[RatInTheWoods]

I'd love to look at the "religious behavior observed in animals" research... I think this would have made front page news if it passed peer review....
Humans are the only animal that creates imaginary entities to worship. The gods didn't make us in their image, we made them in our image.

Atheism doe not equal nihilism, a lack of moral fiber decadent society.

There are many, many more examples of corruption, evil doing, and decadence happening under the umbrella of religions if you look at history.

Religion doesn't inoculate you from narcissism. I can think of no higher form of narcissism than to think the universe was created for your species.
Also tell me "I am the voice of god" doesn't ring a tad of narcissism and most cult leaders have set new world records for personal best narcissistic behaviors...

Atheism doesn't equal left wing. You can be a left wing religious person, or a right wing atheist I (like me) they are not connected.

Also a few statements in this thread have got me convinced that there is a basic lack of understanding about the scientific method vs religious ideology!

All religious and faith based belief systems are not REMOTELY relatable to the scientific method. They are polar opposite ways of thinking.

[RatInTheWoods]

(05-13-2016 12:32 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

[quote='Horny Pilgrim' pid='1300323' dateline='1463109543']

The result is multiculturalism -- all cultures deserve to continue alongside one another, making no allowances for the resident one. Progressivism is a twisted mirror image to Christian eschatology -- the world will be all perfect when we are all equal, all poor, one skin colour, no gender.

Some of the hardest warriors for multiculturalism, open borders and white genocide in Australia are the churches and their followers!

Atheism does not equal Pro-immigration.

[Wutang]

I started a thread on this a while ago entitled 'Why is SJWism and active atheism correlated?"

thread-50717.html

I would agree that leftist thought and atheism doesn't have to be combined and that's no necessary logical connection between the two and it's not a contradiction to be right wing and also atheist.

However, when observing the world we constantly see beliefs get bundled together that don't have any necessary logical connection. A good example from American politics would be how many of the same people who are anti-abortion also are also pro-firearm ownership and also against gay marriage. None of those three ideas have any sort of strong logical connection between them but yet they always seem to come together with one another. I would say the same is with having leftist beliefs and also being anti-theist and in the history of the west opposition to religion for whatever reason has always been linked to also having leftist stances. The interesting question is why this is so and that's what this thread and the one I posted months ago is discussing.

[WeekendCasanova]

(05-12-2016 04:22 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

To look at it from another angle, atheism essentially did not exist until relatively recently (i.e. post-Darwin). Denying the existence of God - or at least of some creative force, regardless of who or what it is, and whether or not we could have knowledge of it - was regarded as insanity. If you had been born 200 years ago, you would have regarded the idea of God as self-evident from the existence and complexity of the universe. It's only because of the modern idea of scientific supremacy - which you have "faith" in, since its theories are entirely unproven - that you are free to jettison your belief in God.

Going back that far in history is pure folly. People didn't know better, and the scientific tools and methods that are available today weren't available then - it's not a point worth being brought up.

It's also nice to say that science is a theory, and that it's unproven, but it's not entirely accurate. Lots of what , for example, the Bible has claimed, has been explicitly disproved. You can't say that science hasn't proved anything, whereas region has proved something - because it hasn't. Science can prove a lot, while religion can't prove anything.

Correlation does not equal causality as we all know. I'm an atheist, I consign to scientific theory and facts (which by the way, can't even remotely be classed a religion, so I'm not sure why these two were conflated)

Edit: I guess the final thing to say is that, we can't come to the conclusion that religion is false since all we have is that science proves xyz. You need an additional parameter in the discussion showing that science disproves everything religions hold to be true. Conversely, you can't come to any conclusion with religion, since it proves nothing - it's baseless anecdotal claims.

[Atheistani]

Nobody here has mentioned the fact that women tend to be both more religious and more left than men. Having questioned a few religious women I got the following as responses as to what's so good about religion.

"I just feel that God loves me so much when I pray"
"God provides justice"
"There is equality in religion"

Just replace God/Religion in the latter responses with Government and you have the same arguments leftists frequently make.

[Kid Twist]

(05-13-2016 12:51 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

International socialism linked materialism and atheism. Before this, socialism was a political movement of non-conformist Christians who believed that education was important to the working class so that it could compete with the upper class and also so that it could read the Bible for itself.

The defeated Trotskyite and Anarchist elements left the Soviet Union for the West and in the 50s to 70s merged forces with international liberal capitalism against the Soviet Union.

Now in the West, the political paradigm is liberalism (both economic and social). This is why the Left and Right in English speaking countries are essentially the same. One side asserts social liberalism and uses rich celebrities while the other asserts economic liberalism and uses big business which pays little or no tax.

The working classes whose leisure time is significantly spent watching the television often vote for the social liberal party of big celebrity.

The liberal materialist era has seen a collapse in religious observance.

Nailed it. THIS

[EDantes]

(05-15-2016 09:40 PM)Delta Wrote:  

This is flat out wrong (well, half of it). Science is a method of seeking truth, not a set of beliefs.

That's what it is supposed to be but it is treated as essentially "gospel" by many left wing atheists; there's an article about Scientism on Wikipedia.

Quote:

Evolution is considered proven fact without a shred of controversy among those who study it.

Evolution is just information, it doesn't explain the how, the why, etc.

When people make philosophical claims about what evolution means (ex. life is meaningless) then they're taking a faith based position.

[EDantes]

(05-16-2016 01:42 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

I started a thread on this a while ago entitled 'Why is SJWism and active atheism correlated?"

thread-50717.html

I would agree that leftist thought and atheism doesn't have to be combined and that's no necessary logical connection between the two and it's not a contradiction to be right wing and also atheist.

The logical connection that I see is that the forefathers of modern progressivism (ex. Marx, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill) were materialists and believed that purpose in life was essentially reducible to pleasure versus pain.

Therefore this provides a philosophical bedrock for socialism:

It gives people something to blame for why their lives are miserable other than themselves, capitalism for example.

It ignores that inalienable rights exists, and postulates that a "perfect" utopian society is simply one with the highest "average" pleasure, therefore favoring policies like wealth redistribution, gun control, legislated "equality", etc, all bedrocks of modern progressivism

[WeekendCasanova]

(05-16-2016 03:21 PM)EDantes Wrote:  

When people make philosophical claims about what evolution means (ex. life is meaningless) then they're taking a faith based position.

Don't you dare open that can of worms.

[EDantes]

(05-15-2016 11:03 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

If people believe the scientific method is infallible this is a faith based position, it's essentially just deifying science and treating it like the Catholic Catechism.

The Big Bang theory used to be considered a "fringe" belief by the scientific method. So if people blindly put their faith in whatever "science" says (despite science having been wrong in the past and subject to change) it's still a faith based belief.

(05-16-2016 03:29 PM)WeekendCasanova Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 03:21 PM)EDantes Wrote:  

When people make philosophical claims about what evolution means (ex. life is meaningless) then they're taking a faith based position.

Don't you dare open that can of worms.

Point is that evolution is just information, when people attempt to relate what it means to the human condition this is philosophy, not the scientific method.

[WeekendCasanova]

(05-16-2016 03:30 PM)EDantes Wrote:  

Point is that evolution is just information, when people attempt to relate what it means to the human condition this is philosophy, not the scientific method.

When scientists say life is meaningless, they're looking at it from a purely scientific point of view. I.E - Humans are biological beings, and our purpose in life is to reproduce in order to ensure the survival of the species.

If you subscribe to the fact that science explains the nature of our planet, then you must also agree with a scientific explanation for why we exist. Organisms want to reproduce.

[EDantes]

(05-16-2016 03:36 PM)WeekendCasanova Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 03:30 PM)EDantes Wrote:  

Point is that evolution is just information, when people attempt to relate what it means to the human condition this is philosophy, not the scientific method.

When scientists say life is meaningless, they're looking at it from a purely scientific point of view. I.E - Humans are biological beings, and our purpose in life is to reproduce in order to ensure the survival of the species.

If you subscribe to the fact that science explains the nature of our planet, then you must also agree with a scientific explanation for why we exist. Organisms want to reproduce.

That runs into philosophical problems.

Is a deadbeat with 5 kids living off the government more of a role model than a single entrepreneur simply because the former "made more babies"?

[WeekendCasanova]

(05-16-2016 03:40 PM)EDantes Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 03:36 PM)WeekendCasanova Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 03:30 PM)EDantes Wrote:  

Point is that evolution is just information, when people attempt to relate what it means to the human condition this is philosophy, not the scientific method.

When scientists say life is meaningless, they're looking at it from a purely scientific point of view. I.E - Humans are biological beings, and our purpose in life is to reproduce in order to ensure the survival of the species.

If you subscribe to the fact that science explains the nature of our planet, then you must also agree with a scientific explanation for why we exist. Organisms want to reproduce.

That runs into philosophical problems.

Is a deadbeat with 5 kids living off the government more of a role model than a single entrepreneur simply because the former "made more babies"?

Not about being a role model - but the deadbeat with Five kids has a better chance of ensuring the survival of the species. Five kids will theoretically (of course they could all die beforehand) produce more kids than the single child.

The social constructs obviously have changed over the thousands of years, but the point is that without reproduction, a lineage would cease to exist - our species would no longer exist.

Edit: As I said above - I'm aware that evolution has caused changes in how we act and how we perceive value - business, money, etc...but the base goal of humanity is to reproduce; when you ask someone why they want a kid, most say "I just do", or "I want my name to continue" blah blah blah, but it's all based in the biological need to make those little fuckers keep producing other little fuckers.

Again, we've gone off on a bit of a tangent.

[GlobalMan]

Anabasis hit the nail on the head, it's the other way around.

[Atheistani]

Science : Just a name we give to the normal human method of gaining knowledge or technical progress.
Faith: The opposite of the above.

Science is a relatively new term, but humans had 'scientific' ie secular non faith based knowledge for a long time. Metallurgy, Agriculture, Medicine, Astronomy etc have all been around for a long time before the use of the word Science (or anything equivalent).

Similar to "Atheism", "Science" is just a word created for normal human thinking/behaviour.

The reason we actually had to name normal, basic human ideas and behaviours was because our society had become so saturated with an abnormal perspective (named Christianity) that the resurgence of evidence or observation based knowledge actually had to be given a name. This just tells how ludicrous this whole discussion is.

[Valentine]

(05-16-2016 03:45 PM)WeekendCasanova Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 03:40 PM)EDantes Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 03:36 PM)WeekendCasanova Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 03:30 PM)EDantes Wrote:  

Point is that evolution is just information, when people attempt to relate what it means to the human condition this is philosophy, not the scientific method.

When scientists say life is meaningless, they're looking at it from a purely scientific point of view. I.E - Humans are biological beings, and our purpose in life is to reproduce in order to ensure the survival of the species.

If you subscribe to the fact that science explains the nature of our planet, then you must also agree with a scientific explanation for why we exist. Organisms want to reproduce.

That runs into philosophical problems.

Is a deadbeat with 5 kids living off the government more of a role model than a single entrepreneur simply because the former "made more babies"?

Not about being a role model - but the deadbeat with Five kids has a better chance of ensuring the survival of the species. Five kids will theoretically (of course they could all die beforehand) produce more kids than the single child.

Evolutionary success does not mean they are role models.

Do you want to maximise the amount of offspring you have or would you rather be the happiest you can be? Or richest? Or most free?

This is similar to the real definition of the word Alpha - it purely means what is the most sexually successful. Betas however twist it to mean a virtuous person, leader of men, rich, successful, etc.

Dark Triad men are some of the biggest evolutionary successes, but they are definitely not role models for how to live your life.

[EDantes]

(05-16-2016 03:56 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  

Science : Just a name we give to the normal human method of gaining knowledge or technical progress.
Faith: The opposite of the above.

Science is a relatively new term, but humans had 'scientific' ie secular non faith based knowledge for a long time. Metallurgy, Agriculture, Medicine, Astronomy etc have all been around for a long time before the use of the word Science (or anything equivalent).

Similar to "Atheism", "Science" is just a word created for normal human thinking/behaviour.

The reason we actually had to name normal, basic human ideas and behaviours was because our society had become so saturated with an abnormal perspective (named Christianity) that the resurgence of evidence or observation based knowledge actually had to be given a name. This just tells how ludicrous this whole discussion is.

The difference is that the scientific method (aka inductive method) is limited to only material knowledge and rules out philosophy and logical arguments as means of gaining knowledge.

It wasn't meant to be a replacement for philosophy.

Under a purely materialist view for example, "property rights" don't exist since you can't physically test for them in a lab, and are therefore a fairy tale, hence this fits in well with socialism and communism.

[Atheistani]

(05-16-2016 04:00 PM)EDantes Wrote:  

The difference is that the scientific method (aka inductive method) is limited to only material knowledge and rules out philosophy and logical arguments as means of gaining knowledge.

If knowledge is not related to the physical world it is useless, unless we are talking about entertainment or art.

(05-16-2016 04:00 PM)EDantes Wrote:  

It wasn't meant to be a replacement for philosophy.

Under a purely materialist view for example, "property rights" don't exist since you can't physically test for them in a lab, and are therefore a fairy tale, hence this fits in well with socialism and communism.

I dont understand what this has to do with my post.

[scorpion]

(05-16-2016 02:12 PM)WeekendCasanova Wrote:  

Going back that far in history is pure folly. People didn't know better, and the scientific tools and methods that are available today weren't available then - it's not a point worth being brought up.

It's also nice to say that science is a theory, and that it's unproven, but it's not entirely accurate. Lots of what , for example, the Bible has claimed, has been explicitly disproved. You can't say that science hasn't proved anything, whereas region has proved something - because it hasn't. Science can prove a lot, while religion can't prove anything.

Correlation does not equal causality as we all know. I'm an atheist, I consign to scientific theory and facts (which by the way, can't even remotely be classed a religion, so I'm not sure why these two were conflated)

Edit: I guess the final thing to say is that, we can't come to the conclusion that religion is false since all we have is that science proves xyz. You need an additional parameter in the discussion showing that science disproves everything religions hold to be true. Conversely, you can't come to any conclusion with religion, since it proves nothing - it's baseless anecdotal claims.

Science provides us a means of understanding physical reality through observation and logical analysis. It should therefore be obvious that science is inherently limited in its scope - it cannot offer us any insight into problems which cannot be observed and for which no data can be gathered. This is why science offers no credible answers to the deepest and most pressing questions we face - the existential questions - who are we? Where did we come from? Why are we here? What is the nature of this reality? A scientific method which excels at observation and analysis falls woefully short at answering these questions. This is why atheism/evolution/science functions as a religion to many people. They absolutely take it on faith that science has all the answers - despite this clearly not being the case, a fact which should be logically clear after even cursory analysis. There is an intentional, God-shaped blind spot in the mind of atheists which is painted over sloppily with the word SCIENCE. Since the vast majority of atheists and science worshippers are not cellular biologists with a deep understanding of evolutionary theory, they take it on faith that those scientists got it right. And most aren't mathematicians or physicists with PhDs who can delve into the depths of string theory and quantum physics in order to explain the origins of the universe. But of course those guys are very smart, right? So we can just trust that they've got it figured out.

Science is a process of observation and analysis. It's an extremely valuable tool and represents some of the best aspects of human achievement. Scientism, on the other hand, is the faith-based position that men much smarter than oneself have figured out (or will figure out at some point in the future) everything worth knowing, and that the idea of God is therefore unnecessary and antiquated. It is a belief born of hubris and laziness - a combination of unwarranted conceit in one's own judgment and intellectual laziness that prevents one from actually diving deep into these existential questions.

And by the way - most of the greatest scientists of all time were Christians. It's not a coincidence that the greatest minds of all time - the ones who actually delved the deepest into observing and understanding the complexity and grandeur of the universe - came away convinced that there was an even greater creative force behind it.

[WeekendCasanova]

(05-16-2016 06:18 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

And by the way - most of the greatest scientists of all time were Christians. It's not a coincidence that the greatest minds of all time - the ones who actually delved the deepest into observing and understanding the complexity and grandeur of the universe - came away convinced that there was an even greater creative force behind it.

This argument it's inherently flawed. I'm assuming that when you say "greatest minds of all time" you're referring to scientists hundreds of years ago that didn't have the tools scientists have today. Because most modern scientists are atheist (Hawking is an atheist, by the way). Or if they aren't atheist, they're agnostic (like Tyson). If that is the time period you're talking to (and correct me if I'm wrong), you can't possibly compare the two. I'm obviously no scientist, however, neither are most people who claim that science is false and that blind faith should prevail.

But this is really just a moot point. In my previous post, I said that we can't 100% say with certainty that science disproves religion. We can't go back and collect data to determine whether or not the big bang really happened or whatever else. What we can prove, is that science explains a great deal about how our planet works. Down to a molecular level. Additionally, scientists can disprove a lot of what is said in religious texts (the bible, for example).

The argument religion vs. science will go on forever because of the fact that we can't go back in time. All of the rhetoric in the world won't further the stance of either side.

[Cobra]

OP is more like an under the radar johnbozz.

500+ posts and yet nothing of value.

[Tex]

I'm still waiting for someone in all this faith vs. science talk to mention shadow people and other dimensions. It's amazing how quickly a lot of atheists will buy into ghosts, interdimensional beings, etc. "Faith" exists in everyone, it's just displaced or suppressed. Organizing it into a religious doctrine in something different.

But I don't think one or the other reflects a political orientation. Many leftists just made a point to be as contradictory as possible to the established state of affairs by becoming anti-religion. I don't think that trend means one is inherent in the other, it just feels that way because the left (for political reasons) were the first to advertise atheism as widely as they have.

Also, not trying to talk down on people who believe in ghosts. I believe in ghosts and I swear to god I've seen shadow people too

[WeekendCasanova]

In other news -

http://www.kulr8.com/story/31992349/woma...KULR8_News

Quote:

"It’s time to stand up and have a voice, instead of bowing to the homosexual, perverted agenda that’s taken over this nation," the woman says in a video posted by YouTube user Loredana Camelia.

[RatInTheWoods]

(05-16-2016 03:30 PM)EDantes Wrote:  

If people believe the scientific method is infallible this is a faith based position, it's essentially just deifying science and treating it like the Catholic Catechism.

Mate I don't think you had a good look at the flowchart I posted and understood it.

Scientific method is not infallible. Its riddled with mistakes, gaps in knowledge, human bias, corruption and all manner of comedy of errors. Just like religion.

The difference you are missing is that all knowledge and facts are up for revision, if you can bring the evidence and proof. Its a continual improvement system that navigates the flaws of human endeavor.

Thats why its they only rational and sensible way of looking at the universe.

Its the polar opposite of faith based systems.

Please try to understand this seismic shift in understanding the universe that is human kinds greatest achievement, and has given us so much.

[EDantes]

(05-17-2016 04:06 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 03:30 PM)EDantes Wrote:  

If people believe the scientific method is infallible this is a faith based position, it's essentially just deifying science and treating it like the Catholic Catechism.

Mate I don't think you had a good look at the flowchart I posted and understood it.

Scientific method is not infallible. Its riddled with mistakes, gaps in knowledge, human bias, corruption and all manner of comedy of errors. Just like religion.

The difference you are missing is that all knowledge and facts are up for revision, if you can bring the evidence and proof. Its a continual improvement system that navigates the flaws of human endeavor.

Thats why its they only rational and sensible way of looking at the universe.

Its the polar opposite of faith based systems.

Please try to understand this seismic shift in understanding the universe that is human kinds greatest achievement, and has given us so much.

Won't get into it too much, but some people for example argue that formal laws like mathematics or logic offer a better understanding of the universe than natural science.

Truth is science alone can never give meaning, it can only explain what exists not what it means in the lives of humans, all philosophical beliefs do require a certain degree of faith