Do religions have value as sources of wisdom about how to live your life?

I would say yes. I would argue that when atheists and people who believe in a god clash, they are doing so over something utterly pointless. Whether a god exists or not should be a matter of indifference. What people should ask themselves when examining a theory or a body of values is "Are they useful? Can we, as humans, derive some social utility from them?" Not "GOD DOESN'T EXIST LOL."

I don't believe in a god, but I do believe in extracting the socially useful parts of religion to serve society.

Well, I guess I opened a can of worms bweheheh.

No, you ignored my argument that it doesn't matter WHO says what, what matters is evidence. If I, a scientific amateur, conduct an experiment according to the scientific method, post my results and a video of what I did, and had other amateurs repeat the experiment, then that would be an empirical fact, unless someone disproves it. Now, if a scientific leader who is at the top of his field comes along and says that I and the amateurs are wrong, without giving evidence as to why and showing how the experiment is wrong, plenty of people would believe him and not me. But I would still be correct, regardless of WHO says I'm wrong.

Yes. Maybe not everywhere at once. I don't know how it would change. I don't see any reason for it to NOT change. And I expect it would be a fairly gradual change.

You're still not quite getting it. If there used to be a different universal rate (maybe not even universal, just relatively localized (think planet-localized), then there would be no factors to show the scientists that there was a different decay rate.

I think diatoms CAN die that much in 6000 years. Prove me wrong, good sir.

There's no difference between modern homo sapiens and old homo sapiens.

I don't know anything about this Infancy Gospel. It certainly isn't considered to be the true Bible. I'll have to research it some.

As for species becoming extinct. Well. Ever heard of humans? They have this habit of killing off anything that's a threat to them, and often things that aren't a threat. I'd say a huge animal with big fangs is a threat. Guess what? Dinosaurs fit that idea of a threat. I'd say we killed em off, same as we still do today with other species.

Sigh. I thought I explained this. The Ark is EXTREMELY LARGE. It would have easily fit in all the animals. Maybe fitting a full size brontosaurus would have been a bit of a squeeze, but guess what? If you're trying to save a species, you take the young of the species, so that there is more time in their lives for them to reproduce. A small brontosaurus is, well, not large.

@this and following The people who make pictures of Jesus are generally catholics. They have no clue what Jesus looked like. No one does. I daresay He was a Jew, with tan skin. He may or may not have had long hair, it might have been black or brown, doubtfully blonde or ginger though That's about all we can surmise.

Again, appeal to uniformitarianism. How do you know that the continents didn't drift apart quicker in the past? Oh, that's right, you don't. I doubt Noah had time to personally lead animals around the globe. They would have spread by themselves. I don't know how freshwater fish and saltwater fish made it out, but they're here, so it musta been fine for them. Most/all cultures and old myths have details of a flood; are you saying that the flood never happened?

I'd say plenty of Christians argue against those things. Problem is they're worldwide problems, which have existed for all of time and will continue to exist for a long time more. Evolution is more recent, more specific, and more deceptive from our point of view.

Correct Or more like, thinking WRONGWRONGAHAHHA.

Incidentally, as everyone seems to think that I'm parroting words I've been taught in Bible study or school or something; for the most part, what I've learned about evolution and my stand on it is from what I've seen on the internet and read in the Bible.


@FaZ again, it doesn't matter one hoot how many credidentials a person has, how high up they are on the scientific ladder. What matters is evidence.

@cardinal I gtg but I'll find some stuff about what you were saying later on.

To clear up a few things:
Well worry not because I don't know of any religious deity out there that matches your description. Certainly can't be the christian or even abrahamic ones.

Religion isn't about having/lacking knowledge in the scientific/empirical sense; it's about a way of living life. At least not the Abrahamic religions... If religions can be so simply summed up as "believe or know that so and so exists and you're good" then frankly why call it a religion...

Well there's a difference between questioning or inquiring a persons beliefs and castigating a persons beliefs; the latter is only going to draw negative or defensive reactions. Also if said religious person knows the history behind you and your lack of belief, then of course they will never get the impression that you are simply doing the former and instead get the vibe of the latter. Not saying you castigated them. But also the thing is, unless they're gloating about it, nobody likes being consistently challenged.

You said that the laws and moral codes are all deciphered and hopelessly being applied to little effect. Based on what? The news we hear about certain individuals causing trouble? People like those from the Westboro Baptist Church (if you don't know who these people are google them)? You're not going to hear news about people whose lives have been significantly bettered because of their religious beliefs or because they followed religious laws or moral codes (otherwise we'd be having thousands and thousands of these stories pop up every second), you only hear about the few individuals who twist their beliefs for the worse. For instance, are all Muslims terrorists? No, but we may think so because the muslims that make it into the news are those who blow themselves up and hurt others. As humans, we naturally tend to do what's called selective bias. I can guarantee you that if no such people existed (in your personal life to be more specific), your opinion would probably be a little bit different.

Exactly, which is why that study that "75% of people in this country are Christian" is outrageously false. The number would be more like 9 or 10% (we'll call them group A). And the rest of that percentage probably never even read a Bible or know the most simple of stories regarding Jesus and his inculcation. They probably only use the label "Christian" meretriciously (group B). Group A knows group B is nothing like them at all (and group B probably could care less). I wonder which group get more attention and stirs up more trouble.

Science and Religion are two separate things, one isn't a replacement or a better version of another. Like I said earlier, religion isn't about having explicit answers to our physical and material world. Also, science doesn't explain meaning of life - it explains how life and its natural laws works. Meaning of life is entirely subjective.

If you are against anything which serves to alienate societies and create prejudices, then having atheists posting rude comments, images, or posts mocking or castigating religion or having close minded attitudes in debates just for the sake of arguing doesn't help. I'm not accusing anybody here, I'm just saying that no one has the right to accuse one another of doing this or that when both parties are equally at fault

--

Anyways, on to the main reason why I'm posting:

You people can talk evolution and creationism all you want, but please don't bring religion into this. Religion and Creationism are two separate things. Just because one who is religious happens to also believe in creationism doesn't mean religion and creationism are one and the same.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 4 2011, 1:04 am by MillenniumArmy.

Creationism can separate itself from religion by saying something that is factually accordant with facts. Basically what's been said is that we didn't perform scientific experiments for millions of years, so everything could have changed drastically for no apparent reason and leaving behind no evidence whatsoever of that change. Evolution can't disprove that!

Scientific reasoning does not produce laws. It produces theories that best fit the facts. Creationism fits none of them, evolution fits virtually all of them. Common descent is perhaps one of the most obviously true things I've ever seen.

At the start you'll note that I asked what his beliefs were. I was not given them, I was given what his beliefs weren't, again, by citing poorly written sites by people who have no business publishing anything beyond a picture book.


Of course, reading even a single one of them would essentially be heresy. Doing original research!?!?

@Jack, starting from 2nd argument:
1+2) Then explain exactly how the rate of radioactive decay was changed (GREATLY) please? More precisely, how did the half life shrunk about 6 times?
Diatoms' sizes range from 2 to 200 micrometres. And there are shitloads of sand in the world. And many diatoms that die don't go to the sand, but end up stuck somewhere in amounts too small to be visible as sand, or in another organism's body. Do the math.
Yes there are. Lots. Like bone structures. If variation within a species can be THAT big, then the evolution theory is completely proable.
Please do. Also, it's not part of the bible cuz people wannna hide obvious lies.
Then explain why dinosaurs fossils are never found in the same rock level as humans'? Also, I would also love to know how Abraham and his family went all the way to build a huge ass boat (like it was possible) and go places to collect food and animals without noteworthy encounters with dinosaurs.
3) Good sir, if you say someone claims something is possible, YOU LEAVE A QUOTE OR SOMETHING. Also, it is very likely that the boat becomes too heavy to float, and making it bigger so that it can float takes even more time and materials. Also, considering how shitloads of animals are going to be released in one place, the trip back home for them (except for birds and pterosauruses) would be SUPER long and exhausting, plus all the danger from staying for too long in a foreign environment and climate (even the time spent on the boat alone was long enough, and there were more cold-blooded animals back then). Also, even if SOME MIRACLE kept the animals from eating each other (I'm not talking god, cuz he doesn't exist), the carnivores'd starve, and if they started eating each other after they got off the boat, tons of species (especially herbivores and insectivores) would disappear, cuz there were only 2 of them remaining then, and that doesn't help surviving (and before you answer this, TAKE AN IN DEPTH COURSE ABOUT ECOLOGY to know how MUCH this would impact everything). Lastly, you forgot freshwater fish and fish that lived near the shores. A great flood would mean lotsa them would be washed onto ground, and...bye bye fishies AND don't tell me Noah took them aboard too, cuz that'd need freshwater, and having too much water onboard = sink.
4)5) You hastily use lame reasons with hardly any knowledge at all. When the tectonic plates move and press into/slide against each other, even with the velocity of few centimeters a year as they are today, the potential energy generated is GREAT, and causes FRIGGIN EARTHQUAKES, FLOODS, AND VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS. If they can move thousands of kilometers in 6000 years, then bible missed that part about Noah unrealistically saving the animals AGAIN from lava, tsunami (not just flood) and earthquakes.

How are you so sure that the continents' speeds have changed?

This is due to the fact that many ancient cultures (Egyptians, Babylonians, Indus River Valley, Chinese) lived in river valleys prone to flooding. Contrary to popular belief, these societies had indirect contact with one another. It's possible that one civilization came up with a flood myth to explain the world, and that story was spread along ancient trade routes. Or, perhaps each society invented the story on their own. Given the similarity of their circumstances, I would not be surprised if this was the case.

Also, the bandwagon appeal is a logical fallacy. If a million people believe all cars are red, that doesn't mean all cars are red. They may have never seen a blue car, or a green car, but the other colored cars exist.

And yet you use one document which you claim to be infallible, on only the terms that the one document proves itself to be true.

And before you take the bandwagon fallacy and use it to discredit knowledgeable scientists, let me ask you this: what makes a person an expert in a given field? Would you not consider a preacher an expert in Christian religion? He has studied the Bible for years. What is the difference between an expert in religion and an expert in a field of science? The only difference is their area of training and experience.

Ah, but it's things like evolution that causes such heated debate. Most people already agree that stealing, rape and killing is wrong. Less agree that abstinence (both from pre-marital sex and alcohol) is a beneficial thing. I just have to think: how much would society be better if energy was redirected from arguing over homosexual rights and evolution, and instead, turned to solving other social problems? Wouldn't society benefit more if there was less alcoholics, rapists, burglars, and murderers? Wouldn't it be better if everyone showed up at work on time in the mornings, to make an honest living in an office or factory during the day, and to care for their families with love in the evenings?

Thankfully, church and state are separated in America. Otherwise we'd oppress the minorities even more than we have been.

Modern bathymetry and remote sensing has proved that the tectonic shifting has not always been constant - see sea floor spread. And, I'm not sure how relevant this point is here since concepts of 'speed' are generally thrown out of the window on a geological timescale. 250 million years is a vastly immeasurable and incomprehensible timescale. The Himalayan upshifting is just one recent example of how quickly plate tectonics can alter the geomorphology of earth.

Ahhh there was an article I read a while ago about an ancient volcano which erupted something like 125 million years ago, causing a population bottleneck and furthering the theory of a mitochondrial eve. Possible side-effects of this event were to cause mass global temperature reduction, resulting in more ice accumulation - which would have thawed extremely quickly once the dust particulates from the eruption had settled - thus causing widescale regional flooding. Can't for the life of me think of the articles name though. Plus I gotta go. Laters

Pliz to have spaces inbetween paragraphs rai, makes my eyes hurt

I don't know. I don't have any method of running an experiment to determine what happened in the past to the rate of decay of C14. Neither do you, so neither of us can use carbon dating to prove a point.

Hold on one second. Sand isn't made of diatoms, it's made up of crushed rocks.

Evolution, or more specifically MACROevolution, is about change from one species to another. I have no problem at all with variation within a species. I have a problem with dogs morphing into cats (I know, they don't, you get the idea though.)

Ever heard of the Taylor Trail and the general Glen Rose tracks near the Paluxy River? Khodga-Pil? The Robledos Mountains of New Mexico? Dinosaur footprints next to human footprints, footprints IN dinosaur footprints?

As for Noah* and his family building a enormous boat, which is possible, without being eaten by dinosaurs; what about all the other humans that collected food and other stuff without being eaten by dinosaurs? It's called survival. People do it regularly, surviving against crocodiles, lions, etc.

Not sure what bit this is directed at.

"Modern marine architects have determined that the Ark of Noah was the single most stable floating object ever conceived. It was almost impossible to capsize since it could have survived being tilted 89 degrees and still right itself automatically. Its length to width ratio of 6 to 1 is used today for modern ship building because it is the only ratio which causes a ship to automatically turn into the waves for an easy ride, even without the use of sails or engines. After all, it had no need for navigation or speed, only survivability." from http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=48
I doubt it would be too heavy to float

God exists and made it happen. If you don't believe in God, then it looks impossible. I doubt I can convince you that God exists over the internet and I won't try, which is why I wanted to stop arguing with FaZ-.

Thank you for your ad hominem.
[/quote]
and
I don't know that they have. Nor do you know that they haven't.

I was coming more from the line that "in every myth is a grain of truth". If many people had empirically seen and survived the flood, or were descended from people who survived the flood, then it would not be surprising that it works its way into their mythology. The reason other floods aren't talked about is that they weren't so cataclysmic.

I use that document (assuming you mean the Bible) when people try to argue about Biblical things, e.g. the Flood. I try not to use it when discussing, say, evolution.

Not sure what you're getting at with the people being experts. A preacher may be an expert in Christian religion and say something which is incorrect (e.g. Charles Spurgeon believing in adult baptism vs child baptism.). A scientist may be an expert in his field and say something which is incorrect (e.g. evolution is a fact). Many preachers and many scientists may SAY things which are incorrect.

Certainly. That's why we try convert people if people all followed the Christian religion, then all those things would drop way down. In certain parts of history in certain countries, especially the UK/holland/USA, this happened for periods of time; the majority of people became at least PROFESSING Christians, and the amount of things wrong in society decreased. As their societies became more secular and less Christian, crime rates went shooting up.

Indeed, having the state interfere with religion can cause manifold problems. And vice versa, I must admit (e.g. Roman Catholicism, Islam are both good examples of this.) I think as long as the world isn't perfect, this separation of church and state must exist. Of course, I think it'd be a good idea if politicians all belonged to a church but the church shouldn't have power over the state, nor the state over the church.

I think it's safe to say that experts are likely to have "good" knowledge in their given field, but they are not going to be right 100% of the time. People trust doctors to treat illnesses every day, and even if they diagnose correctly 99% of the time, they still have a 1% chance of diagnosing incorrectly. I see what Jack's getting at.

Actually whether or not a god exists is extremely relevant. This is because after death you could be eternally tortured or enjoy an eternal "orgasm" based on the decisions you make during your lifetime. The eternal implications of the question "Does god exist" forces it to be relevant to everyone's life that is apart of some sort of society.

Well actually, there wouldn't have to be two of every creature, only two of each kind. One type of dog, one type cat, etc. This is because over time a species can variate into two distinct species. For example the different types of Galapagos finches are all finches, and all came forth from a [supposedly] single type of finch.

The question of whether there is a god or not is metaphysically interesting but (probably) irrelevant to "worldly society". If there is a god, who is to say that he/she/it adheres to the rules written down in the Bible, or the Qu'ran or <insert religious scripture here> for that matter? It could be that this god has completely arbitrary rules for people's treatment in the afterlife (presuming this god has decided that there is going to be an afterlife anyway), so you might end up going to "Hell" for having a big nose and to "Heaven" for having a penis longer than 6 inches. Under these rules should people get cosmetic surgery to earn a nice place in the hypothetical afterlife?

What I'm trying to say is that because we have no clue (other than texts written by humans that disagree with one another) as to what the nature of "God" is or what we have to do to have a cushy afterlife, we should concentrate instead on the verifiable effects that the values espoused by religions have on human society, and judge religions on their social merits. I would argue that this is far far more important than arguing over whether or not there is a god.

Most people here would like to disagree. Although I don't think most religious people will take their stance like that. But in all honesty, I totally agree with Cap'nWill. It is not wise to discuss whether God exists or not. But from a non-religious point of view, even religion has its merits.

BUT. BUT. We should all refrain from saying something like this.
WHAT THE FUDGE. You are making factual statements without any sort of evidence that backs up your statement. So how did they have indirect contact with each other? Did aliens give them Wi-fi?

You know that most of what was argued as unscientific in the past centuries was from 'Aristotle'. The big fat liar that made up facts with nothing empirical to support. But it happens that by the turn of Rome, Aristotle's words were actually turned into what we modern people would call 'scientific facts'. And it happens by the medieval ages, it was taken in to interpret the Bible. And so happened Aquinas, another philosopher who thought empirically, he could infer the existence of God.
I can conclude most of the problems arise when philosophers cross their limits. And now, you guys are factually concluding religion and mistakes of philosophy is virtually one and the same. This is making the same mistakes as Aristotle, and Aquinas.

Well a lot of ancient cultures did have trade relationships with one another, and along those trade routes ideas tend to run also.

The Silk Road was in use from at least 1,000BCE.

The point isn't what we say god can or can't do if he existed therefor making his existence relevant. The point is we don't know if he exists or not and therefor the question of his existence is immensely relevant.

Although I do agree it is important to focus on what we do know first, and then second to that focus on what we don't. Although, verifiable facts and evidence is not the only way of knowing:

Other ways of knowing: http://bit.ly/hqa4YG

It being relevant doesn't in the least mean it's important. As you've said, we can't know one way or the other nor is it likely that we will ever be able to. Why then should our reasoning be dependent on something that's so unknown?

Because you might be eternally tortured for the choices you make during your life.

Fear is not a valid argument, especially when said fear has no evidence supporting it whatsoever. This is serious discussion.

EDIT: For that matter, you might be eternally tortured for anything. You might be eternally tortured for believing in the Judeo-Christian god and not Allah or something. That was a completely stupid thing to say.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 10 2011, 11:26 pm by FaZ-.

I'm not sure why everyone here is always saying "no evidence" and acting like it's the holy grail. I've already shown that empirical data is not the only means of knowing. I believe the percentage is something like 70-80% of people believe in a higher being. Since so many people have this inclination, it is both relevant and important as to deciding on whether or not to believe in a specific one or any at all.

I'm sorry, but no, it's not. It's an obvious inclination, just like the concept that the earth is flat. The difference is that one is testable and one isn't, so we ignore the latter in serious discussions.

This would be a correct usage of ad populum: people who have no reason to be trusted being taken as important because there's a large number of them. If other people are influencing what you believe, rather than their arguments, you've moved out of the realm of being logical and thinking for yourself. That is what gets us into this mess to begin with.

May I also point out that the logical fallacy ad populum has meaning when it deciding what is 'true', not what is 'probable'. What is more probable more closely relates to popularity.
In my opinion, you should also use logic more thoroughly, if that is what you so believe.

Plus, there is more 'you's on your sentences than need be. It sounds like you're generalizing Cecil with 'illogical' and 'being in his own realm'- which substitutes for an insult. Just a friendly question, have you also thought of this through your logic? If so, have you not logically reached a conclusion that stating such and such would be harmful to reason, thus not good for logic? And for a logical man, a dumb mistake.
Though why the hypocrisy you may ask, but no hypocrisy is involved. I never said we need be logical, because logic is a flaw. Sticking only to logic is exactly like being the rationalists of the 18th century. The only reason logic is flawed is because we are not omniscient. Without omniscience, we cannot take everything into account, and without everything counted- there is always flaw in the logic.
That said, logic is a 'tool', not a law that rules over us. It takes use of the information around us and forms it into coherent 'knowledge'- and thus we operate our lives through that tool. Just accept the fact that you cannot say you know there is no God. The fact that you cannot prove is the fact that you cannot know. Without knowledge, there is nothing that can be done. Trying to say what is would then be truly 'illogical'.