And on this day, Chuck Norris loses all my respect...

Yeah, I'm with Inky here.

I've been in a state of "they're may or may not be a God" for upwards of 15 years now, this despite my strong grounding in religious dogma and my learning of scientific theorem.

Bottom line: "Don't be an asshole. If you are and there is a God, then you're fucked, if not then people will treat you and remember you as an asshole."

Unless, you're so much of an asshole that you Wouldn't care what people will/do think of you, in which case, I pity you, which you prolly won't appreciate anyway GAWDAMMIT I'M TALKING IN CIRCLES WHERE'S THE WHISKEY THERE IT IS THAT'S NICE!

*drunk*

KelinciHutan wrote:

First off, let me strongly second WD40's rec of The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis several pages back. Literally every single point made on this thread about "how can God be good if there's evil in the world?" is discussed in that book. A few that haven't been mentioned are discussed in it, like "if God is good, why do animals suffer when they can't even sin?" And Lewis was not a creationist, which may figure into a decision on whether or not to read it. I highly recommend it, if only to get a handle on how the short answer to the question is "There is no short answer, but there are several long ones."

And when you're done there, you can read this atheist critique of The Problem of Pain showing in detail that Lewis' arguments do not withstand scrutiny.

KelinciHutan wrote:

And I really hate the false dichotomy of science vs. religion. It's so...disheartening. And it's stupid, because science doesn't do the things that people setting up this false dichotomy claim that it does. You can certainly use science to test some things about religion. I once had a physics teacher give a lecture on exactly how much energy is required to turn water into wine (which was a lot). But the main claims of religion (that there is a God who can turn water into wine if He so chooses) are not a thing that science can test. It doesn't have that capacity. Doesn't mean it can't be tested, just that science isn't the field for it.

Sure it can. If your god exists, he should be able to affect this world. If he cannot, the only reasonable course of action is to act as though he does not exist. I don't see what's so hard about this.

KelinciHutan wrote:

Because I can do all kinds of arguing and apologetics, and defend Biblical authenticity and accuracy, and get all nit-picky about Calvinism, and have nifty little analogies about how sin is like friction, and tell ~*EXOTIC*~ stories from living as a missionary kid overseas, and define the hypo-static union, and reference the Westminster Confession of Faith, and none of that is why I can trust God. All of that I know so that I'm at least trying to obey I Peter 3: 15, but that's not how I know I can trust God. I know I can trust God because, when I was seven years old, I met Him. Personally. And have known Him ever since. Sometimes, when He speaks to me, it's so powerful that I can almost hear a physical voice. And I realize that sounds very arrogant, and even slightly crazy, but there it is. I know God. I know Him like I know my sister. He's a person that you can know. So I can ask all these questions and not like the answers I'm finding, and get mad at God, and pray whiney prayers (some of the Psalms are spectacularly whiney), and still trust God to be God because I know Him, and I know what He's like.

And I can claim you've had a hallucination, possibly powered by feelings of euphoria, wishful thinking, or another state of altered consciousness. Guess which one Occam's Razor is going to support? (Hint: Occam's Razor states that between two competing explanations, the one which requires the fewest suppositions is superior. Not necessarily the simplest.) I realize that sounds cruel and dismissive, but what would you say to someone who claimed to have physically shook hands with the Buddha, or smoked hashish with Allah, or skipped through the meadows with Amaterasu? Personal revelation is wholly unconfirmable, so it of no use in convincing someone of your rightness.

Notanoni wrote:

That's an agnostic sign, stupid. "Probably not" is an agnostic sentiment, "not" is an atheist statement. Learn the difference, it's a pretty big one.

Since someone quoted this, I'll respond just once more to your ravings.

A/Gnostic is a statement of knowledge; "know"/"don't know". A/Theism is a statement of belief. Anyone who's being honest with themselves does not know there is a god. I am an agnostic atheist, "I do not know if there is a god but I believe there is not", and you are agnostic theist, "I do not know if there is a god but I believe there is". It is an atheist sign.

Stupid.

TheHermit wrote:

I am an agnostic atheist, "I do not know if there is a god but I believe there is not"

No, you're not. You're an anti-theist. The existence or non-existence of God is secondary to your opportunity to bang on the faithful for "not having any answers." You don't want answers: You want to repeat "But why" ad nauseum like a small child. You want to sit back in smug condescension and call those with faith stupid, "I don't believe in a higher power" isn't your core tenent, "Christianity is stupid, and Christians are stupid" is.

But whatever. If being pretend smarter than the Christian herd makes you happy, you go for it.

TheHermit wrote:

Notanoni wrote:

That's an agnostic sign, stupid. "Probably not" is an agnostic sentiment, "not" is an atheist statement. Learn the difference, it's a pretty big one.

Since someone quoted this, I'll respond just once more to your ravings.

A/Gnostic is a statement of knowledge; "know"/"don't know". A/Theism is a statement of belief. Anyone who's being honest with themselves does not know there is a god. I am an agnostic atheist, "I do not know if there is a god but I believe there is not", and you are agnostic theist, "I do not know if there is a god but I believe there is". It is an atheist sign.

Stupid.

And the ignorance marches on.

I thought the statement about most religions having only one prophet was stupid, but now you're messing up with words that have easily looked up definitions (and if you have to say something like "I am an agnostic atheist" to try to make my statement look wrong, you're really stretching and also totally missing the point again; yeah, it is possible that the sign was sponsored by an atheist group, but the sentiment it expresses is agnostic).

Also, you putting words in my mouth again. When did I ever say I was an agnostic theist, or any kind of agnostic, or that I believed in God? The only things I've argued for all along is the idea that religion isn't automatically crazy-pants and dangerous, and that it can comfortably coexist with science, general human decency and society, and that logically proven scientific facts are not the only things that have a right to be held as opinions. Oh, yeah, and that I like pizza. Nothing else has been said about my actual beliefs.

For all you know, I believe in many gods, or I believe in an abstract mystical void without any gods, or I'm an atheist who is a strong free speech advocate with close agnostic friends, or I'm something else altogether.

If you want to convince anyone to your viewpoints (and I assume you do?) you should be something other than a font of misinformation, and you should actually use some of the debating techniques and logical methods that you loudly proclaim you use and then keep patting yourself on the back for supposedly using.

And you shouldn't use the logical fallacies that you keep pretending your opponents use.

No, fuck that. Keep doing the same thing. This is great lulz.

(edited to change "it" to "is" my bad)

Freezer wrote:

No, you're not. You're an anti-theist. The existence or non-existence of God is secondary to your opportunity to bang on the faithful for "not having any answers." You don't want answers: You want to repeat "But why" ad nauseum like a small child. You want to sit back in smug condescension and call those with faith stupid, "I don't believe in a higher power" isn't your core tenent, "Christianity is stupid, and Christians are stupid" is.

Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem... Nope! Don't see any arguments there. Just a big ol' smear against my personal character and an attempt to tell me what my "true" motives are. Meanwhile, the core of my argument is completely untouched. You have done nothing to answer my assertion that moderate religion enables dangerous people to bypass the normal laws of morality, making religion fundamentally dangerous. You have done nothing to define any kind of hypothesis for any god, and in fact still seem to be laboring under the delusion that no such hypothesis is needed. I'm still winning.

TheHermit wrote:

I'm still winning.

And in the end, that's all that matters isn't it?

You have fun with that.

the asylum wrote:

I'd beg to differ. Agnostics genuinely don't know if there's a god or not, not "probably." With "probably no god," you're asserting that you believe there's no god, but still acknowledging the possibility of there actually being one. Like how I believe the next meal I eat won't be loaded with salmonella, but again, it's possible.

Not strictly true. My understanding is that agnostics believe that the position on the god/not god question is that it's inherently unknowable.

My position is that that I'm an agnostic atheist - the position on whether there is a god or not cannot be known, but on current evidence the existence of a god or gods of any kind seems unlikely.

I'm with the Hermit when he says (implies) that quite apart from the existence or non existence of god, the activities of religions and the religious appear to add to the pain and trouble in the world, not the good.

Thanks for posting your viewpoint, Kel. That was really kinda neat, and I envy that you're able to have such faith.

Religion has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God. Religion is primarily for the benefit of the priests. (Who I consider to be on the same moral level as any other professional story-teller.) FAITH on the other hand, I've got no problems with as long as the faithful respect the rights of non-believers.

And just for the record, I went to a Christian college with several people (religion majors mostly) who claimed they could literally hear God talk to them. And this was fine with the staff and management. But if I, as the resident militant agnostic (meaning I don't know the true nature of God, and I don't think anyone else does either), had said I heard voices in my head that no one else could hear, I'd have been considered even more bonkers than I actually was.

Maximilia wrote:

Thanks for posting your viewpoint, Kel. That was really kinda neat, and I envy that you're able to have such faith.

Why would you envy that? She basically just said any real Christian can tell you they've had a concrete, word-to-word encounter with God, thereby implying that, if you haven't, you don't live up to the standard. How can you interpret this any other way?

Quote :

I think any Christian would say the same. They don't believe in God because of some vague and nebulous maybe. They believe because of a real, concrete meeting with Him.

So TheHermit, I'm curious. Do you think science could ever be used to justify various human atrocities at all, or is it just religion that's evil?

InkWeaver wrote:

Maximilia wrote:

Thanks for posting your viewpoint, Kel. That was really kinda neat, and I envy that you're able to have such faith.

Why would you envy that? She basically just said any real Christian can tell you they've had a concrete, word-to-word encounter with God, thereby implying that, if you haven't, you don't live up to the standard. How can you interpret this any other way?

Quote :

I think any Christian would say the same. They don't believe in God because of some vague and nebulous maybe. They believe because of a real, concrete meeting with Him.

Suffice it to say, because of stuff which you couldn't pay me enough to air on a public forum like this.

'Kay. Was honestly curious, not just trying to be snide. I can respect that. =) (God knows there's shit you couldn't pay me to air on this forum either.)

Cyberwulf wrote:

So TheHermit, I'm curious. Do you think science could ever be used to justify various human atrocities at all, or is it just religion that's evil?

I don't have to speak theoretically; evil has been performed in the name of science (off the top of my head the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments) and likely will be again. I could hem and haw about this some (for example, eugenics can only be said to be based off evolution by natural selection if you ignore a LOT of evolution's mean theses and commit several logical fallacies in doing so), but if I'm going to count misunderstands of religious doctrines as a strike against religion fairness dictates misunderstanding of scientific theories still have to be held against science. Even so, this does not mean science and religion are equal in this regard. The differences are frequency, magnitude, and result. Justifying evil through science is difficult; peer review is merciless about logical fallacies and unethical actions, science is far more focused on "is" rather than "ought", and when it does happen the general consensus is to find out what went wrong and prevent it from happening again (unethical psychology experiments used to be quite commonplace, now they are very very rare due to tighter guidelines and strict enforcement of those guidelines). Justifying evil through religion is easy; cherry pick a few quotes from holy books, prophets, or teachings relevant to your goal, claim your evil is a demand from aforementioned books/prophets/teachings, and no matter what nobody will ever be able to prove you wrong. This is proven by how often religion is used to justify or lead to atrocities and how terrible they tend to be in their scope. And at the end of it people will simply say, "Man, that guy was nuts" and nothing changes. We are not allowed to talk about what led him to this point, and we are barred from asking whether it would have happened if he had not been led to believe that faith should be the equal or better than logic and reason. The next madman is only a matter of time.

I hope this was of some use to you.

Adagio wrote:

Anon wrote:

You even display the same level of arrogance in refusing to acknowledge the "Absence of evidence doesn't equal evidence of absence" rule. Just try using that line of reasoning to demonstrate that extraterrestrial life cannot exist and see how long it takes everyone else to stop laughing.

This is because, taking into consideration the necessary conditions for the propagation of life—any life—as well as the sheer number of planets in the universe, it is a reasonable conclusion that the probability of extraterrestrial life is quite high, even though no evidence has been found as of yet. This is not the case when one argues for the existence of a God. There is also a good reason as to why there has been no evidence of extraterrestrial life up until now (again, unlike in the case of the possible existence of a God): the distances are so vast as to make travel impossible and communication highly difficult, which makes it not unreasonable to think that there is life out there and we just haven't heard from it yet.

In other words, it works because an expectation of evidence is unreasonable. I think this applies to God for three reasons. You have yet to give any reason why it doesn't.

As for what those reasons are, the first is that God, being the creator of the universe, cannot be part of it and thus exists beyond the limits of our observations. The second is that for anything to qualify as 'evidence of God' there is an incredibly high threshold that must be met. It must be an event for which there absolutely can be no alternate explanation. Finally, God's existence, while clearly necessary for these events, can't be shown to be sufficient for miracles. In other words, God's existence, on it's own, is not a reason why these events must occur. A sentient god doesn't have to decide to cause obvious miracles for everyone to see.

Quote :

Perhaps you should think your examples through a little more to avoid false equivalences such as these.

As opposed to your saying that an expectation of evidence is reasonable where God is concerned because... well, it just is O.K. Isn't it obvious?

Quote :

Anon wrote:

Also, you seem to be under the impression that atheism isn't a faith. It is. Atheism is a belief in the non-existence of God.

Hm. A faith and believing something (not believing in something), are not equivalent. 'Faith' (in this context) refers to a trust in something that evidence and logic do not support. I put emphasis on logic because if you still insist on bringing out that terrible "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument, the atheist conclusion—that is, the probable nonexistence of god—is still supported by logic. Reason.

Reason? Really? Reason dictates that when the only argument you have against something is that there's no evidence for it, that is a solid case for it not being true? This must be some form of reason I have yet to encounter.

Atheism is the flip side of the coin to religion. It is an irrational and unprovable belief in the non-existence of god with exactly the same mindset and reasoning going into both the belief and the justification behind it.

TheHermit wrote:

Notanoni wrote:

That's an agnostic sign, stupid. "Probably not" is an agnostic sentiment, "not" is an atheist statement. Learn the difference, it's a pretty big one.

Since someone quoted this, I'll respond just once more to your ravings.

A/Gnostic is a statement of knowledge; "know"/"don't know". A/Theism is a statement of belief. Anyone who's being honest with themselves does not know there is a god. I am an agnostic atheist, "I do not know if there is a god but I believe there is not", and you are agnostic theist, "I do not know if there is a god but I believe there is". It is an atheist sign.

Stupid.

Being Agnostic means that you don't believe in either the existence or non-existence of God. It isn't like theism or atheism, both of which involve belief. It is an entirely different mindset altogether.

TheHermit wrote:

Even so, this does not mean science and religion are equal in this regard. The differences are frequency, magnitude, and result.

At the moment. Modern science has only been with us for a few hundred years. Give it time.

Quote :

Justifying evil through science is difficult; peer review is merciless about logical fallacies and unethical actions, science is far more focused on "is" rather than "ought", and when it does happen the general consensus is to find out what went wrong and prevent it from happening again (unethical psychology experiments used to be quite commonplace, now they are very very rare due to tighter guidelines and strict enforcement of those guidelines). Justifying evil through religion is easy; cherry pick a few quotes from holy books, prophets, or teachings relevant to your goal, claim your evil is a demand from aforementioned books/prophets/teachings, and no matter what nobody will ever be able to prove you wrong.

I think you underestimate the veneer of respectability that a person (or people) in white coats with a scientific paper give to whatever theory you can name. It matters very little to the layperson if the theory is later discredited. Men's Rights Activists love to cite the discredited Kanin study as proof that nearly half of all rape accusations are nothing more than malicious lies. People are still afraid to vaccinate their children in case it causes autism. Evolutionary psychology, as reported in the media, is nothing more than "just so" stories backed up by supposed scientific research - and all of it justifies the status quo. All these things do harm.

Quote :

This is proven by how often religion is used to justify or lead to atrocities and how terrible they tend to be in their scope. And at the end of it people will simply say, "Man, that guy was nuts" and nothing changes.

Like with Hitler?

Quote :

We are not allowed to talk about what led him to this point, and we are barred from asking whether it would have happened if he had not been led to believe that faith should be the equal or better than logic and reason.

Who's stopping you, the thought police?

Quote :

The next madman is only a matter of time.

If you think religion is the only possible thing that can lead to madmen, then you're dangerously naive. The truth is that we all love to appeal to a higher authority to back up and justify our worldview. Look at you, invoking the scientific method to "prove" (lol) that God doesn't exist. As more people take religion less seriously, that higher authority will shift to science. It's already happening.

On confusion regarding atheist buses

Quote :

“Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist”.

Anyway, I largely agree with Cyberwulf regarding the use of science to justify evil, although a lot of science used is fucking shaky and "evil" itself is difficult to operationalise and thus difficult to study scientifically.

Anon wrote:

In other words, it works because an expectation of evidence is unreasonable. I think this applies to God for three reasons. You have yet to give any reason why it doesn't.

As for what those reasons are, the first is that God, being the creator of the universe, cannot be part of it and thus exists beyond the limits of our observations.

I'd contest that. Given that religions like Christianity (which is the one I'm most familiar with, so that's the one I'll use) explicitly state that God can and has impacted the world in very tangible ways (and seemed only too happy to do so once upon a time), an expectation of evidence is reasonable. Why is it that all these incredible acts of God used to occur and don't anymore? Why is it that any supposed contact anyone has with God is small and intensely personal (and therefore useless as evidence), rather than, say, the waters of the Hudson turning to blood?

Honestly—and hey, perhaps that's just the view from where I'm sitting—arguing that religion/God (delete as appropriate) shouldn't have to make a solid, evidence-based case seems like a bit of a cop-out to me; like a way of winning the argument, so to speak, by stating that you don't need, or rather shouldn't be required, to make an argument at all. Dunno. It just seems cheap.

Anon wrote:

The second is that for anything to qualify as 'evidence of God' there is an incredibly high threshold that must be met. It must be an event for which there absolutely can be no alternate explanation.

Well, yeah, but we're also talking about a being who made trillions of stars as an afterthought. Given that (to use my earlier example) reaching down and turning the waters of the Hudson to blood for a while would be the work of a moment, the fact that there's such a high threshold for something to qualify as 'evidence of God' doesn't make the expectation of such evidence unreasonable.

(Again, this is a supposedly very powerful, not to say omnipotent, being. How hard can it be to make an unquestionable miracle if you're omnipotent?)

Anon wrote:

Finally, God's existence, while clearly necessary for these events, can't be shown to be sufficient for miracles. In other words, God's existence, on it's own, is not a reason why these events must occur. A sentient god doesn't have to decide to cause obvious miracles for everyone to see.

Again, that seems like a cop-out to me. (See above, etc. etc.) And He seemed only to happy to cause miracles left right and centre in the past, as well—why is it that, now that humanity as a whole is much more able to distinguish what has a natural cause from what could have no natural cause (the constant example: the waters of the Hudson turning to blood), it's suddenly unreasonable or unfair to expect some sign of life from God?

(Um, and it's actually "on its own." But that was probably a typo.)

Anon wrote:

As opposed to your saying that an expectation of evidence is reasonable where God is concerned because... well, it just is O.K. Isn't it obvious?

You're right, I should have elaborated more. But hopefully now that I have you see my point.

Anon wrote:

Reason? Really? Reason dictates that when the only argument you have against something is that there's no evidence for it, that is a solid case for it not being true? This must be some form of reason I have yet to encounter.

Remember that episode of the Big Bang Theory where Sheldon goes to the North pole to discover some sort of special particle or whatever, only to come to the conclusion that there was no such thing at the North pole because he didn't find any evidence of it whatsoever? (Well, at first he thinks he's right but then he finds out that the test results were faked, but the end result is the same, yanno.)

Not that I'm using that as a pillar to support my abhorrence of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", particularly, but it's been popping into my mind throughout this debate.

Anon wrote:

Atheism is the flip side of the coin to religion. It is an irrational and unprovable belief in the non-existence of god with exactly the same mindset and reasoning going into both the belief and the justification behind it.

Actually I'd argue that a) atheism is much more rational than theism, at least, and b) it's really the exact opposite mindset and justification, etc. But I don't think I'll be able to convince you of this without putting much more thought into it than I'm currently inclined to put (well-fed and sleepy are not conducive to deep thought, apparently).

Sorry, haven't read anything in between and likely won't. Just gonna answer this real quick.

Notanoni wrote:

If the whole point of religion were "to be unwaveringly certain and firm in your faith" then why have so many religions substantially changed their doctrines?
(..)
Plus, there are plenty of religious people who think that being unwaveringly certain and firm is a sign of stubbornness, not faith. The idea is that if you have real faith, you're not afraid to ask questions and if your beliefs get modified it isn't the worst disaster ever.

We're not talking about the same thing. You are talking about people questioning the details- should women really be stoned for adultery? Was all of creation really made in all of 144 hours?.
What I mean is the mindset of "I personally believe in God and that Jesus was really his son and I KNOW there is a divine being up there and it's described in the bible". To allow the thought of "...but maybe I'm wrong" is against the whole point of religion.

Anon wrote:

TheHermit wrote:

A/Gnostic is a statement of knowledge; "know"/"don't know". A/Theism is a statement of belief. Anyone who's being honest with themselves does not know there is a god. I am an agnostic atheist, "I do not know if there is a god but I believe there is not", and you are agnostic theist, "I do not know if there is a god but I believe there is". It is an atheist sign.

Stupid.

Being Agnostic means that you don't believe in either the existence or non-existence of God. It isn't like theism or atheism, both of which involve belief. It is an entirely different mindset altogether.

I'm an agnostic apathist: don't know, don't care.

grmblfjx wrote:

Sorry, haven't read anything in between and likely won't. Just gonna answer this real quick.

Notanoni wrote:

If the whole point of religion were "to be unwaveringly certain and firm in your faith" then why have so many religions substantially changed their doctrines?
(..)
Plus, there are plenty of religious people who think that being unwaveringly certain and firm is a sign of stubbornness, not faith. The idea is that if you have real faith, you're not afraid to ask questions and if your beliefs get modified it isn't the worst disaster ever.

We're not talking about the same thing. You are talking about people questioning the details- should women really be stoned for adultery? Was all of creation really made in all of 144 hours?.
What I mean is the mindset of "I personally believe in God and that Jesus was really his son and I KNOW there is a divine being up there and it's described in the bible". To allow the thought of "...but maybe I'm wrong" is against the whole point of religion.

I am not talking about the circumstance where believers are only allowed to question a few details. I am talking about all forms of questioning.

In some denominations and religions, nothing is allowed to be questioned.

In others, like you say, only the details are allowed to be questioned, not the big picture (though individuals may still question the big picture without leaving their religions, for example many American Catholics have rejected many important pieces of the big picture but still consider themselves Catholics).

In some, absolutely everything is questionable.

For example, there are religious traditions where monks are supposed to doubt as hard as they can and bring up every possible objection to their faith for heart-felt searching about whether they really believe it or not, as a spiritual exercise. The idea is that someone who hasn't done this has a hollow, meaningless faith that could crumble the moment that the right piece of information becomes known.

There are also religions such as Hinduism, where almost everything goes. It is possible to be a devout Hindu and atheist, a devout Hindu and monotheist, a devout Hindu and polytheist. If you're a Hindu, there is almost no belief that you could adopt that would cause you to stop being a Hindu. It's compatible with nearly everything.

Wicca and many other forms of Neo-Paganism are similar, in that they tend to be compatible with a wide variety of beliefs and questioning is highly encouraged. Yes, there are even Wiccan Christians out there, enough to form big groups (because though most forms of Christianity aren't compatible with Wicca, Wicca is flexible enough to be compatible with Christianity).

Don't try to say that all religions allow only questioning of at most the details, because it isn't true.

Notanoni wrote:

Wicca and many other forms of Neo-Paganism are similar, in that they tend to be compatible with a wide variety of beliefs and questioning is highly encouraged.

*snrk*

Cyberwulf wrote:

I think you underestimate the veneer of respectability that a person (or people) in white coats with a scientific paper give to whatever theory you can name.

Is that a problem with science itself, or a problem with people being unable to recognize an appeal to authority?

Cyberwulf wrote:

It matters very little to the layperson if the theory is later discredited. Men's Rights Activists love to cite the discredited Kanin study as proof that nearly half of all rape accusations are nothing more than malicious lies. People are still afraid to vaccinate their children in case it causes autism. Evolutionary psychology, as reported in the media, is nothing more than "just so" stories backed up by supposed scientific research - and all of it justifies the status quo. All these things do harm.

And each of them has a corrective measure. In the scientific community the Kanin study is bunk. No respectable scientist in the relevant fields argue against evolution or for a vaccine/autism link (most scientists who support ID are astronomers or engineers; among biologists it is unheard of). That is because science expects you to back up a claim with logic, evidence and reason. Religion requires none of those three things; it cannot self-correct. That makes its capacity for evil theoretically infinite (realistically it tends to stop at some point due to emotional appeals, self-destructiveness, or fierce opposition from opposing religious or non-religious viewpoints). Also, I think there needs to be a distinction between "use science to do evil" and "do evil in the name of science". These are not the same thing; the latter is much, MUCH rarer than the former and what I thought we were talking about.

Let me put my argument another way. It has been resolved that people can misuse religious scripture and scientific research to do evil. If someone misuses science, a conscientious person can follow their methodologies, point out flaws in their methods or assumptions, investigate whether the data really leads to the claims they are making, and it worst perform the relevant experiments themselves to attempt to duplicate the results. If a conscientious person wishes to prove a person is misusing religion, they could... appeal to emotion? To be honest, I'm not really sure. I think we've all figured out I'm not very good at thinking about things from a religious perspective, so if anyone wants to jump in and answer for me feel free.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

This is proven by how often religion is used to justify or lead to atrocities and how terrible they tend to be in their scope. And at the end of it people will simply say, "Man, that guy was nuts" and nothing changes.

Like with Hitler?

Hitler's views were not based in any way on science nor atheism; to be fair, whether he was even a believer at all is clear as mud. What is clear is that Hitler used religious rhetoric quite frequently in his speeches and writings to convince other Germans his path was the will of God (there are many references to God and Jesus in Mein Kampf but not a single word in support of atheism nor evolution by natural selection). He used the power of religion to overcome ethical objections to his plans and stifle criticism. Could he have taken command of Germany without the power of religion? Quite possibly; the Germans were desperate in the early thirties for any form of relief and would have taken any scapegoat presented even without the centuries of anti-Semitism promoted by the Catholic Church. But at the very least religion's lack of self-correction made his policies easier to implement.

Worse, religion still has not learned from Hitler's example. There is a short little quiz relevant to this, actually. 1 Samuel 15:2-3 reads:

Quote :

Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Just so we're clear about the context here, Amaleks ambushed and raided the Jews a few hundred years ago while they were wandering the desert. And to repay them, here God is commanding his people to wipe them out. He is commanding genocide. Three questions:

1) Do you believe God commanded this?

2) Do you believe God could appear before you and issue this same command today?

3) If God did command this of you, would you follow this order?

This is typically used to destroy God's status as the arbiter of morality. If you deny 1, you deny the veracity of the Bible as holy word (and thus it should not and cannot be followed unconditionally and be called "moral"). If you deny 2, you admit morality is relative (because the actions committed in 2000 BC were considered moral than and are considered immoral now, hence a book from 2000 years ago may or may not be relevant to modern ideas on morality). If you say "no" to 3, you admit that moral good exists separate and apart from God, and there are things God the "most good" could command that you personally would consider it immoral to follow.

The real fun is when someone answers "yes" to all 3 questions. Think about what that says about them. Think long and hard, then despair. How many Christians would answer "yes" to all 3 questions with the full conviction that it would be a morally good act to do so (hint: the answer is greater than zero)? How many otherwise fine, upstanding people would have to before you had to admit something was deeply, deeply wrong?

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

We are not allowed to talk about what led him to this point, and we are barred from asking whether it would have happened if he had not been led to believe that faith should be the equal or better than logic and reason.

Who's stopping you, the thought police?

In a sense, yes. I submit this thread; I ask questions about the sizable holes in people's arguments and receive a block wall of "Why should anyone care?", "You're an evil person for saying that", "How DARE you imply religion might have a problem?" As though pointing out someone's logic makes no sense is worse than using poor logic.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

The next madman is only a matter of time.

If you think religion is the only possible thing that can lead to madmen, then you're dangerously naive.

Phew! Good thing I never said that, then.

TheHedonist wrote:

Notanoni wrote:

Wicca and many other forms of Neo-Paganism are similar, in that they tend to be compatible with a wide variety of beliefs and questioning is highly encouraged.

*snrk*

If you want to pretend that Wicca is historically old, go ahead. I personally don't believe that because it actually has very, very few demonstrable links with folklore/legend/mythology portrayals of witchcraft, it doesn't have much resemblance to what we know about either historical and prehistoric polytheistic religions (other than worshiping a bunch of the same gods, which is a rather superficial link), and it is highly, highly modernized.

TheHermit, you miss my point. If someone wants to use the Kanin study or evolutionary psychology to back up their argument, it matters not a whit that the specific study was disproved. Someone in a white coat gave it a veneer of authenticity. It will happen more and more with science as less people take religion seriously. It's human nature. Everyone wants to feel justified by a higher authority.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Everyone wants to feel justified by a higher authority.

And that's the difference between scientists and XKCD fans.