Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sordid]

Calling people stupid for their religion is discrimination.

You're the one who needs to look up what the word discrimination means. Go ahead, and then post it here and apologize for talking about things you have no knowledge of.

Qua science, it doesn't matter*, qua faith, it is a personal matter.

*Actually this argument collapses the instant religious organisation go outside their field of operations and start declaring science.

I would argue that "God exists" is a hypothesis about the world and as such should be subject to full scientific scrutiny like any other.

It is perfectly possible to be religious and not have a conflicting-with-science worldview.

I don't think so, since science frowns on believing things without evidence, and if religion were based on evidence it would be science. It's religion and faith precisely because there is no evidence.
Even granting that religion and science can in theory coexist without conflict for the sake of argument, though, I have yet to see a religion or a religious person that does.

[Muz]

It can be done without being a bigot. One person debates, hurting someone else's feelings. That person hits back with an insult. The others hit them back with more insults. Main reason why these threads are just huge messes.

[Flintus10]

Yeah this thread is a huge mess. It is simply a fact that neither is proven but as religion is based on believing in things which are still yet unproven. While Atheism (Well Sordid's(Not trying to single you out I just don't want to generalise all Atheists) is based on only believing in that which is believed proven this argument will last forever with no winner. (Also sorry for mistakes ect I am very very tired feel free to correct anything.)

[LegoLord]

Calling people stupid for their religion is discrimination.

You're the one who needs to look up what the word discrimination means. Go ahead, and then post it here and apologize for talking about things you have no knowledge of.

That is only one example I pulled out, and it is indeed discrimination.  You are saying that people who are religious can't be smart, which is simply not true.  You are also dismissing and insulting their other opinions simply because they have a religion.

Don't even think about trying to say segregation isn't discrimination.

[inaluct]

WHEN THE RAPTURE COMES YOU WILL ALL BE SITTING ON THE TOILET

I'm tempted to sig this.

[Sordid]

Calling people stupid for their religion is discrimination.

You're the one who needs to look up what the word discrimination means. Go ahead, and then post it here and apologize for talking about things you have no knowledge of.

That is only one example I pulled out, and it is indeed discrimination.

Again you assert without providing proof! Go ahead, look up a definition of discrimination in any respectable dictionary that supports this. I dare you. You said we should learn what discrimination is, so please educate us. Not about your opinion about the matter but about what an actual authoritative source has to say about it.

You are saying that people who are religious can't be smart, which is simply not true.

So I take it the smiley didn't clue you in, huh? Okay, I'll be blunt: I was being sarcastic in response to your childish namecalling.

You are also dismissing and insulting their other opinions simply because they have a religion.

Wrong, I'm dismissing religious opinions because they are unfounded, by virtue of being religious. Provide proof and I will respect your faith in God just like I respect the scientific method and its achievements. Except if you had proof it wouldn't actually be faith, now would it. Which was kinda my point. Which you missed. Oh well.

Don't even think about trying to say segregation isn't discrimination.

I wouldn't dream of it. Who said anything about segregation?

[Leafsnail]

What the hell is this thread about?
Are you people seriously, seriously comparing atheism and religion?
Atheism is the lack of religious beliefs. It is not better or worse than religion in a scientific view, as neither worldview can be proven correct. It depends on your personal (lack of) beliefs if it is better or worse in a faith-based view.
There is no discussion. You may as well be discussing whether islam or judaism is better. Qua science, it doesn't matter*, qua faith, it is a personal matter.

*Actually this argument collapses the instant religious organisation go outside their field of operations and start declaring science. See America's evolution/creationism arguments- however, this has nothing to do with atheism/religion, as it is perfectly possible to be religious and not have a conflicting-with-science worldview.

It isn't though.  A universe with an all powerful, all knowing, all loving god who answers everyone's prayers is very different to a universe without one.

Just for clarity, people:
Atheism ≠ Science

It's certainly correlated.  Let's see:

a particular branch of scientific knowledge; "the science of genetics"

So atheism is one branch of scientific knowledge.  *shrug*.

Yeah this thread is a huge mess. It is simply a fact that neither is proven but as religion is based on believing in things which are still yet unproven. While Atheism (Well Sordid's(Not trying to single you out I just don't want to generalise all Atheists) is based on only believing in that which is believed proven this argument will last forever with no winner. (Also sorry for mistakes ect I am very very tired feel free to correct anything.)

They are worse than unproven, that is the problem.  Many parts of, say, the Christian faith have been actively disproven.  The problem comes with the "God of the gaps" theory.

1000AD: Religious person: I believe in God!
Atheist: What's the proof?
RP: How do you explain how the stars stay in the sky?
Atheist: Er, I can't.
RP: God did it, end of discussion.

1800AD: Religious person: I believe in God!
Atheist: What's the proof?
RP: How do you explain how the stars stay in the sky?
Atheist: Gravity keeps them in balance.
RP: How do you explain how life came about?
Atheist: Er, I can't.
RP: God did it, end of discussion.

1900AD: Religious person: I believe in God!
Atheist: What's the proof?
RP: How do you explain how the stars stay in the sky?
Atheist: Gravity keeps them in balance.
RP: How do you explain how life came about?
Atheist: By the gradual process of evolution.
RP: How do you explain how atoms stay stable?
Atheist: Er, I can't.

2009AD: blah blah blah.
Atheist: Through electromagnetism and (goes off into a long and extremely boring talk about particle physics)
RP: How do you explain the original creation of matter?
Atheist: Argh, give me another 100 years.

Now I've forgotten what my original point was.  I hope you're happy.

[Jackrabbit]

WHEN THE RAPTURE COMES YOU WILL ALL BE SITTING ON THE TOILET

I'm tempted to sig this.

*Nods eagerly*

[inaluct]

It is done. May the tiki gods forgive me, etc.

[Jackrabbit]

Excuse me whilst I dance.

[LegoLord]

What the hell is this thread about?
Are you people seriously, seriously comparing atheism and religion?
Atheism is the lack of religious beliefs. It is not better or worse than religion in a scientific view, as neither worldview can be proven correct. It depends on your personal (lack of) beliefs if it is better or worse in a faith-based view.
There is no discussion. You may as well be discussing whether islam or judaism is better. Qua science, it doesn't matter*, qua faith, it is a personal matter.

*Actually this argument collapses the instant religious organisation go outside their field of operations and start declaring science. See America's evolution/creationism arguments- however, this has nothing to do with atheism/religion, as it is perfectly possible to be religious and not have a conflicting-with-science worldview.

It isn't though.  A universe with an all powerful, all knowing, all loving god who answers everyone's prayers is very different to a universe without one.

Um.  Don't a lot of terrorists pray these days?  Um, yeah, I can see why he wouldn't bother with prayers, personally.  They do have a tendency to be rather selfish.

[Andir]

If "God" isn't going to answer prayers because it will imbalance his world or violate his rules of the world... then why pray?  False hope seems to be a cornerstone to religion. 

[RAM]

I believe that a god exists.
I believe that that god is an arrogant ignorant brute who I should oppose due to philosophical differences...
I believe that my beliefs should not be trusted.

I can prove, on a purely faith-based argument(pretending that there is such a thing, I can't see it getting much beyond just yelling at each other until someone gives in and kills the other...) that faith is insufficient.

I believe that reason can be trusted, again, it is only a belief, and therefore is flawed, and reason is not always applied perfectly, but I maintain that of the available options it is the most accurate.

Reason and science are not the same thing. Science is a very specific method for determining a set of reliable assumptions. Reason is a far more general term and is not entirely compatible, as science requires using the scientific method even if better methods appear to exist...

Reason tells me that it is foolish to assume that god exists.
Faith tells me that it is foolish to assume that god exists.

The dark room cartoon seems flawed because it seems to assume that religion was aware that it was wrong.

The green dinosaur seems to be opposing science. But "Couldn't they all be describing the same shared desire for an understanding of what's bigger than ourselves?" Aaaaaaa, no, no they couldn't, they are predominantly based around the idea that they are devoted to a specific entity. Referring to that entity as a desire is blasphemy, in religious societies you probably would have been burned at the stake for saying that, and, unlike most people, it would probably be justified(according to the relevant laws, which may not, themselves, be justified)...
Religion's monopoly on the truth is supported only by those who believe that god is infallible. Science's monopoly on the truth is supported by its continued success, which can be appreciated by everyone who is supported by it, which is almost everyone... Also, science accepts that it may be wrong, obviously people forget that when they are arguing, but still, the issue isn't with science itself...

Calling people stupid for their religion is discrimination.

You're the one who needs to look up what the word discrimination means. Go ahead, and then post it here and apologize for talking about things you have no knowledge of.

That is only one example I pulled out, and it is indeed discrimination.  You are saying that people who are religious can't be smart, which is simply not true.  You are also dismissing and insulting their other opinions simply because they have a religion.

Don't even think about trying to say segregation isn't discrimination.

Segregation of infectious people is discrimination, discrimination can be supported by the community, although usually not by those who are segregated. You can say that people capable of spreading infectious diseases are a threat to the community, and so it is justified. I could argue that religion poses a threat to the community. People HAVE said that racially identifiable people are a threat to the community, and been publicly applauded for it. In the future people might consider quarantine barbaric...

It is true, that intelligent people can be religious. But this is not about intelligent people, it is about stupid people, or, more specifically, people who make stupid decisions. Saying that something you support can, by definition, not be supported by anything other than your own support seems stupid to me. I can define wisdom as making the decision that is best supported by the available information, an act that knowingly abandons wisdom is about as close to a definition of stupidity as I am likely to find. Just because someone is intelligent doesn't mean they aren't stupid...

Being wrong IS a threat to the community, if someone hears about a disease nearby, they think, "I need to get my family away from here" because 'here' is dangerous. So they pack their whole family into a car and drive away...

Eventually blind faith will betray, it betrays on everything other than religion, why would religion be sacred?

[SolarShado]

a particular branch of scientific knowledge; "the science of genetics"

So atheism is one branch of scientific knowledge.  *shrug*.

NO, IT'S NOT. Atheism has nothing to do science, asside from (i think) most atheists agree (or believe in, say it that way if it makes you feel better) the scientific explainations for things.

1000AD: Religious person: I believe in God!
Atheist: What's the proof?
RP: How do you explain how the stars stay in the sky?
Atheist: Er, I can't.
RP: God did it, end of discussion.

1800AD: Religious person: I believe in God!
Atheist: What's the proof?
RP: How do you explain how the stars stay in the sky?
Atheist: Gravity keeps them in balance.
RP: How do you explain how life came about?
Atheist: Er, I can't.
RP: God did it, end of discussion.

1900AD: Religious person: I believe in God!
Atheist: What's the proof?
RP: How do you explain how the stars stay in the sky?
Atheist: Gravity keeps them in balance.
RP: How do you explain how life came about?
Atheist: By the gradual process of evolution.
RP: How do you explain how atoms stay stable?
Atheist: Er, I can't.

2009AD: blah blah blah.
Atheist: Through electromagnetism and (goes off into a long and extremely boring talk about particle physics)
RP: How do you explain the original creation of matter?
Atheist: Argh, give me another 100 years.

I love this...

[Ampersand]

All rocks are atheists. They lack faith in a deity of any kind. But you cannot therefore say that the rock has faith that there is no god, because the rock is incapable of holding any opinions.