Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[Roger Ramjets]

The Bible is making the claim that God made the donkey speak... All you have is the writing by uneducated peasants.

There was a talking donkey in Winnie the Pooh too.

But did the 'uneducated peasants' really believe that donkeys could talk, or did they understand that it was just a literary device? The Bible is full of stories that are clearly fictional - some even stating it outright. Aesop's Fables, which predated the Christian bible by over 500 years, are full of talking animals and moral messages. The people who passed on those fables knew they were fiction, but they still took the messages seriously.

It's not the Bible that claims animals really spoke, but the people who read it and draw that conclusion. It is this slavish and laughable insistence on taking everything literally that is the problem. You don't have to be educated to know the difference between fact and fiction. I bet the vast majority of 'uneducated peasants' would have been rather skeptical of claims of actual talking animals.

Religion was more about political power than belief. 'God' was just the personification of the laws and morals of a society (flaunted by many when they could get away with it). Uneducated peasants 'believed' what the church told them because there would be repercussions if they didn't. Many were superstitious too, but most of those beliefs were evidence based (with bad reasoning perhaps, but still...).

 

[GDon]

I guess you might be able to find one delusional person who "attacks science", but if you are able to provide an example of any theist group that attacks science, I'd love to see it. It's the scientific consensus that different groups attack, not science itself.

You're kidding right?

No, not at all. All religious groups believe that they have science on their side. Heck, many atheists claim that science is on their side as well, just like religious nuts. Their arguments are that they only are the ones doing science right.

That's simply a fact. See if you can find any group that argues that science itself is the problem. You'll see that they are arguing that the scientific consensus that has been reached is the problem, not science itself.

Scientists were executed for suggesting that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Galileo was imprisoned. The town I live in has a "creation museum" with dioramas showing humans and dinosaurs walking together in the garden of Eden. They say that radiometric dating doesn't work. The earth is 6,000 years old as opposed to the 4.5 billion that science estimates. They deny Chromosome 2. They say evolution is false.

Yes they do. Why do creationists claim that evolution is false? Because of science! It's the creationists who are doing science right!

Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture:
https://www.discovery.org/id/about/

"We seek long-term scientific and cultural change through cutting-edge scientific research and scholarship"

There you go. They believe that science is self-correcting, so they believe that one day those evolutionists will see the light.

What makes you think that donkeys or snakes ever talked? What do you have to support that idea? Should we believe in an old book written by anonymous superstitious bronze age peasants?

No, not at all. It's all nonsense. But that's not my point. Show me the science that God can't make a donkey talk. That's my point.

You really don't understand science and logic. The Bible is making the claim that God made the donkey speak. You first have to prove there is a god and that the donkey spoke. Science cannot disprove your special pleading. You do understand what special pleading is? It's making an exception. All you have is the writing by uneducated peasants. Nothing that proves that writing. God can do anything is your get out of jail card.

Exactly! So where does science fit into God making a donkey talk? Why try to bring science into it at all?

There are no sacred cows in science. Everything is up for correction and revision. I give you Galileo, Newton, LaPlace, Einstein, Niels Bohr and so on. It's not a religion. I don’t worship the scientific method. But nothing. Absolutely nothing comes close to finding actual truth.

This is the truth: all major religions today believe in the power of science. As evidence I give you their views on Galileo, Newton, LaPlace, Einstein, Niels Bohr and so on. Religion is obviously self-correcting also!

Asa Gray was a staunch Christian in the 1860s who was a fervent supporter of Darwin's evolution theory in America, spending decades promoting it. The Big Bang Theory was devised in 1927 by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest. The current Acting Science Advisor to the President is Dr Francis Collins, a devote Christian who was involved in the mapping of the human genome. Christians are leading the charge for science!

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes they do. Why do creationists claim that evolution is false? Because of science! It's the creationists who are doing science right!

Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture:
https://www.discovery.org/id/about/

"We seek long-term scientific and cultural change through cutting-edge scientific research and scholarship"

There you go. They believe that science is self-correcting, so they believe that one day those evolutionists will see the light.

They say that, but they're wrong. What they are doing is not science.

 

[Pixel42]

What ghost hunters who brandish EMF meters are doing is not science, what the Project Stargate investigators did was not science, what homeopaths do is not science, and what The Discovery Institute is doing is not science.

 

[GDon]

They say that, but they're wrong. What they are doing is not science.

Creationists would claim that they are doing science. They even have articles published in peer-reviewed publications. From here:
https://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/

Selected List of Peer-Reviewed Scientific Publications Supportive of Intelligent Design

The list below provides bibliographic information for a selection of the peer-reviewed scientific publications supportive of intelligent design published in scientific journals, conference proceedings, or academic anthologies:

Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) (HTML).
Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).
Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).
Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).

Lots of others in the list.

 

[Leumas]

No, not at all. All religious groups believe that they have science on their side. Heck, many atheists claim that science is on their side as well, just like religious nuts. Their arguments are that they only are the ones doing science right.

Wrong... utterly and totally wrong.

This is just a rehash of "atheism is a belief too" poppycock...

Atheists don't claim science is on their side since there is no such thing as an atheist "side".

Atheists reject the fairy tales and perfidious claims and sordid distortions of reality and corruption of history and abduction of morality that theists do.

And since science and scientific facts expose all the lies and corruption of religious claims... atheists point to that as evidence bolstering their reasons for why they reject the scientifically proven hypocrisy and perfidy and immorality of theism and religions and self-righteous theists.

And atheists don't "do science"... atheists have all sorts of jobs in all sorts of fields and some are even unemployed and retired... so no... irrespective of your claim... atheists do not "do science".


And you claiming that the DiscoveryHoodwinking Institute For Hawking Jesus "do science" is hilarious... I had a hearty guffaw over that for 3 minutes... thanks... although the coughing that followed startled my dog and he refused to speak to me for at least an hour afterwards.

 

[GDon]

... what The Discovery Institute is doing is not science.

There are qualified academics producing peer reviewed articles for intelligent design. In what way is that not science?

 

[Leumas]

There are qualified academics producing peer reviewed articles for intelligent design. In what way is that not science?

It is not scientifically peer reviewed if they "peer" review their own claptrap by their own religious "scientists" and publish them in their own fake journals.

It is a hoax just like Jesus was... articles about Jesus flying on a cloud to outer space "peer" reviewed by religious seminary school "scholars" and published in religious journals does not make Jesus a cloud-spaceship astronaut.

 

[Pixel42]

There are qualified academics producing peer reviewed articles for intelligent design. In what way is that not science?

Science is not deciding what you want to believe, and then looking for ways to twist and misinterpret cherry picked evidence in an attempt to support that predetermined belief. Science is making observations, producing hypotheses to explain them, and then looking for ways to both support and disprove those hypotheses.

Either approach can produce papers in peer reviewed journals, but only the latter is science.

 

[Darat]

What do you think it means?

It's a statement about a belief in the limits of knowledge. Agnostic means that even in principle we can never have knowledge that god exists. See my earlier post for a fuller explanation.

 

[Darat]

No, only that the Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the Abrahamic God.


Thus proving what I claimed in post #488.

And this Jesus fellow? I take it you've spoke to Muslims and explained that Jesus is god the son, and they were struck by a bolt of realisation and said "Allah be praised" and suddenly agreed with the Christians that Jesus is god the son?

 

[Darat]

There was a talking donkey in Winnie the Pooh too.

But did the 'uneducated peasants' really believe that donkeys could talk, or did they understand that it was just a literary device? The Bible is full of stories that are clearly fictional - some even stating it outright. Aesop's Fables, which predated the Christian bible by over 500 years, are full of talking animals and moral messages. The people who passed on those fables knew they were fiction, but they still took the messages seriously.

It's not the Bible that claims animals really spoke, but the people who read it and draw that conclusion. It is this slavish and laughable insistence on taking everything literally that is the problem. You don't have to be educated to know the difference between fact and fiction. I bet the vast majority of 'uneducated peasants' would have been rather skeptical of claims of actual talking animals.
Religion was more about political power than belief. 'God' was just the personification of the laws and morals of a society (flaunted by many when they could get away with it). Uneducated peasants 'believed' what the church told them because there would be repercussions if they didn't. Many were superstitious too, but most of those beliefs were evidence based (with bad reasoning perhaps, but still...).

I wouldn't. Look at the authoritative texts from the middle ages - the bestiaries in particular. Although often as much about Christian morality as opposed to facts it is clear people believed in those beasts from other texts and the like. We have claims over written history of many animals talking to people, it's not limited to the biblical accounts. It seems to have been a widely held belief that under some circumstances beasts could talk.

 

[GDon]

Science is not deciding what you want to believe, and then looking for ways to twist and misinterpret cherry picked evidence in an attempt to support that predetermined belief.

Is that what you want to believe about the list of peer reviewed papers supporting Intelligent Design? I doubt you've looked into any of them for yourself, beyond cherry picking examples?

Personally I think Intelligent Design is rubbish. What I'm trying to do is highlight a somewhat hypocritical approach to "science" as something that we do, producing results that we agree with. But someone else coming to different conclusions are made into "anti-science". And therefore it is ironic that they use computers and mobile phones.

Science is making observations, producing hypotheses to explain them, and then looking for ways to both support and disprove those hypotheses.

Either approach can produce papers in peer reviewed journals, but only the latter is science.

Sure. For all I know, that's what Intelligent Design scholars are doing. Part of peer review is knocking out any obvious errors.

 

[GDon]

I wouldn't. Look at the authoritative texts from the middle ages - the bestiaries in particular. Although often as much about Christian morality as opposed to facts it is clear people believed in those beasts from other texts and the like. We have claims over written history of many animals talking to people, it's not limited to the biblical accounts. It seems to have been a widely held belief that under some circumstances beasts could talk.

It happens all the time! Here is the news from 2003. Two men heard a fish talking, so that means corroboration by two people. Three, if you include the fish!:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2854189.stm

A fish heading for slaughter in a New York market shouted warnings about the end of the world before it was killed, two fish cutters have claimed.

Zalmen Rosen, from the Skver sect of Hasidic Jews, says co-worker Luis Nivelo, a Christian, was about to kill a carp to be made into gefilte fish in the city's New Square Fish Market in January when it began shouting in Hebrew.

"It said 'Tzaruch shemirah' and 'Hasof bah'," Mr Rosen later told the New York Times newspaper.
,,,
"Two men do not dream the same dream," said Abraham Spitz, a resident who visited Mr Rosen's shop to observe the site of the miracle.

"It is very rare that God reminds people he exists in this modern world. But when he does, you cannot ignore it."

Explain that one, "science"!

 

[Pixel42]

Is that what you want to believe about the list of peer reviewed papers supporting Intelligent Design? I doubt you've looked into any of them for yourself, beyond cherry picking examples?

It's a while since I've engaged any believers in Intelligent Design in discussion, but when I did that was certainly what the links I was offered in support of that belief were doing.

Personally I think Intelligent Design is rubbish. What I'm trying to do is highlight a somewhat hypocritical approach to "science" as something that we do, producing results that we agree with.

My acceptance of scientific discoveries has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not I agree with them, or want them to be true. I'd actually quite like there to be a god, and an afterlife, and paranormal powers. I was absolutely gobsmacked by the discovery that the expansion of the universe was accelerating, and still haven't wrapped my head round quantum mechanics. But when the evidence is obtained and the concusions reached by scrupulous use of the scientific method, I have no choice but to accept them whether I like them or not.

But someone else coming to different conclusions are made into "anti-science". And therefore it is ironic that they use computers and mobile phones.

Only when the conclusions were reached in a way which either ignores or deliberately perverts the scientific method.

Sure. For all I know, that's what Intelligent Design scholars are doing. Part of peer review is knocking out any obvious errors.

Unless the peer reviewers are also happy to ignore or deliberately pervert the scientific method.

 

[Steve]

There are qualified academics producing peer reviewed articles for intelligent design. In what way is that not science?

I suspect you have not looked closely at who the "peers" of believers in intelligent design actually are. More than a little confirmation bias in the rather closed group.

 

[Steve]

It happens all the time! Here is the news from 2003. Two men heard a fish talking, so that means corroboration by two people. Three, if you include the fish!:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2854189.stm



Explain that one, "science"!

If that is the method a god chooses to show people it exists then that god is a raving lunatic. and anyone that believes this event also.

The field of science best suited to "explain that one" is medicine, specifically psychiatry.

 

[GDon]

I was absolutely gobsmacked by the discovery that the expansion of the universe was accelerating

I found it terrifying, to be honest. The idea that in many billion years we won't be able to see other galaxies because of expansion, so that we won't know there were other galaxies out there in the first place and we are all alone... sounds like the start of the beginning of Hell.

But when the evidence is obtained and the concusions reached by scrupulous use of the scientific method, I have no choice but to accept them whether I like them or not.

In an ideal world, that's certainly true. But people decide for themselves what is considered scrupulous use of the scientific method all the time, unfortunately. The scientific method isn't political but people are.

 

[GDon]

If that is the method a god chooses to show people it exists then that god is a raving lunatic. and anyone that believes this event also.

The field of science best suited to "explain that one" is medicine, specifically psychiatry.

What I like about the story is that they still killed and sold the fish.

 

[wareyin]

Why? Why in the name of every stupid strawman set forth on this thread would a god...say , a universal creator of time and space...leave a trail of ******* breadcrumbs?

You know, you accused me of lying when I said this was your argument, yet here you are with your undetectable, unobservable, no effect on this universe god. Again.

Look, if you personally feel a need to add this undetectable, no effect on this universe, universal creator god to your worldview, go ahead. I don't get why you need to keep yourself open to the idea that somewhere out there is something that for all intents and purposes doesn't exist but is a god anyway, but for me I'll need a reason to accept such a useless "invisible dragon in my garage" god exists before I start basing my world view around it.