be assessed by a person; it presumes a judge, a person.  So, the answer to "Is it justified?" depends on who the judge is.  And your judge is probably going to want more details, because the outcome of your hypothetical is unclear.

 

Likely questions would be, "Which religion?" and "Who is being coerced?" and "Coerced to do what?"  The fact that they are asking these questions means that science isn't up to the task.  You've given all the parameters that your scientific brain found necessary, and their objection isn't to having to pay attention to facts, but the exact reverse: you haven't given them enough!

Science will tell us how to build a nuclear device, but only our moral compunction either to kill or to refrain from killing will tell us whether or not to drop it.  The difference between people who want to drop it or not is not between those who care about the statistics of how many people will  die, but it is the difference between the meaning they attach to those statistics.  Some will see a large number of total dead and say, "We can never do such a thing!" and others will say, "But look how much worse it will be for the bad guys than for us!"

Your description of the problem as some people not caring about facts does not stand up in that example.  They care about facts, and indeed, they care about the same facts as their opponents, but they attach different meaning to those facts.  The difference is not scientific or religious, fact-based or non-.  The difference is strictly in the alignment of values.

[Stubby]

Stubby, 

Emphasis mine.

 

"Just" is an adjective which must be assessed by a person; it presumes a judge, a person.  So, the answer to "Is it justified?" depends on who the judge is.  And your judge is probably going to want more details, because the outcome of your hypothetical is unclear.

 

Likely questions would be, "Which religion?" and "Who is being coerced?" and "Coerced to do what?"  The fact that they are asking these questions means that science isn't up to the task.  You've given all the parameters that your scientific brain found necessary, and their objection isn't to having to pay attention to facts, but the exact reverse: you haven't given them enough!

Science will tell us how to build a nuclear device, but only our moral compunction either to kill or to refrain from killing will tell us whether or not to drop it.  The difference between people who want to drop it or not is not between those who care about the statistics of how many people will  die, but it is the difference between the meaning they attach to those statistics.  Some will see a large number of total dead and say, "We can never do such a thing!" and others will say, "But look how much worse it will be for the bad guys than for us!"

Your description of the problem as some people not caring about facts does not stand up in that example.  They care about facts, and indeed, they care about the same facts as their opponents, but they attach different meaning to those facts.  The difference is not scientific or religious, fact-based or non-.  The difference is strictly in the alignment of values.

Oh FFS.

How about I go back through the thread to cite some of the fucking real world examples I have already given, shall I?

1. On abortion - Roman Catholics. The woman who, you know, died. Coerced into not having an abortion that would likely have saved her life.

2. On refusing a blood transfusion - Jehovah's witnesses. The victim (including their own fucking children). The victim.

And before I am accused of not justifying my positions again I want to make it perfectly clear that we still haven't got past abortion and blood transfusions yet.

Because make no mistake, it was not my description about ignoring facts - it was yours.  I respectfully remind you of your own words:

Ergo, when a religiously-based law reaches a different conclusion than you about the best desired outcome, no matter how many facts you state about what science can do or prove, you are not proving that religion conflicts with science.

This can mean one of two things:

1. Religious belief takes precedence over facts.

2. Religious belief ignores facts.

Do you agree?

[Stubby]

Science will tell us how to build a nuclear device, but only our moral compunction either to kill or to refrain from killing will tell us whether or not to drop it.  The difference between people who want to drop it or not is not between those who care about the statistics of how many people will  die, but it is the difference between the meaning they attach to those statistics.  Some will see a large number of total dead and say, "We can never do such a thing!" and others will say, "But look how much worse it will be for the bad guys than for us!"

Wait a mo, did you just say they would need to look at the statistics of probable deaths, or, you know facts?  Because why fucking bother if they can ignore the facts and rely on their "values"?

 

[Lord Mord]

Stubby, 

Wait a mo, did you just say they would need to look at the statistics of probable deaths, or, you know facts?  Because why fucking bother if they can ignore the facts and rely on their "values"?

Your belligerence is wearing thin.  Please stop.

But to answer your question, you're missing the point, which is about the limits of science.  I had understood your point to be that science will tell a person what's right, and what I'm saying is that science won't tell you what's right, because science can only tell you what will probably be, and not whether that will be a good thing or not.

The point I was making is that neither side has to fight the science to call their position justified. Both sides can agree on every single scientific claim made, and both sides can agree that every claim made carries some significance.  Yet, because one side's values are different, they choose to weight some facts greater than others, and so without anyone discounting facts or reason or science, they reach differing conclusions, with some in favor of dropping and others not.

This can be seen as an extension of the religious versus a-religious conflict.  The religious are capable of accepting every single fact you might care to mention (outside, perhaps, in some cases, as regards a handful of subjects, like creation) and agree, in the accepting, that the facts are well-established and important after some degree -- and still they might reach a different conclusion from you about policy.

This tells us their conflict is not with science -- they've accepted your science -- but with your values.  Knowing and believing the same facts that you do, they would prefer you'd reach a different conclusion and believe theirs is justified, and vice versa.

The conflict is therefore not one between faith and science, or anyway it needn't be.  The only thing which it is by necessity is a conflict between value sets as to which facts are most important and to what degree.

 

[Stubby]

Stubby, 

Your belligerence is wearing thin.  Please stop.

But to answer your question, you're missing the point, which is about the limits of science.  I had understood your point to be that science will tell a person what's right, and what I'm saying is that science won't tell you what's right, because science can only tell you what will probably be, and not whether that will be a good thing or not.

The point I was making is that neither side has to fight the science to call their position justified. Both sides can agree on every single scientific claim made, and both sides can agree that every claim made carries some significance.  Yet, because one side's values are different, they choose to weight some facts greater than others, and so without anyone discounting facts or reason or science, they reach differing conclusions, with some in favor of dropping and others not.

This can be seen as an extension of the religious versus a-religious conflict.  The religious are capable of accepting every single fact you might care to mention (outside, perhaps, in some cases, as regards a handful of subjects, like creation) and agree, in the accepting, that the facts are well-established and important after some degree -- and still they might reach a different conclusion from you about policy.

This tells us their conflict is not with science -- they've accepted your science -- but with your values.  Knowing and believing the same facts that you do, they would prefer you'd reach a different conclusion and believe theirs is justified, and vice versa.

The conflict is therefore not one between faith and science, or anyway it needn't be.  The only thing which it is by necessity is a conflict between value sets as to which facts are most important and to what degree.

 

First bold: I said in my first post in this thread that I will use harsh words when people try to justify the forcing of religious beliefs onto others.  I make no apology for it.  Having said that, how do you think I should engage when I am repeatedly misrepresented, my questions remain unanswered and the only thing raised to refute my real-world examples is philosophical hand waving?

Second bold.  Then you misunderstand me.  The ONLY point I am making is that it is not "fundamentally wrongheaded" for atheists to declare that the only conflicts between religion and science are with respect to creationism and/or cosmology.  Seriously, I have repeated this about a dozen times now.

Third point and sub-point:  I agree entirely.  Which further proves my point. Science relies on facts and religion does not.  I take that as a conflict. I realise you do not and that is fine, but please do not suggest it is OK for religious believers to force their beliefs onto others who may not share their belief by violence, laws or campaigns of shame and embarrassment, on the grounds that their "values" are somehow relevant in the face of scientific fact.

Fourth point: And hence they have ignored facts in preference to beliefs.  Which is a conflict. Between science and religion.  Which is all I have been saying.

Fifth point: Yeah and when the religious believer ignores the facts as presented and relies on 'beliefs' - in spite of facts - then there is a conflict with the science.  And when that reliance on belief becomes law, real humans suffer as a result and that sucks.

I'm not arguing anything other than that.

Seriously, I don't understand why it is so hard for believers to admit that.

[Grimbold]

 

And I'm not 100% convinced that the existence of God itself isn't, in principle, a scientific question. Science seeks to explain what the world looks like - it might not be able to tell whether there's a god or not, and likely it never will, but that fact wouldn't move the question out of the realm of science, just out of its reach.

Science has already provided answers to how the world came to be or it was shaped throughout its evolutionary process and, consequently, it automaticaly disproves baseless claims from religion.

Ok, i'll be more balanced and say science doesn't disprove the notion of a god, but it does suplant the ideas of a specific supernatural entity, therefore, undermining its credibility partial or completly.

If science says/proves that the planet took millions of years to be shaped into the state it is in today and a religion states that it's god took 7 days or w/e to mold this chunk of rock into a habitable planet, well then that pretty much answers itself.

[Daemrion]

 

This begs the question that there is an "outside perspective." That is actually the crux of the disagreement between theists and atheists - is there some supernatural entity out there?

This belief also assumes that the outside perspective gives one whit about humanity to want to give us guidance. But I suppose if you want to accept that a supernatural entity exists, it is not that much more of a burden to assume that it takes a special interest in humanity.

Cherry-picking Biblical passages to criticize is a valid response to those who hold that the entire Bible is inerrant and true. That is a specific claim that can be refuted by showing how a few passages are not true. But not all Christians believe that the entire Bible is without errors.

You're eliding the multiple meanings of "believe," which is a common event. The way we "believe" taxation is important is not the same way that people "believe" in a god. If you equate the two, you're saying you are approaching your faith in the same way that you analyze the pros and cons of taxation, which I find it hard to... believe. Faith is the defining element of being religious, imo, and faith does not operate in the same realm as other forms of analyzing reality. But I guess it's possible that there are people who see their believe in God as the same as how they see their tax forms. That's very sad, if it's true, but to each their own.

A point of clarification: Do you think that putting women in the position of being protected and sacrificed for signifies that the Bible treats women as equal, that it gives women agency, and that it allows women the same range of self-determination as men get? If you do, then it's no wonder you think the Bible is not a sexist work. Most feminists will disagree, imo, with the view that women should be protected by their husbands and sacrificed for, especially as a form of balance against being submissive to the husband's will and decisions, is what gender equality looks like.

Arguing that the Bible is not sexist is a very difficult task, attempted by many and by my standards, succeeded by none. The best you can achieve is to apologize for the sexism by saying that human vessels are flawed in receiving Divine revelation and perverted the will of God by their own cultural limitations. Although, how you can pervert something as important as the downfall of humanity from Eden, I don't know, and I am somewhat skeptical about the worthiness of a Divine being who cannot communicate clearly what it wants to express. But that's nit-picking, I suppose.

From my perspective as an atheist, religious people don't "find the truth" from religion, either. They're just collectively inventing a reality to share and convince each other that this is the truth. Which is, really, what we all do, religious or not. It doesn't make theism and religion any better, or more deserving of being followed.

1. That's generally what things boil down to between theists and atheists. The question of is there a god out there? Most theists believe that there is a god out there and that he/she/it cares.

My thoughts are that if there isn't an outside perspective, then we really are left with shouting the other person down because we think we're right and that they are wrong. And similarly they think their right and you are wrong. In the end it sort of boils down to who shouts the loudest or strongest or longest which I think it just a rather poor way of doing things.

2. Or is it just that people who cherry-pick don't understand the verses that they are cherry-picking and how they fit into the Bible as a whole.

3. Apologies about the eliding of the multiple meanings of believe. But can you answer the question - what happens if the evidence shows something that you disagree with?

4. Males and females are valued equally, even though their functions are different.  Now, I accept that there are those out there who will argue that value equality is not good enough and that they want functional equality. But I have yet to see any that can ever address the point that men and women are biologically different already and hence, already are functionally different.

Do you think that putting children in the position of being protected and sacrificed for signifies that children are treated as equals, that it gives children agency, that it allows children the same range of self-determination that adults get? Does that mean we value children less because we do put them in the position of being protected and sacrificed for? Just because children can't do everything that adults can mean that children are valued less than adults.

5. Then how do you find the truth?

Well, sure, as long as you recognize that what any given atheist is "feeling like right now" is the cumulative emotional expression of millions of years of human evolution, thousands of years of cultural development, and likely decades of lived experience by an empathetic herd animal influenced by respected peers, family members, and social and cultural mores.  

So if two atheists disagreed on a topic then how do you decide which atheist is right?

 

Depends what 'truth' you're looking for.

Atheism is only disbelief in god(s) after all.

Generally (but not always) if you scratch an atheist you find a skeptic.  Skeptics look for evidence to back up the 'truth' claim.

And the Abrahamaic god is no kind of good moral entity.  One need not look past the absolutely horrific nature of the ark story to know that*.

*cue no true Scotsman response...

The whole ark story that you say is horrific in nature is about the saving of the good people and the demise of the bad people.

Whose god?

This can easily be flipped around to say "Christian morality is nothing more than Operant Conditioning."

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the intention of the examples you've provided but they seem to make a case against the argument you're presenting i.e. that in order to understand the bible one needs to take it as a whole and not verse by verse. The bible is contradictory, especially when taken as a whole. The verse-by-verse subjective interpretation works much better. Leviticus 25:44-46 is quite instructive/informative on how one can go about purchasing a slave correctly. There are a few passages in Exodus I can't quite recall right this moment. Each of them details how certain slaves are to be procured and subsequently treated: sex, general, whatever. In general, the bible grows more tolerant in chronological order of the books/chapters/authors, so by the time you get to Philemon, yeah sure, embrace thy slave as a brother. But as a whole, it is quite cherrypickish to state that it is quite clear slavery is an abhorrent notion since the opposite has been presented for much of the book.

Same thing goes for the feminism argument you made. It only works as far as you consider that passage in which the men are supposed to sacrifice themselves for their wives. But it should go beyond that. There's a passage in the bible which states, quite unambiguously because the girl even cries out, that if a man should rape a woman, then the man is to pay his victim's father fifty digits of some currency I've forgotten and then take her as a wife. I think it even goes to say he can't divorce her since he's violated her in the most shameful manner, or something like that. (In Deuteronomy I think). Overall, you end up with one passage advocating self-sacrifice for the wife and a multitude of others propagating quite oppressive and reprehensible instructions.

As already stated by others, these kinds of contradictions are bound to happen with a book written by multiple authors over different social climates.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that the bible does more harm than good in strengthening the argument for faith. I think people are really willing to leave Christians alone. It's when the "well the bible says..." argument comes that the "cherrypicking" starts.

It's not a verse-by-verse subjective interpretation. That's how a misunderstanding like 'prosperity gospel' can come about.

You have to interpret the verse in light of what the whole Bible has to say. Text and Context. It's being able to understand the apparent contradictions in the Bible and how they aren't actually contradictions that produces an understanding of what the Bible is really about.

2Tim 3:16 - All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

The interpretation of Leviticus and Deuteronomy passages must be viewed through the lens of the Bible as a whole, and the meaning to be understood from that rather than just taking the verse without its wider context.

 

I'm still not buying how stating something the bible explicitly says, just as explicitly if not more so than Mark, is cherry picking. Because it does in fact say something that contradicts it later doesn't change the meaning of what it explicitly said. Especially when

is just plain wrong cause plenty of the things you eat can kill you. Though I suppose it wouldn't be wrong by what they thought the heart was. And their probably using a defile differently then I would... But then I don't recall the no pork and shellfish passages being because it would infect your thoughts.

Which brings us to another problem, we're using a book that's been translated 3-4 time IIRC. Who's to say we're using the right words?

Hey, where's the mixed fabric change of opinion?

Because maybe women don't want to be infantilized? Honestly your interpretation doesn't make it all that much better.

I will point out again, that we don't have the whole text. No one does. And two, plenty of people also claiming to have an understanding of the whole text, come to completely different conclusion than you. What makes you interpretation the right one?

See, it would be more like Game Of Thrones stating out right that Jaime is evil in third person omniscient, then later giving us a 3rd person limited perspective of someone else saying Jaime is not evil. At best this is two different perspectives which is fair enough, at worst a contradiction within the text.

I don't, I'm an atheist because my answer to the question "do you believe in deities?" is no. Atheism is a position on one given subject.

For truth, that is that which is factual or in accordance with reality, I go with science. Which for hundreds of years has had people saying "science can't explain X" and then figuring X out.

I guess what I'm saying is wrong is people who cherry pick verses out of the Bible to justify an assertion about the Bible, which, when read as a whole, is wrong.

At best, it's honest misunderstanding, at worst it is blatant misunderstanding.

Mixed fabric is something that is outside a person and not from the inside of a person's heart. Hence, it is not something that defiles (meaning to make unclean).

Can science explain moral and value judgments?

[Stubby]

 

The whole ark story that you say is horrific in nature is about the saving of the good people and the demise of the bad people.

The story is nothing short of an example evil on a cosmic scale.

This so-called god (who could have snapped his fingers and made all the bad people good if he was worthy of the title) chose to sentence all humanity - except for a few - on the planet to death instead.  Summarily.  Including countless innocent children. Not only that, he killed the vast majority of the animals on the planet - with the exception of a chosen few - as nothing more than a sideshow to his insane temper tantrum.  He also killed all the plants and the insects and senselessly destroyed millenia of infrastructure vital to the lives of the remaining few.

Luckily, it's just a silly story.  Because if it isn't it makes this so-called loving god - the alleged father of your main deity Daemrion - utterly, insanely, absurdly evil. And as a source of "morals" and "values" it is the very worst thing to teach kids.  Which is that if you don't like something just go ahead and kill 'em all.

I recognised this when it was taught to me at Sunday School - as a child - through silly little storybooks.  I was terrified that all the "bad people" (as you put it) would make him do it again and that I would be killed without any fault on my part.

The cognitive dissonance required to suggest that the ark story is a good story is breathtaking.

So if two atheists disagreed on a topic then how do you decide which atheist is right?

This happens all the time. You decide who is right by examining the evidence each has presented to support their case.  Just because two separate people disbelieve in a god doesn't mean they have to agree on everything.

[Grimbold]

The fact that one can argue that humanity requires an outside perspective to be kept in check just reveals the immaturity of the religious argument.

[Daemrion]

 

The story is nothing short of an example evil on a cosmic scale.

This so-called god (who could have snapped his fingers and made all the bad people good if he was worthy of the title) chose to sentence all humanity - except for a few - on the planet to death instead.  Summarily.  Including countless innocent children. Not only that, he killed the vast majority of the animals on the planet - with the exception of a chosen few - as nothing more than a sideshow to his insane temper tantrum.  He also killed all the plants and the insects and senselessly destroyed millenia of infrastructure vital to the lives of the remaining few.

Luckily, it's just a silly story.  Because if it isn't it makes this so-called loving god - the alleged father of your main deity Daemrion - utterly, insanely, absurdly evil. And as a source of "morals" and "values" it is the very worst thing to teach kids.  Which is that if you don't like something just go ahead and kill 'em all.

I recognised this when it was taught to me at Sunday School - as a child - through silly little storybooks.  I was terrified that all the "bad people" (as you put it) would make him do it again and that I would be killed without any fault on my part.

The cognitive dissonance required to suggest that the ark story is a good story is breathtaking.

This happens all the time. You decide who is right by examining the evidence each has presented to support their case.  Just because two separate people disbelieve in a god doesn't mean they have to agree on everything.

So you don't believe that the wicked should be rightly punished? It actually says that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. That's the point, there were no innocents other than those who were saved.

I understand that you may have a hard time believing that there were almost no innocents but if you actually read the text then it makes it pretty clear that everyone (including children) were wicked and evil. And probably why it was a one-off.

You also assume that you are without fault. I would like to put to you the premise that you aren't without fault.

The fact that one can argue that humanity requires an outside perspective to be kept in check just reveals the immaturity of the religious argument.

Or rather, it reveals the immaturity of humanity.

 

[Gears of the Beast]

So you don't believe that the wicked should be rightly punished? It actually says that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. That's the point, there were no innocents.

The sentiments of a very morally confused person. 

[Grimbold]

You're arguing that humanity is so immature to a point that we require supernatural parental supervision to behave properly.

And here i thought that what we've determined to be wrong and right was and is a result of an evolutionary and interactional social process.

Or simple and basically put, i dont require big father in the heavens to lecture me on how slapping someone in the face is wrong.

[Daemrion]

I'd argue that even those Christians who believe in hell really don't do good things to avoid going there. I think that most people make their decisions about right and wrong based not on the Bible or Koran, or on what some priest/imam/rabbi says. They do just what we atheists do; that is, they consult their consciences and life experiences.

Just want to clarify, doing good things comes as a result of being saved. Christianity is not do good things to be saved.

The sentiments of a very morally confused person. 

I'm just pointing out that Stubby's interpretation of Noah's Ark isn't correct and contains inaccuracies.

You're arguing that humanity is so immature to a point that we require supernatural parental supervision to behave properly.

And here i thought that what we've determined to be wrong and right was and is a result of an evolutionary and interactional social process.

Or simple and basically put, i dont require big father in the heavens to lecture me on how slapping someone in the face is wrong.

Look at the world around you. Because we're doing so fine on our own.

[Grimbold]

 

Look at the world around you. Because we're doing so fine on our own.

Do you really wish to go there?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

So what you are saying is: religion is not interested in facts.

You just proved my point.  It is not "fundamentally wrong-headed" to suggest that religion has more conflicts with science than just creationism and/or cosmology.  This is the case because religion doesn't care about "how many facts" are stated.  By your logic, any situation where religion sets out an opposing view to science is reasonable because religion doesn't care about facts.

And here's an interesting fact.  I certainly wouldn't want to live where I could be forced - against my will - to comply with someone else's belief system and values in the manner in which a medical condition is treated.  For example, I am a diabetic. It would very bad for me to participate in Ramadan.  If I were forced to it might kill me, it might leave me severely disabled or it might just leave me fucked up for a month.  What right does a govt have to force it's beliefs onto me - not just in the absence of facts but in spite of facts discovered by science - in that situation?

How the fuck is that not a "conflict between religion and science" in real-world terms?

Stubby,

I think you are making a valid and interesting point here.  However, in a Nation-State with a legislative branch that has ultimate power to enact any law it desires without limitation, say like New Zealand for example (I know you're from Perth Western Australia I just needed an unlimited example), how do you propose to prevent that body from passing and then enforcing a law that is, in some way, religiously based.  Doesn't your position necessitate some express limitations upon the power of government to act in particular manners.  Like an express limitation upon the use of religious justification for the passage of a given piece of legislation?