No God

And everything I have said about science has Nothing to do with atheism.

Well said (basically what I said but much more succinctly!!!).

I can believe that all matter, energy is made out of very small pieces of penn pasta

No way !!!

(I don't)

Oh ! :(

Know I know the world is hemi-spherical and rotates on an axis and the sun moves relatively across the sky. Why would I now believe in apollo?

The same reason you would now believe in Christianity, Islam and so on.

Reward, structure, promise, consolation and so on.

is it just me or am i seeing cernan's definition of atheism as my (and many others) way of viewing the world but with an unnecessary label attached to it?

Yes !

To be fair, he did not define atheism as such, but some vague glancing misrepresentation of cosmology and evolution/paleontology. In fact he failed to mention the single defining notion.

I would agree that the label is unnecessary if it were not for the sheer dominance and preeminence of religion. Atheism, for me, as a phrase should not really exist, we don't, after all, employ a unique phrase for people who don't believe in levitation or astrology or ghosts or water divination or telepathy or . . . (insert any number of magical / superstitious beliefs).

I certainly wouldn't define or describe myself as an 'a-theist' any more than I would describe myself as a 'a-astrologist'.

Yes !

To be fair, he did not define atheism as such, but some vague glancing misrepresentation of cosmology and evolution/paleontology. In fact he failed to mention the single defining notion.

I would agree that the label is unnecessary if it were not for the sheer dominance and preeminence of religion. Atheism, for me, as a phrase should not really exist, we don't, after all, employ a unique phrase for people who don't believe in levitation or astrology or ghosts or water divination or telepathy or . . . (insert any number of magical / superstitious beliefs).

I certainly wouldn't define or describe myself as an 'a-theist' any more than I would describe myself as a 'a-astrologist'.

+1

That was meant to be my point when I posted that image - it isn't accurate, it's quite obviously exaggerated to the point of being very inaccurate.

But . . . . . the Christian graphic was accurate - that is it's humour.

Like I say the humour stems for removing Christianity's ornate/pious/poetic language and wording the Christian knowledge claims in common language while remaining accurate.

At no point did this description of Christianity insert *'they eat there babies' *or 'they are all illiterate' or any other nonsense claim, in that respect it is an accurate caricature of Christianity.

While the description of atheism was simply a misrepresentation of disparate scientific theories (that fall foul of Christian dogma) and have nothing to do with atheism.

^

I can understand why people believed in god(s) when the rest of the world wasn't explained by science.

for example the sun moving across the sky.

"Apollo is pulling it across the sky with his chariot."

In ancient Greece, I would have accepted this as fact, because I would have not had another explanation and I would have know that horses can pull very big things across land, so why wouldn't some Horses made by god pull the sun?

Know I know the world is hemi-spherical and rotates on an axis and the sun moves relatively across the sky. Why would I now believe in apollo?

Yep exactly. Religion belongs in the desert where it was founded, especially Christianity and Islam . There is jut no place for it in 21st Century western Society. The muslims have proved this by their constant obsession with getting us all to think like them and bring a Jihad on anyone who doesn't. If you don't like it here, fuck of back to the desert

Quote:
Originally Posted by cernan
I reckon that Ockham's razor has religion beat now, and "experimentation vs faith" will finish it off in the long run. Esp. now that neuroscience research groups are showing that you can expose people to electromagnetic fields and induce religious experience, angelic visions, conversations with the almighty etc. It would be a pretty sick joke if our global religions are the result of a sunstorm a couple of thousand years ago.
I agree with everything this man says !

But . . .

I can't see superstition, the desire for the mysterious, to ever be finished off, I think it is innate in us, as basic to our make-up as anger, murder, love, awe, racism or empathy.

I can't seeing science having an impact on religion any more than it having an impact on fear, racism, misanthropy, astrology and empathy. They will always be with us, they are what make us up.

the idealist in me disagrees and thinks science can unify the species under common goal of advancing itself.

the realist in me agrees completely that science cannot achieve this. This revelation makes me want to switch field to neuroscience so that start butchering brains and retrofitting chromosomes to eradicate the less desirable elements of human nature and start developing the left wing totalitarian scientific utopia the idealist in me wants.

And to be fair my opening words following the cartoonish representation of christianity was a definition of atheism.

The (admittedly comic) representation of Christianity's is, even you must admit, accurate, that is why it is comic, translating Christianity's pious language into common speak reveals it's unhinged supernatural claims for what they are.

But the response on Atheism is so so far of the mark it is also funny !

The most telling part is that it fails to mention atheism other than in the title ? It attempts to use woeful misrepresentations of science (cosmology and evolution) to refute atheism !?

To be fair, Catholics (and all related churches) believe they are eating the ACTUAL flesh of Christ, not doing so symbolically.

the idealist in me disagrees and thinks science can unify the species under common goal of advancing itself.

the realist in me agrees completely that science cannot achieve this. This revelation makes me want to switch field to neuroscience so that start butchering brains and retrofitting chromosomes to eradicate the less desirable elements of human nature and start developing the left wing totalitarian scientific utopia the idealist in me wants.

And to be fair my opening words following the cartoonish representation of christianity was a definition of atheism.

I can't even see how science could start to stem religion (or if it would even be desirable to do so).

Religion is unperturbed by reason, it is not just unreasonable but anti-reason, this is not my own claim but the proud claim of religion itself.

I think science is the wrong tool.

To be fair, Catholics (and all related churches) believe they are eating the ACTUAL flesh of Christ, not doing so symbolically.

:)

I have been following the recent spate (in the US) of people (no good for nothing crazy students and similar ne'er do wells) taking the holy wafer into their mouths but not consuming it and basically smuggling it out of the church to desecrate in some humorous/youtube way.

The church have been livid with outrage, to the point of attempting to effect an arrest on grounds of kidnap.

Silly Idiots, these people are wasting their time.

I would love to have 'Kidnap of a cracker' on my criminal record.

It would go just under 'assault and battery of a custard cream' and 'indecent exposure in front of a Carr's water biscuit'

:)

I have been following the recent spate (in the US) of people (no good for nothing crazy students and similar ne'er do wells) taking the holy wafer into their mouths but not consuming it and basically smuggling it out of the church to desecrate in some humorous/youtube way.

The church have been livid with outrage, to the point of attempting to effect an arrest on grounds of kidnap.

Silly Idiots, these people are wasting their time.

I would love to have 'Kidnap of a cracker' on my criminal record.

It would go just under 'assault and battery of a custard cream' and 'indecent exposure in front of a Carr's water biscuit'

I hadn't heard of that! When I was a kid and had to attend CCD (confirmation of Catholic doctrine, i.e. Sunday school) I had a teacher who told us stories of people smuggling the host out of the church after it had been consecrated and the host bleeding or doing other crazy (or 'miraculous') things.

To be fair, Catholics (and all related churches) believe they are eating the ACTUAL flesh of Christ, not doing so symbolically.

I wasn't sure that this was correct, so I used my search-fu. I wish I hadn't, what I found was bonkers:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

Only click if you're REALLY interested.

I wasn't sure that this was correct, so I used my search-fu. I wish I hadn't, what I found was bonkers:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

Only click if you're REALLY interested.

They call the conversion of a wafer to the actual body of Christ 'transubstantiation.'

Oh hi guys whats going on in here.....

Big yawn

FYI:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7842769.stm

I doubt science can directly remove religion, but as our understanding of the nature of reality develops the need for creation myths/gods will be lessened and the sense of awe and comfort people get from religion they will get from knowing the way things really work. Subsequently more and more rational people are drawn away from the religions leaving groups of hardcore believers further and further isolated from a rational society. At some point in that process negative selection kicks in and the meme dies out. slowly.

hey, I can hope right?

Scientology FTW.

Oh, Damien Thorne resurrected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98I85ceICRM

I wasn't sure that this was correct, so I used my search-fu. I wish I hadn't, what I found was bonkers:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

Only click if you're REALLY interested.

From that website (which appears to be a highly scholarly resource for all aspects of christian theology):

"According to the teaching of theology a revealed fact can be proved solely by recurrence to the sources of faith, viz. Scripture and Tradition, with which is also bound up the infallible magisterium of the Church."

So, in paraphrase: theological facts can be PROVEN only by referring to stuff that was written down centuries ago, in a different language or by examining what people have been behaving like for the last two millenia.

It is now obvious to me why many theologians are not satisfied by the flimsy definition of proof beyond statistical doubt offered by the physical sciences. How can repeatable, empirical observation of phenomena, coupled with a peer review process and incredibly precise statistical techniques (aimed at exposing error, not hiding it) possibly compete with their notions of proof?

Or, without sarcasm: fuck me backwards that is dumb.

God schmod.

God schmod.

Heheheheheehehehehehe 'God schmod'!

LOL

Jesus Shmeesus.

yeah, treflip you are correct.
I was trying to highlight the inaccuracies in daveypants response to the zombie christ/talking snake thing and sacrificed a few accuracies/finer nuances for the sake of being a bit glib.

aye fair dos i see now i was just making a point as i spotted the obvious sorry 'bout that

Possibly the best play on a sectarian slogan I've seen in a while. (For God and Ulster if a motto of the UVF)

For Cod and Ulster