To the Christians .. why do you come on here? [Archive]

JoeEllison

10th August 2007, 06:45 AM

A few evangelizing posters here (won't name names) seem to come here to get their "persecution kick". They seem to have a genuine need to be in the minority in a shouting match.

So, they revel in being on the receiving end of a pile-on and troll for that reason. We would do best not to indulge them.That's really true of all the believer, whether it is religious belief, 9-11 conspiracies, anti-GW cultists, homeopaths, and all manner of others. Part of their belief system is that their viewpoint isn't universally accepted because The Man is trying to hold them down, or because evil skeptics are campaigning to suppress the truth, or some other persecution delusion. So, they come here, looking for the "persecution", and they get it even if they have to imagine most of it, or they go out of their way to provoke negative responses. If you refute their position, they take it as evidence that they must be right. If you also lose your temper, they take it as 110% proof that they are correct.

strathmeyer

10th August 2007, 08:18 AM

Are there actual questions here? I haven't seen any. They seem to disappear whenever someone asks them a question. And since this thread is a question... POOF!

Robin

10th August 2007, 08:26 AM

I guess there are people who believe in morphic resonance and global consciousness that are skeptical about autoganzfeld tests, or believers in zero point energy who are skeptical of Christianity.

Fnord

10th August 2007, 08:50 AM

To the Christians .. why do you come on here?
and is there such a thing as a skeptical Christian?

I am a Christian, and I am a skeptic.

Currently, I'm applying most of my skepticism towards people who claim to be Christians, yet they seem to practice an especially hypocritical form of Religionism instead. (It really does help to actually read the Bible in this case!)

Like the Christian woman from yesterday who spammed a lot of other Christians with a message that claimed that a certain major-league baseball team was cancelling "Family Faith Day" due to concerns over the possibility of conflict with local Moslems. I lept to the task, applied my skeptic's investigational skills,* and found out that the only conflict was with a secular group that had already scheduled their special day on the same day that the Christian group wanted to schedule theirs.

Then I counter-spammed everyone on the original "To" list.

Y'know ... it never ceases to amaze me how many fellow Christians will tell you to shut up and mind your own business when you expose one of our bretheren/sisteren as one who "Gives False Witness" in the name of God.

Fnord - The voice of one crying for dessert.

(* - I called the team's management and a few other parties listed by name in the original spammed message.)

Darth Rotor

10th August 2007, 01:41 PM

To the Christians .. why do you come on here? Inappropriate comment removed.
and is there such a thing as a skeptical Christian?
Did I miss the memo that decreed that only atheists and agnostics can be skeptical?

As noted above, there is some variability in what makes a Christian, and some latitude in how to be a skeptic.

Or did I miss that other memo? Ya know, the one about having to wear a bloody kilt, yet again?

DR

skeptifem

10th August 2007, 02:44 PM

Inappropriate comment removed.

bwaahahaaa omg

Undesired Walrus

10th August 2007, 02:54 PM

To sgf8, you believe you exist right? You believe everything you see and touch is actually there right? How do you know that? Are you not the insane one for believing this is all real and you may not actually be a brain in a jar, or that we are all holograms and you are the only living, aware being in all existence?

IMHO, science and P & T destroy that type of philosophy and intellect.

I'm sure the casual response is, 'Because it is quite clear we exist! It is common sense!'. That sounds an awful lot like 'But of course there is a God! How can there not be?'

No single answer is ever the answer.

Darth Rotor

10th August 2007, 03:50 PM

Contra your

No single answer is ever the answer.
I offer 42.

You knew that was coming, right? :D

DR

Civilized Worm

10th August 2007, 04:28 PM

If religious people are prepared to discuss their beliefs rationally then I think that's great and should be encouraged.

To sgf8, you believe you exist right? You believe everything you see and touch is actually there right? How do you know that? Are you not the insane one for believing this is all real and you may not actually be a brain in a jar, or that we are all holograms and you are the only living, aware being in all existence?

IMHO, science and P & T destroy that type of philosophy and intellect.

Why would it destroy it? Good science always has room for doubt.

Fnord

10th August 2007, 05:49 PM

Good science always has room for doubt.

I would amend that to read "Good science is never absolute" and attribute it to Heisenberg, but the closest he ever came to such a statement was in his Uncertainty Principle.

Even scientists can't know everything.

UnrepentantSinner

10th August 2007, 06:21 PM

and is there such a thing as a skeptical Christian?

You do know that this is a skeptics webiste, not an atheist website and that skeptic =/= atheist right?

Tricky

10th August 2007, 07:05 PM

No single answer is ever the answer.
Actually, all parents know there is such and answer, and that answer is, "Because I say so."

sgf8

10th August 2007, 07:09 PM

To sgf8, you believe you exist right? You believe everything you see and touch is actually there right? How do you know that? Are you not the insane one for believing this is all real and you may not actually be a brain in a jar, or that we are all holograms and you are the only living, aware being in all existence?

Not exactly sure where you are going with this....

I really don't care to discuss existentialism. I don't want to live my life like everything is a big conspiracy. At some point you need to just make up your mind what is real and what is not. Otherwise you could just spend your life hiding under your bed...and that isn't all that comfortable.

Susan

kurious_kathy

10th August 2007, 07:49 PM

and is there such a thing as a skeptical Christian? This is a real good question, I often ask myself why I stay in touch with people on this forum. I mean most people oppose me because of my belief and that normally would discourage anyone. I guess I like keeping in touch here because I like to share my faith with others and you guys can stimulate one to use their critcal thinking ablities more.

But when you ask if christians can be skeptical I think you should first back up and ask how you define your skepticism? In other words not all critical thinkers are fault finders, but a lot of people who call themselves skeptics tend to be proud of their ablity to dwell more on the why not's rather than the why's to something being possible. Not all critical thinkers are synics but many I run into are. My question to rebutal yours would be are there any other critical thinkers on this board that try to be optomistic?

qayak

10th August 2007, 08:16 PM

In other words not all critical thinkers are fault finders,

Can you tell me how accepting everything, which is what you are doing if you never find fault with anything, makes you a skeptic?

. . . but a lot of people who call themselves skeptics tend to be proud of their ablity to dwell more on the why not's rather than the why's to something being possible.

It is quite simple. If one of the "why nots" is not accounted for, the idea is false. A skeptic gets used to conserving energy and finding the simplest, most likely faults first and will find problems with your dearly held beliefs very quickly, if there are any.

. My question to rebutal yours would be are there any other critical thinkers on this board that try to be optomistic?

Optimistic? Absolutely. However, my optimism is based on the idea that I am going to weed out the truth not that the idea will hold up because I happen to wish that it would.

It's like I always tell my fundamentalist sister when she says I am going to be disappointed when I die and find out their is a heaven. I tell her that I can't be disappointed because no matter how it turns out, I will know the truth and that is all I need. On the other hand, she has a 50% chance of being doubly disappointed. First, if there is no heaven and second, realizing she has completely wasted her life and those of her children on this foolishness.

Undesired Walrus

11th August 2007, 03:11 AM

Not exactly sure where you are going with this....

I really don't care to discuss existentialism. I don't want to live my life like everything is a big conspiracy. At some point you need to make your mind up

Sounds an awful lot like 'I don't want to not believe in a God cos it is comforting ykno'.

You are insane, insane I tells ya for believing that the real world scientists discover is the truth!

Katana

11th August 2007, 04:01 AM

Actually, that there are so many skeptics fills me with optimism.

If the world were populated only by folks living their lives in blind acceptance and according to magical thinking, I would be pessimistic indeed.

qayak

11th August 2007, 08:07 AM

Katana

11th August 2007, 08:12 AM

Actually, you would be happy because you would be one of them! :D

:con2:

:p

vincent1555

11th August 2007, 04:09 PM

I am a Christian and decided to join this forum because I enjoy discussing things with people who have different views but share a desire to know truth. Whether or not I am a skeptic depends on how broad your definition is. I take it on faith that I am not delusional, that my senses are reliable and that my rational thought processes which lead me to conclude things such as that a conclusion derived from the proper use of syllogistic logic must be true are not the result of some insanity. The aforementioned can only be taken on faith since any proof of them would necessarily rely on their being true. I also do not doubt propositions such as "The continent of Australia exists" despite never having perceived it with my senses or logically derived the necessity of its existence. I believe it because I not only have faith in my own senses but also believe that a very significant majority of other human beings have reliable senses and that a decent portion of them have perceived Australia. I also have never seriously entertained the possibility that a worldwide conspiracy exists for the purpose of deceiving me on such matters. I think up to this point most skeptics would at least consider me a nominal member.

Where we probably part ways is my belief in God. I do not believe in God because I have directly perceived him but rather because the available evidence strongly suggests a creator. The fact that the universe had a beginning and that all the various forms of matter and energy believed to comprise the universe do not seem the type of things which can cause themselves to come into existence (Conservation of matter and energy seems to require this) it seems reasonable to believe that something else besides the physical universe has always existed (a necessary being) and created the universe via the big bang. As a side note responses such as "well who created God?" are based on the faulty premise that God had a beginning. Since there was never a time when God was not, his existence does not need explanation. Before the scientific community settled on a big bang (with no big crunch) most atheists believed that the universe had always existed or that there was an infinite series of bangs and crunches. Such a model would have seemingly eliminated the need to explain the existence of the universe (though some people argue that only certain types of things i.e. God could always have existed).

This gets me to belief in a God, but admittedly not the Christian God. That step required faith (there are archeological and historical reasons for believing the Christian account as opposed to other religions but I will admit I did not study these until after I had already come to have faith). I became a Christian after reading the New Testament and the experience I had was a bit similar to Anselm's Ontological Proof. The triune God described by the bible seemed to me to be the very best thing that could possibly exist and (here is where the faith part really comes in) it has always seemed to me self evident (in the same way that I am not insane and that my senses are reliable) that God must be the very best possible thing. My faith has deepened as I have continued my Christian walk and I do believe that after this life I will dwell with God forever.

Just because I belong to the Christian faith does not mean that I am opposed to critically examining it. For instance I used to be a Young Earth Creationist but after coming to a better understanding of the Ancient Hebrew language (the lexicon was quite limited and many words such as "day" have a variety of meanings), studying the sciences, and doing some careful exegetical readings of the text my belief changed as to the age of the earth and the time within which God created it. Thus while I may not be a skeptic I do consider myself a critical thinker. I do not fear science and in fact believe that science can be enormously valuable in coming to an accurate understanding of the bible.

Achán hiNidráne

11th August 2007, 05:01 PM

To answer your first question: To witness, to pontificate on "morality," to quilt-trip the unbelievers, and to make a general nuisance of themselves as they always do.

To answer your second question: No.

Elind

11th August 2007, 05:14 PM

and is there such a thing as a skeptical Christian?

Sure, like when I was a teenager long long ago on the road to atheism.

Elind

11th August 2007, 05:28 PM

For instance I used to be a Young Earth Creationist but after coming to a better understanding of the Ancient Hebrew language (the lexicon was quite limited and many words such as "day" have a variety of meanings), studying the sciences, and doing some careful exegetical readings of the text my belief changed as to the age of the earth and the time within which God created it.

Why, if you are prepared to accept evidence, would you read Hebrew to learn of the age of the earth, rather than what is known in science and what age, if any, did you come up with in Hebrew?

I do not fear science and in fact believe that science can be enormously valuable in coming to an accurate understanding of the bible.

How so, and why bother since your primary basis is faith alone?

ShowerComic

11th August 2007, 05:31 PM

Did I miss the memo that decreed that only atheists and agnostics can be skeptical?

I personally know of two people in the 'Randi community' who claim the title of Deist. I myself have no idea how I could test deism, though I'm not sure there is a term to differentiate agnostism with respect to deism, and agnostism with respect to theism.

I would though add, as of my current knowlege of Cosmology -- which has changed as I've read different theories. Unfortunately the current one appears to be that we live in a universe that had a beginning, and will continue to expand forever. While leaving open the question of 'what was before that' (if even there was a before) --

GOD as an answer is something of a mystery to fill in an unknown.
and I don't like mysteries. Granted a God may have a Reason for the Universe, but I don't have Faith to turn that God into any kind of Theistic God. However I could understand how believing simply existing difficult though life is, must be part of some plan by this deistic God, for some anyway.

For my view however, whatever this Deistic God's plan, we evolved the ability to see beauty, and love, and other mushy emotional stuff was perhaps a necessary part of 'survival of the fitest.' And finding meaning in my life is independent of a Creator's meaning of life.

However my morals, and values have no doubt come from several sources including religious ones. Quaker, Jewish, American, 'Christian' to some extent.

ShowerComic

11th August 2007, 05:48 PM

This gets me to belief in a God, but admittedly not the Christian God.
That step required faith (there are archeological and historical reasons for believing the Christian account as opposed to other religions but I will admit I did not study these until after I had already come to have faith).

In otherwords, after accepting on faith, the Christian God, you looked for evidence to support that belief. Some would call that rationalization.

I do not fear science and in fact believe that science can be enormously valuable in coming to an accurate understanding of the bible.

So if your Religion included belief in Greek Mythology you'd look for a more accurate understanding of how a Titan (Prometheus) stole fire from Zeus, and gave it to Man?

vincent1555

11th August 2007, 06:36 PM

Why, if you are prepared to accept evidence, would you read Hebrew to learn of the age of the earth, rather than what is known in science and what age, if any, did you come up with in Hebrew?

How so, and why bother since your primary basis is faith alone?

First Question: First of all, for the reasons I outlined in my first post I have come to believe that God is the one described by the bible. Thus I do consider the biblical account of creation to be factual. I also believe that the scientific method reveals facts about the world including its age. Thus when these two sources seemingly conflict the first step is to determine if they actually do. If they don't then no problem, if they do then I would have to revaluate the faith I have placed in each of them. On the biblical side this means first going back to the original langauge because translations can have errors. For instance in Hebrew the word "day" can mean a 24 hour period or a length of time. Which translation is proper (often called the day/age controversy) is debatable. Since the overwhelmingly accepeted scientific theory stipulates that the various events of the creation account did not occur in a week, this lead me to believe that a 24 hour period is not the incorrect translation. Furthermore the text gives other indications to support this (for instance the refrain "and the evening and the morning were the x day") is missing for the 7th day which has lead some commentators to conclude that we are still in the 7th day. A great book to read on this subject (why the Genesis account is consistant with modern science) is "The Genesis Question" by Hugh Ross (dont worry he is legit: PHD in astronomy from the University of Toronto and did his post doc work on quasars at Cal Tech). To answer the second part of your first question I do not believe that the bible gives the age of Earth. The six thousand year figure quoted by many young Earth Creationists is a result of a flawed calaculation based on the first chapter of Genesis and an analysis of biblical geneologies. First of all they assume that the Genesis account occured in a week and secondly they assume that biblical genealogies include every link. In fact it was common practice to only include notable persons in the family line and the word "father" in the context of a genealogy merely means a direct male descendent. A demonstration of this can be seen by looking at the genealogies of Jesus provided by Matthew and Luke. There are significant differences based on their respective selections of important ancestors. There choices probably differed because Matthew was writing primarily for Jews while Luke was writing primarily for gentiles.

Second Question: I think you may confused about what faith is and more importantly what it leads people to do. There will always be unprovable elements of faith just as with any belief system (I am not insane, delusional, a brain in a vat, a dream of some other person, etc). That does not mean however that faith is independent of evidence. In fact biblical faith places great emphasis on evidence (hence Jesus and the apostles frequent citations of fulfilled prophesy, exhortations to test, and even examine the creation which "bears witness"). So you see, learning about the world and seeking understanding are things done to enhance faith (although admittadly there are some ignorant Christians who feel the need to qualify faith with blind) and that as why I do them. Christianity has been an enormous boon to science. The very idea that time is not cyclical and that we are progressing towards something enabled countless scientifc advancements as did a proper understanding of faith.

Elind

11th August 2007, 07:34 PM

First part. OK, so you discover that the bible does not give the age of the universe after all. One small step for a man....

Second part: Christianity has opposed all significant science thoughts at every stage. As to the rest of those comments...I think you lost me. Sorry.

sgf8

11th August 2007, 08:49 PM

Christianity has been an enormous boon to science.

Tell that to Galileo!

Susan

articulett

11th August 2007, 10:38 PM

Tell that to Galileo!

Susan

Or Dawkins...

Christianity is a thorn in the side of science the second the evidence doesn't support the "truths" they purport to know.

Earthborn

11th August 2007, 11:58 PM

Christianity has been an enormous boon to science.Tell that to Galileo!Knowing something about Galileo's ideas, I don't think Galileo would've denied it.

The Atheist

12th August 2007, 12:58 AM

I also do not doubt propositions such as "The continent of Australia exists"

You should; it doesn't.

Many people confuse the West Island of NZ with a continent named "Australia", the great southern land of legend. Like all legends, it's baloney.

... to quilt-trip the unbelievers, ...

My granny would have been good at that - she made amazing quilts. Could be a new atheist hobby.

Checkmite

12th August 2007, 05:18 AM

I think (could be wrong) that kittynh is a Christian. If so, she's one of the coolest Christians I know. And she is certainly a skeptic.

Fnord

13th August 2007, 10:27 AM

"Christianity" is not a religion (or even a collection of religions), it is a one-word statement of faith of a personal and philosophical relationship with God. Therefore Christianity was not anathema to Galileo; Roman Catholicism was. Nowadays, Christianity is not anathema to science, religion is - especially fundamentalist religion.

The Atheist

13th August 2007, 12:49 PM

"Christianity" is not a religion (or even a collection of religions), it is a one-word statement of faith of a personal and philosophical relationship with God.

I think a large point has been overlooked in posing the question of the OP as well.

Lots of christians - like yourself, Darth Rotor and Myriad - who join the board don't do so to argue their religion anyway. That alone puts you in a different category from fundy trolls, you're not here to convert us. It also separates you from the "paranormalists" - not one of them ever comes but to promote their idiocy and none ever join in other parts of sceptical thinking, while the above mob does.

Anyone not seeing the value you add to the forum needs a new head.

articulett

13th August 2007, 02:44 PM

I think that if you accept Christian "scientific claims" (virgin birth, bodily ascension, Noah's ark, original sin, an invisible guy who demands you worship and believe in him, blood atonement, etc.) then you certainly are showing a lack of skepticism when it comes to such claims. With many religions, a high priority is placed on belief or faith-- for skeptics, the opposite is true.

But Christian means different things to different people; for some people it means "Christ like"-- whatever that means to them. Some people seem to believe because they are afraid not to-- or it gives them comfort. As long as they are not stating religious beliefs as facts, they seem to make fine skeptics to me. Belief isn't something measurable for the most part.

Believers and apologists often seem blind to the special deference they give to their particular religion or harmful acts committed by similar believers. To me they always look like they are bending over backwards to defend religion and vilify those who speak out while blustering about how they are not doing so.

The Atheist

13th August 2007, 03:30 PM

Gosh, Arti. Do you just copy and paste the same tedious rubbish into every thread where christ, christian or god gets a mention??

:s2:

And so relevant to the OP. Just as well you're not one of those people who confuse ambitions and capabilities, eh? ;)

Civilized Worm

13th August 2007, 04:00 PM

Just because I belong to the Christian faith does not mean that I am opposed to critically examining it. For instance I used to be a Young Earth Creationist but after coming to a better understanding of the Ancient Hebrew language (the lexicon was quite limited and many words such as "day" have a variety of meanings), studying the sciences, and doing some careful exegetical readings of the text my belief changed as to the age of the earth and the time within which God created it. Thus while I may not be a skeptic I do consider myself a critical thinker. I do not fear science and in fact believe that science can be enormously valuable in coming to an accurate understanding of the bible.

So does that mean you're an old earth creationist now?

"Christianity" is not a religion (or even a collection of religions), it is a one-word statement of faith of a personal and philosophical relationship with God. Therefore Christianity was not anathema to Galileo; Roman Catholicism was. Nowadays, Christianity is not anathema to science, religion is - especially fundamentalist religion.

Faith is anathema to science.

AgeGap

13th August 2007, 04:09 PM

"To the Christians .. why do you come on here?"
I have only a vague idea of what Xtians are about but it must say somewhere in the bible about spreading the word. Therefore, they see themselves as doing what they should do.
I once answered the door to Jehovas Witnesses and after their spiel I told them I was an athiest. They then just said "OK" and left. What was that about?
I have been stopped by Mormons and they also gave in a little too easily, IMO. I cant remember what they asked but my answers of "don't believe","evolution" and "big bang" stunned them. They did compose themselves and ask what caused the big bang so I replied "science". Not really a valid argument but it allowed me to make my escape.
On another occasion I told a Mormon (singular, they don't allways hunt in pairs) that I wasn't interested. He asked me if I have my own beliefs. I of couse replied that I did. "Christian" he said with a knowing look on his face. "No", I replied and then escaped once more.
My point is that they should try harder. If their souls and mine depended on them converting others to the faith then they should be a bit more prepared.
It's not like I was untruthful, rude or impolite. They just give up and abandoned me to eternal torment in the afterlife. That's like me watching someone walk into a burning building for no reason. I would do all I could to stop them. Those halfwits really need to try harder!!

Fnord

13th August 2007, 05:38 PM

Faith is anathema to science.

No.

Faith is anathema to irrelevancy. Faith is the belief in things that can not be proven to exist, and the belief in results that have not yet been achieved, while religion is the political expression of faith.

Even scientists have faith, albeit in the Scientific Method. Without faith, there would be no point in research. Why bother looking for a cure for AIDS if you have no faith that one will be found? Why continue the space program if you have no faith that useful knowledge will come from it? What's the point in undergoing chemotherapy if you have no faith that it will cure your cancer? Why invest any money, time, or effort at all in scientific research if you have no faith that the underlying theories will be proven?

For that matter, why bother going to work if you have no faith that your employer will pay you? Why even try to be more than you are if you have no faith in your own abilitiy to succeed? Why eat a meal if you have no faith that it would not make you sick?

It is ignorance that is anathema to science; especially willful ignorance, which abounds in religious cultures. Religion holds you back, while faith moves you forward towards your goals. For the scientist, it is a new discovery that is not yet proven. For a Christian, it is Heaven - also not yet proven. Although any number of religious institutions will gladly take your money to show you their way to get there!

Sola Fidelis!

Elind

13th August 2007, 05:50 PM

Faith is anathema to irrelevancy. Faith is the belief in things that can not be proven to exist, and the belief in results that have not yet been achieved, while religion is the political expression of faith.

This and the rest sounds like the theology of semantics to me. Kind of like when creationists misuse the word "theory".

"Faith" in a system, like scientific methodology, may be the same spelling as "faith" in the virgin birth, but it is not based on comparable principles and really doesn't have the same meaning, which is why one of them is often qualified with the word "blind".

religion is the political expression of faith.

Did you invent that or have I missed some profound philosophy somewhere?

Personally I would invent something like: "religion is a political system designed to maintain blind faith". Other variants are possible. Feel free to play.

Fnord

13th August 2007, 05:56 PM

I have only a vague idea of what Xtians are about but it must say somewhere in the bible about spreading the word. Therefore, they see themselves as doing what they should do.

Really? That's why I'm here? To "do what I should do"?

No ... that's not one of my reasons. But if a side-effect of my mindless ramblings is that someone does accept Christianity as their faith, then Hallelujah! Although I would warn new converts to not let the Religionists steal their enthusiasm ... or their money.

One of the reasons I like the JREF website is that I get to discuss matters openly with people of similar intellect and education. It doesn't bother me that some of the more enlightened minds are atheists, agnostics, or simply non-Christians. I'm not concerned about their politics at all.

And yes, I do believe that politics and religion are the same; only the focii are different. At least, they have too many similar features to completely discredit the idea that they are the same poison in different bottles.

I also like the fact that I can express my opinions and not get flamed ... at least, not for long.

cj.23

13th August 2007, 06:02 PM

Fnord

13th August 2007, 06:05 PM

Personally I would invent something like: "religion is a political system designed to maintain blind faith". Other variants are possible. Feel free to play.

It seems that I may not be the only one who enjoys juggling semantics.

Okay... premises...

- Faith is synonymous with belief.
- Politics is an expression of belief.
- Religion is an expression of faith.
:: Religion and politics are synonymous.

This is not the perfect syllogistic model, but it works for me. Sure, you can argue semantics or endlessly split hairs about the finer differences between "faith" and "belief" - or toMAYtos and toMAHtos, for that matter - but in the final analysis, they have much more in common than they have in difference.

articulett

13th August 2007, 06:20 PM

I don't like the confusion of the word faith with science. Faith is generally seen as belief without or despite evidence. When you speak of science, you are speaking of "trust"-- trust in a system that has evidence in support of its trustworthiness.

Religionists try to pretend that facts and evidence are the same as faith, but they are not equally valid ways of knowing truth or useful, replicable, trustworthy information.

Only religionists seem to be calling the scientific method, "faith". They'll say silly things like "scientists have faith the sun will come out". I say, the sun appears to rise rather I have faith in it or not. Science tells me that it's rising is really an illusion caused by a fact-- the rotation of our planet towards the sun. That's not faith. Science facts are like math facts--they are true and they work whether anyone knows them or understands them or believes in them or not.

UnrepentantSinner

13th August 2007, 06:23 PM

To answer your first question: To witness, to pontificate on "morality," to quilt-trip the unbelievers, and to make a general nuisance of themselves as they always do.

As opposed to atheist witnessing which is telling stupid "xians" how stupid they are, how irrational they are and that their abusing their children by teaching them religion. Followed by saying "what a great Christian you are" when they finally snap and tell the atheist to {rule8} off.

articulett

13th August 2007, 06:36 PM

In response to the original question - Because I am a process sceptic. I actually post more over on RichardDawkins.net at the moment, but the jREF remains my fave forum of all.

Theism and scepticism are by no means incompatible. I'm sure very time this is mentioned someone mentions Martin Gardner, so I apologise if that example is rather over done.

cj x

I thought Martin Gardner was a deist, not a Christian. Of Course Francis Collins is a Christian... but his god lies outside of science and he uses the "goldilocks universe" and morality to support his god and refuses to absorb any information about how such things evolve. But I always want to ask such people about "original sin"-- do you guys believe in it? Do you believe that god killed his kid (who was really him) to atone for this original sin? How do you coincide this original sin and the facts of evolution (the chromosome two fusion between us and apes... the vitamin C mutation, etc.) How do you reconcile an all loving guy who is invisible but wants to be worshipped and will make his creations suffer forever for not believing the right story.

cj.23

13th August 2007, 06:44 PM

I thought Martin Gardner was a deist, not a Christian.

Yep, why I said Theist. I'm not sure is he is a deist - fideist yes. I'm reading his Writings of a Philosophical Scrivener at the moment. Great book. :)
cj x

newlyfound

13th August 2007, 06:53 PM

To the OP:
I think some come here out of pure curiosity, As a believer, the first time I hit a skeptic site, it was out of curiosity, I read something from Michael Shermer (whom I've never heard of at the time) that I just needed to extend on. I didn't go to the site to argue or convert anyone, though I found myself arguing (not trying to convert though), many times, in the process, I demonstrated pure ignorance, I think it was worth it. I learned quite a lot, skeptics opened my eyes to simply so much. I think some of the believers (christians or not) are here for maybe a comparable experience or even a better one.

Elind

13th August 2007, 07:45 PM

It seems that I may not be the only one who enjoys juggling semantics.

Okay... premises...

- Faith is synonymous with belief.
- Politics is an expression of belief.
- Religion is an expression of faith.
:: Religion and politics are synonymous.

This is not the perfect syllogistic model, but it works for me. Sure, you can argue semantics or endlessly split hairs about the finer differences between "faith" and "belief" - or toMAYtos and toMAHtos, for that matter - but in the final analysis, they have much more in common than they have in difference.

I can agree with you in principle, as long as you don't force me to mangle both logic and language at the same time.:rolleyes:

In the final analysis they have much in common if you limit your politics to dictatorships. (Never mind that many think the present US administration is a dictatorship, just to avoid the more obvious come back). Religion, as I said somewhere, and I suspect I read it somewhere, is about control through submission any way you look at it.

Democracy is about cooperation through compromise, as is international politics too, for that matter. Big difference in my mind.

Elind

13th August 2007, 07:50 PM

articulett

13th August 2007, 09:06 PM

Sounds better than my attempt to say the same a few posts above.

Except I put "rather" when I mean "whether" and noticed to late to change it.

Some theist must have written this argument in some well-read tome, because I hear this "scientists have faith"... argument all the time.

With religion you learn to find meanings in platitudes and twist facts and semantics into the "truth you want".

They all pretend they just thought of the "scientists have "faith" the sun will come up" (or some other nonsense.) Scientific facts are true whether you believe them or not... just like there was DNA in our blood while people were making up "Garden of Eden" stories... I'm always surprised when someone tries to pull that one here--and yet they do. The longer you are here, the more you'll see the same weird semantic games where words are used to imply something--but not really "say" anything. It's what religion teaches its adherents to do best.

autumn1971

13th August 2007, 09:39 PM

Is inductive logic faith? The scientific method is dependent on induction at some level, although that level may be as trivial as the belief that physical processes will continue as they apparantly have for the entire history of the universe, and in all corners of it.
Since the most important part of the inductive assumption is the ability of the assumption to be true for any arbitrary value, I tend to think that science is on a firm foundation, as any induction can be modified to fit new information, while the definition of faith seems to preclude this modification based on future results.

Ladewig

13th August 2007, 10:20 PM

The triune God described by the bible seemed to me to be the very best thing that could possibly exist

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass by asking (and I suspect that my question might mean that I have missed the point), but couldn't one easily imagine a quadrune God that includes God the Mother, God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost? Such a God might mean that women were treated with a wee bit more respect over the last couple of millenia. Also, if the One True God actually answered believers' prayers at a rate greater than those of believers of false religions, then wouldn't such a God be "better" and hence the God as He is now is not the "very best possible thing"?

articulett

13th August 2007, 11:18 PM

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass by asking (and I suspect that my question might mean that I have missed the point), but couldn't one easily imagine a quadrune God that includes God the Mother, God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost? Such a God might mean that women were treated with a wee bit more respect over the last couple of millenia. Also, if the One True God actually answered believers' prayers at a rate greater than those of believers of false religions, then wouldn't such a God be "better" and hence the God as He is now is not the "very best possible thing"?

Yes, what a pathetic imagination one has if the current god is the best one can imagine. Why would he be all-loving but invisible while demanding to be worshiped? Why would he be indistinguishable from a schizophrenic delusion or a space alien visitation or a mirage or other ways humans are known to misperceive reality? Why make people that have the possibility of suffering forever? Why not clue in humans about things like DNA and germs... at least let them know that it's the male that determines the sex of the fetus... less female suffering for not bearing sons, etc. I think religion really twists the mind if you can satisfy yourself with such a man-made god... so petty... and ego-maniacal. And if he already knows how it's all going to turn out (being omniscient and all)--why bother with the charade?

Elind

14th August 2007, 07:35 AM

I think religion really twists the mind if you can satisfy yourself with such a man-made god... so petty... and ego-maniacal. And if he already knows how it's all going to turn out (being omniscient and all)--why bother with the charade?

We are all made in "his" image. That is the justification that leads to all the other imaginary characteristics, and it does so fairly well, don't you think?

Fnord

14th August 2007, 12:46 PM

Religion, as I said somewhere, and I suspect I read it somewhere, is about control through submission any way you look at it.

Democracy is about cooperation through compromise, as is international politics too, for that matter. Big difference in my mind.

Not so much difference in mine.

In a Democracy, "We The People" think that we have a voice in our government, when in reality, it's big-money interests that have the greater influence. Fool The People into believing that their votes influence the governments decisions, and they'll be much more submissive to some rather un-democratic activities put on by their government.

In a Religious institution, as long as you can convince the people that their prayers influence events, you can keep them mollified regarding the rather un-holy activities put on by their clergy.

Other similarities between Religious and Governmental institutions:

- Both require taxation. Sure, you can try to opt out, but there are severe penalties for doing so (Hell versus Prison).

- Both trot out icons of past leaders whenever a major decision must be made (Abraham, Moses, Solomon versus Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson).

- Both are determined to control the ethical and moral behavior of The People, so they both make laws to maintain the status quo, and interpret their most basic laws as the current social environment permits in order to keep themselves in power, (The Ten Commandments versus The Constitution).

- Both require meaningless rituals to remind The People of their loyalties (recitation of the Articles Of Faith versus Recitation of the Pledge of Allegience).

Except for the fact that Religion requires service to God (or whatever), and that Politics requires service to the State, Politics and Religion have more in common than most people think.

Therefore, I believe that Religionism and Politicism are "Opposite sides of the same tarnished coin."

So I'm a Christian who wants to abolish Religion, and I am a Patriot who wants to abolish Politics.

May as well be a fish who wants to abolish the sea...

ponderingturtle

14th August 2007, 01:06 PM

No.

Faith is anathema to irrelevancy. Faith is the belief in things that can not be proven to exist, and the belief in results that have not yet been achieved, while religion is the political expression of faith.

Wrong. Faith is the belief in something with out evidence, and taking it as an assumption. You can have faith in things that can be proven to exist. Look at faith healing, that could very easily be proven to exist, if it existed. So is it wrong for someone to say that they have faith in the healing powers of Benny Hinn, at least on a gramatical level? I can't see that.

Even scientists have faith, albeit in the Scientific Method. Without faith, there would be no point in research. Why bother looking for a cure for AIDS if you have no faith that one will be found? Why continue the space program if you have no faith that useful knowledge will come from it? What's the point in undergoing chemotherapy if you have no faith that it will cure your cancer? Why invest any money, time, or effort at all in scientific research if you have no faith that the underlying theories will be proven?

For that matter, why bother going to work if you have no faith that your employer will pay you? Why even try to be more than you are if you have no faith in your own abilitiy to succeed? Why eat a meal if you have no faith that it would not make you sick?

See these things do not fit into your definition above, those things can be proven to exist, at least in the sense that anything can.

ponderingturtle

14th August 2007, 01:10 PM

I don't like the confusion of the word faith with science. Faith is generally seen as belief without or despite evidence. When you speak of science, you are speaking of "trust"-- trust in a system that has evidence in support of its trustworthiness.

Not really, science and skepticism have as their fundamental belief the faith that we can understand the world around us, that it can be explained and predicted. This is just as much an belief as saying that the earth was created 6000 years ago and all the evidence was manufactured to lead us away from the true path by satan.

That is not a testable belief, anymore than you can truely test a great many fundamental beliefs about the universe.

ponderingturtle

14th August 2007, 01:16 PM

Not so much difference in mine.

In a Democracy, "We The People" think that we have a voice in our government, when in reality, it's big-money interests that have the greater influence. Fool The People into believing that their votes influence the governments decisions, and they'll be much more submissive to some rather un-democratic activities put on by their government.

In a Religious institution, as long as you can convince the people that their prayers influence events, you can keep them mollified regarding the rather un-holy activities put on by their clergy.

Other similarities between Religious and Governmental institutions:

- Both require taxation. Sure, you can try to opt out, but there are severe penalties for doing so (Hell versus Prison).

Yep hell is where God puts his political prisoners.

Hell is the Lords Gulag

Fnord

14th August 2007, 01:48 PM

Yep Hell is where God puts His political prisoners. Hell is the Lord's Gulag

Ooo ... I like that one!

I'll spring it on my Sunday School class this week...

Elind

14th August 2007, 02:06 PM

Not really, science and skepticism have as their fundamental belief the faith that we can understand the world around us, that it can be explained and predicted. This is just as much an belief as saying that the earth was created 6000 years ago and all the evidence was manufactured to lead us away from the true path by satan.

That is not a testable belief, anymore than you can truely test a great many fundamental beliefs about the universe.

Correct me where I'm wrong, but I always "believed" (as in understood) that the primary fundamental in science is that it's predictions be testable. You seem to say exactly that, and then immediately go back to say that a belief in testability is also simple faith. I think there is a word for this type of argument, somewhat more sophisticated than "circular".

Lanzy

14th August 2007, 02:13 PM

Maybe people of faith (in some god or other) that are skeptics are here to learn. I was raised Deep Fundamentalist Southern Baptist. Losing that faith was not easy. Boards like this helped the process along.

The Atheist

14th August 2007, 02:16 PM

Elind

14th August 2007, 02:17 PM

Not so much difference in mine.

So I'm a Christian who wants to abolish Religion, and I am a Patriot who wants to abolish Politics.

May as well be a fish who wants to abolish the sea...

Without taking it sentence by sentence, I think you are clouding the issue. What you describe is essentially social interaction between people. Politics has that, religion has that, but when you try find the commonest denominator between two or more things and then call them equivalent, you have lost any information of significance.

Like that earlier example you gave:

- Faith is synonymous with belief.
- Politics is an expression of belief.
- Religion is an expression of faith.
:: Religion and politics are synonymous.

It is equivalent to:

Turkeys have two legs
People have two legs
Christians have two legs
Turkeys are Christians

The Atheist

14th August 2007, 02:55 PM

Turkeys are Christians

Wouldn't it be:

Christians are turkeys?

articulett

14th August 2007, 03:18 PM

Correct me where I'm wrong, but I always "believed" (as in understood) that the primary fundamental in science is that it's predictions be testable. You seem to say exactly that, and then immediately go back to say that a belief in testability is also simple faith. I think there is a word for this type of argument, somewhat more sophisticated than "circular".

I agree. And circular is fine. I don't think of scientists as having "faith" that we can understand the world-- we have evidence that we can understand the world. We don't build airplanes with the "faith" in our understanding of gravity and aerodynamics-- we trust the laws of physics and that which has worked before... we refine our knowledge and learn from our mistakes. That isn't faith the way religions define faith. Religions expect you to believe something without evidence or verification or testing-- science is all about testing and evidence and axioms and replicability... it's axiom upon axiom...

And I agree that it's more than obvious that god (all gods) are clearly man made... they are so anthropomorphic... and male even... angry and vindictive... women are chattel... it reminds me of sci-fi... and how hollywood always imagines human-like aliens... when the aliens on our own planet (deep sea creatures) are nothing like us.

ponderingturtle

14th August 2007, 05:23 PM

Elind

14th August 2007, 05:24 PM

Wouldn't it be:

Christians are turkeys?

As we have Christians in the room, I thought I wouldn't appear to be disrespectful.:) As far as the logic goes though, either way works.

articulett

14th August 2007, 05:27 PM

As we have Christians in the room, I thought I wouldn't appear to be disrespectful.:) As far as the logic goes though, either way works.

I'm sure Turks and possibly Turkeys might find the comparison unflattering as well.

ponderingturtle

14th August 2007, 05:28 PM

I agree. And circular is fine. I don't think of scientists as having "faith" that we can understand the world-- we have evidence that we can understand the world. We don't build airplanes with the "faith" in our understanding of gravity and aerodynamics-- we trust the laws of physics and that which has worked before... we refine our knowledge and learn from our mistakes. That isn't faith the way religions define faith. Religions expect you to believe something without evidence or verification or testing-- science is all about testing and evidence and axioms and replicability... it's axiom upon axiom...

It is faith in the philosophical principles that science is based on. Science has as a requirement certain philosophical principles.

Now these seem to be true, or at least useful, but the are still matters of faith. They require the belief in an abstract philosophical principle.

Elind

14th August 2007, 05:29 PM

articulett

14th August 2007, 05:32 PM

Science depends on the belief that the universe makes sense, that previous events are an indicator of future events. Now that appears to be the case, but it is still a belief. You can not prove that the universe makes sense, and we are not all some delusional slime mold.

The very idea that predictions are important is a belief that people take on faith.

Now you can argue utility, and the effect of the belief but fundamentally it is a matter of faith.

I disagree, but it's silly semantics. I take it on evidence-- not faith. Because the evidence shows that predictions are important... faith generally denotes belief without supporting evidence-- or despite supporting evidence... While you can use the matrix theory and other semantic word stories to make some claim about reality being "faith based" it still doesn't mean that scientists are accepting a claim on faith. The more evidence there is in support of a notion, the less you need any kind of faith to bridge the gap. And facts are true whether people have faith in them or not. I don't think anyone would say they take "gravity" on faith or that they have faith that two times six is 12

... science is like that from my perspective. Faith is a misleading word to insert there.

Elind

14th August 2007, 05:32 PM

I'm sure Turks and possibly Turkeys might find the comparison unflattering as well.

No doubt, when the Islamists finally retake Turkey, they will riot to demand that we change Turkey Day to Chicken Day.

Fnord

14th August 2007, 05:52 PM

AAAARGH. We are back to pedantic semantics again, or we are in the Matrix.

I though that there was a glitch somewhere. But then again, it could just have been a glitch somewhere.

Fnord

14th August 2007, 05:53 PM

Christians are turkeys?

Well ... I've known quite a few who would qualify.

six7s

14th August 2007, 06:23 PM

Christians are turkeys?

After a good three score and ten, they'll escape Beelzebub's oven, but the Grim Reaper will ensure they're stuffed regardless

UnrepentantSinner

14th August 2007, 06:33 PM

The Atheist

14th August 2007, 07:14 PM

Well ... I've known quite a few who would qualify.

After a good three score and ten, they'll escape Beelzebub's oven, but the Grim Reaper will ensure they're stuffed regardless

:dl:

I have to admit that of the christians in the thread, only one complete turkey so far - KK.

I would hope they would come here because they are concerned about the same things atheist skeptics are - cryptozoology, UFOlogy, bogus AltMed claims, fake psychics, etc. etc.

Of course there's so much hatred and anger towards religion, especially Christianity, I'm not sure we could get many to stick around. It's a goddamned shame that some of you are fighting so hard to keep the numbers of people in organized skepticism small. :mad:

Yet, on the other hand, some of the most respected posters on the forum are christians.

It seems to me that people like Mr Clingfrod, Darth Rotor [not to suggest anyone respects DR! ;)], Myriad, Fnord and others have no trouble at all fitting in, because they don't make stupid claims about their christianity and they do take an active part in knocking over CTs, pseudoscience, fundamentalism and para-abnormality.

Kurious Kathy, on the other hand is perceived as a boring troll, because she refuses to see evidence. Myriad's post on evolution the other day was a classic example of what I mean and I think there would be mercifully few posters* here who would write off Myriad and his ilk simply because they're christians. I also think the majority would see harrassment of thoughtful, honest christians as pretty distasteful and it wouldn't continue. For a certainty, if it became the norm, I'd be banned in a week for abusing the abusers.

*And I'll bet any takers that I can name them all!

UnrepentantSinner

14th August 2007, 07:24 PM

I totally agree there's a number of very popular Christians, praticing Jews and a few deists who are very productive members of this forum. I'm talking about the, and I hate to sound PC, hostile environment that some of what is posted here about religion creates - especially for newcomers. How long would a Myriad or Fnord with less fortitude have stuck around if they happened upon threads saying raising your child with religous beliefs was child abuse.

Kurious Kathy, on the other hand is perceived as a boring troll, because she refuses to see evidence. Myriad's post on evolution the other day was a classic example of what I mean and I think there would be mercifully few posters* here who would write off Myriad and his ilk simply because they're christians. I also think the majority would see harrassment of thoughtful, honest christians as pretty distasteful and it wouldn't continue. For a certainty, if it became the norm, I'd be banned in a week for abusing the abusers.

The kooks actually make this place pretty fun and wouldn't be the same without them. Look at DOCs threads. And I'm not talking about people heaping abuse on long time respected members, which I do not see, I'm talking about the overall tone of the forum. I mean look at the title of this thread - it's basically a "you're not welcome" sign.

Elind

14th August 2007, 07:58 PM

The kooks actually make this place pretty fun and wouldn't be the same without them. Look at DOCs threads. And I'm not talking about people heaping abuse on long time respected members, which I do not see, I'm talking about the overall tone of the forum. I mean look at the title of this thread - it's basically a "you're not welcome" sign.

How does one have a welcome sign and at the same time say that someone is suffering from a superstitious delusion (and making it that much harder for their children to eventually evolve into enlightened atheists :p. I.E abusing them)?

I would say that believers in a god are more welcome here than I would be at a religious forum, once they realized I was far too corrupted to be converted.

sts60

14th August 2007, 09:37 PM

To the Christians .. why do you come on here?

and is there such a thing as a skeptical Christian?

1. For much the same reasons as other skeptics.

2. And I think so. Maybe I'm not a "pure" or "complete" skeptic. But there are better skeptics than me who are Christians (*cough* Hal Bidlack *cough*) and I'll point to them in support of my view on this question.

I didn't have any dazzling insights to add to this thread, but thought I'd contribute another data point. And now, it's late and I'm going to bed, secure in my faith... that the 'Stros can hang on to a four-run lead in the eighth.

UnrepentantSinner

14th August 2007, 09:44 PM

How does one have a welcome sign and at the same time say that someone is suffering from a superstitious delusion (and making it that much harder for their children to eventually evolve into enlightened atheists :p. I.E abusing them)?

Because they're not. This isn't Dawkins.net. Unless we're talking about YECers or people who think they can faith heal. And they we need to stick around even more so we can fix them.

I would say that believers in a god are more welcome here than I would be at a religious forum, once they realized I was far too corrupted to be converted.

Try www.christianforums.com and you tell me. From what I've experienced, an angry God-Hater would be more tolerated on CF than a believer espousing their beliefs would be here. (see your quote above)

articulett

14th August 2007, 10:08 PM

1. For much the same reasons as other skeptics.

2. And I think so. Maybe I'm not a "pure" or "complete" skeptic. But there are better skeptics than me who are Christians (*cough* Hal Bidlack *cough*) and I'll point to them in support of my view on this question.

I didn't have any dazzling insights to add to this thread, but thought I'd contribute another data point. And now, it's late and I'm going to bed, secure in my faith... that the 'Stros can hang on to a four-run lead in the eighth.

I think Hal considers himself a deist--not a Christian-- and he is a great skeptic. I think KellyB is a Christian... and a well-liked member as well.

I think that people perceive any criticism of Christianity or "faith" in general as "hatred towards Christians" no matter how mild. If the same claim was applied to Scientology or astrology, no one would think it was hateful or rush in to protect "religion in general".

articulett

14th August 2007, 10:26 PM

In my opinion Unrepentant Sinner is a total religion apologist and if you criticize religion it's because you hate Christians. He's just like those people who accuse those who criticize any religion of criticizing ALL religion. Every conversation must be directed away from the harms caused by faith and towards vilifying those who dare to say the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

I think it's wrong to inflict faith on people and than shore it up by silencing dissenters and pretending that criticizing faith is criticizing the faithful. As far as I am concerned, faith was inflicted on me as a kid and enforced with threats of hell. It wasn't good and I wouldn't do it to any child. I think it's barbaric to pretend that belief or faith is necessary for morality happiness and/or salvation or that anybody can tell you anything about life after death or what god wants since there is no evidence that there is any kind of consciousness outside of a living brain... and there is no evidence of "higher truths". Truth shouldn't be afraid of questioning or examination.

You want to demonize me and all those like me who dare to criticize religion, unrepentent sinner, to hide the fact that you are an apologist from yourself. You show a special deference towards Christian beliefs that you would not show towards Scientology or Astrology. You wouldn't accuse critics of that woo of being Scientologist-haters or Astrology haters. Why not examine if there might be some truth in your apologist leanings instead of rushing in to insult all those who dare venture that opinion?

newlyfound

14th August 2007, 10:32 PM

2 the OP:
I've read some quite derogatory comments specifically directed at christians who didn't insult or harrass anyone. They simply acknowledged themselves as such or a belief that they have, a belief that they were stone-washed in since birth. How could one justify literally "machine-gunning" someone, for a belief that has been imposed upon that person beyond recognition, at an age where they were uncapable of making any distinction between the true and the untrue? When the same tactic is used by the believers toward skeptics and atheists, it is called bigotery.

They have the right to come here and test their beliefs as much as anybody else. This is how it all unravels. Most atheists claim they have been believers at one point in thier lives, how did they switch? ...just as soon as others attempt to initiate the same process for themselves, it is somehow ok for some to just competitively proceed to mug them.

articulett

14th August 2007, 11:02 PM

UnrepentantSinner

14th August 2007, 11:04 PM

In my opinion Unrepentant Sinner is a total religion apologist...{superfluous verbiage excised to truncate missive}

You still are using apologist incorrectly. I'll give you a little hint as to why it doesn't apply to me. "Hate the sin, not the sinner." Now that might be a little arcane for you, but I think you'll see what I mean if you put it into context.

UnrepentantSinner

14th August 2007, 11:07 PM

But some people see the religious criticism as especially loud because they've learned to never question "god" and to defer to faith. Pretending to be welcoming when you really are just welcoming of people who support your unsupported claims is irony at it's finest, I must say.

Ummm, yeah, you're still using irony incorrectly too.

articulett

14th August 2007, 11:36 PM

Ummm, yeah, you're still using irony incorrectly too.

I'll just note that nobody seems to be agreeing with you. Maybe The Atheist is... but I have him on ignore because he... well.... he reminds me of you. But I reserve ignore for the ones who seldom make sense to me or others as far as I can tell. I don't consider you of that ilk. But you do keep saying unsupported insults that no one seems to concur with while pretending that others understand--even agree with your conjecture. And you are an apologist. And a hypocrite. And you wouldn't know irony if you were stepping in it. And you are. :)

Damien Evans

14th August 2007, 11:42 PM

I'll just note that nobody seems to be agreeing with you. Maybe The Atheist is... but I have him on ignore because he... well.... he reminds me of you. But I reserve ignore for the ones who seldom make sense to me or others as far as I can tell. I don't consider you of that ilk. But you do keep saying unsupported insults that no one seems to concur with while pretending that others understand--even agree with your conjecture. And you are an apologist. And a hypocrite. And you wouldn't know irony if you were stepping in it. And you are. :)

And I'll counter note that no-one seems to be agreeing with you

articulett

14th August 2007, 11:54 PM

And I do understand about love the sinner, hate the sin... it's kind of like "love the christian, hate the christianity".... but I don't hate the christianity. I just think it's inflicted on trusting people and it turns some of them into arrogant jerks. Others, it makes fearful. I hope others have a chance to question it without the apologists jumping in to demonize those who question faith as though it's a sign of "hate" or bad to do so.

Religious claims deserve the same respect as similar unsupported claims and opinions. Truth doesn't need an apologist.

And I take your silly opinions of me, Unrepentant Sinner, about as seriously as I take religious claims and threats of hell and all the other nothingness that comes from the mouth of those convinced of their opinions should be treated as facts despite a glaring lack of evidence in support of their claims.

qayak

14th August 2007, 11:56 PM

I would hope they would come here because they are concerned about the same things atheist skeptics are - cryptozoology, UFOlogy, bogus AltMed claims, fake psychics, etc. etc.

Of course there's so much hatred and anger towards religion, especially Christianity, I'm not sure we could get many to stick around. It's a goddamned shame that some of you are fighting so hard to keep the numbers of people in organized skepticism small. :mad:

Sounds like you are telling skeptics on a skeptic's list to not be so skeptical.

You are also pleading for special privileges for christians and christianity. You seem to think we should overlook their special brand of wooism because they don't buy some other wooisms. Would we give special privileges to a psychic because they didn't believe in dowsing? Hell, would they even ask?

Simply on size and scope, religion is the worst case of wooism, bar none. Christianity is a large part of that brand of wooism so it isn't surprising that we spend a fair amount of our time on it. That and the fact that it is the religion most of us are, unfortunately, exposed to in our daily lives.

Finally, I don't want organized skepticism populated with woos and that is exactly what believers are. It is really easy to point at what others believe and find the flaws but it is hypocritical to do so when you are a card carrying member of the ultimate wooism. Why shouldn't their religious beliefs be subject to the same scrutiny as psychics, UFOologists, yogic fliers, etc.?

Nobody said skepticism was going to be easy. In fact, everyone agrees that it is hard. Why should we water down the entrance qualifications to allow sensitive christians into the fold? Why aren't you suggesting that we cut psychics some slack so they can join with us and attack christianity?

Being a skeptic means examining your own beliefs first and being harder on your own wooism than you are on that of others'.

qayak

14th August 2007, 11:59 PM

Religious claims deserve the same respect as similar unsupported claims and opinions. Truth doesn't need an apologist.

:Banane35:

articulett

15th August 2007, 12:06 AM

And I'll counter note that no-one seems to be agreeing with you

And what is it that you think I'm imagining agreement upon? I'm not the one stating opinions as facts as though all agree.

I stand by my opinions as my own. For example, it's my opinion that there are some apologists on this forum who will deny being so while vilifying everyone who dares say anything bad about Christianity. My opinion. Unrepentant Sinner is an apologist per my opinion. He likes to venture his unbidden opinion of me and then cry foul when it's returned. That's just my opinion, of course. I'm sure he will find it as useful as I find his about me.

UnrepentantSinner

15th August 2007, 12:10 AM

Unrepentant Sinner is an apologist per my opinion.

Actually it's not an opinion, it's a claim about me. And I'll thank you in advance not to aver incorrect things about me. I shall take it to forum management if it continues.

articulett

15th August 2007, 12:22 AM

And I'll counter note that no-one seems to be agreeing with you

oopsy... spoke too soon... Gayak dropped by and seems to be agreeing with me!

And tell your buddy, Unrepentant Sinner, that he's not really the kind of person I'd take "hints" from or seek "arcane knowledge" from or seek the definition of "irony" from. I prefer to get such knowledge from people whom I consider more adept than me on such subjects. U S has a higher opinion of the value of his opinions than I do. The fact that he thinks he's welcoming of believers and ignores his obnoxiousness to new posters who aren't quite the apologist that he is --holds no weight with me. I prefer the more honest, intelligent, and humble--thanks. Fortunately, there are a wealth of such posters here should I ever seek such advice.

UnrepentantSinner

15th August 2007, 12:23 AM

Sounds like you are telling skeptics on a skeptic's list to not be so skeptical.

Really? Where am I telling people not to question religious claims or even religious belief itself? What I'm saying is that this is not an atheist forum. There needs to be room in organized skepticism for the religious as long as they're not woo. If you define being religious as woo, then we have a problem that we're going to have to try and work out.

You are also pleading for special privileges for christians and christianity.

Nope, just suggesting we tone down the God-Hater rhetoric a bit so maybe we can attract more people to organized skepticism - remember, this is a skeptics organization, not an atheists organization.

You seem to think we should overlook their special brand of wooism because they don't buy some other wooisms. Would we give special privileges to a psychic because they didn't believe in dowsing? Hell, would they even ask?

Sorry, but religious beliefs and psychic powers and dowsing are not the same. You're falsly equivicating something that lies outside the scope of genuine skeptical inquiry with two things which are ideally suited for investigation by the scientific method.

Simply on size and scope, religion is the worst case of wooism, bar none.

Again, I disagree. There are woo religious beliefs, but religion isn't woo per se.

Christianity is a large part of that brand of wooism so it isn't surprising that we spend a fair amount of our time on it. That and the fact that it is the religion most of us are, unfortunately, exposed to in our daily lives.

Fundamentalism, YECism, Church/State Accomodationism are problems we should fight constantly. You seem to be confusing those things with people having religious beliefs. Of course if you think they're crazy or abusing their children simply by having those beliefs, I can see why you'd be so worried about it. I'm more worried about attracting people to organized skepticism so we can fight the true religious woo like fundyism, YECism and accomodationism.

Finally, I don't want organized skepticism populated with woos and that is exactly what believers are. It is really easy to point at what others believe and find the flaws but it is hypocritical to do so when you are a card carrying member of the ultimate wooism. Why shouldn't their religious beliefs be subject to the same scrutiny as psychics, UFOologists, yogic fliers, etc.?

Because it cannot be. The supernatural is outside the scope of the scientific method whereas everything else you listed is.

Nobody said skepticism was going to be easy. In fact, everyone agrees that it is hard. Why should we water down the entrance qualifications to allow sensitive christians into the fold? Why aren't you suggesting that we cut psychics some slack so they can join with us and attack christianity?

Apparently erecting straw men is easy however. :rolleyes:

Being a skeptic means examining your own beliefs first and being harder on your own wooism than you are on that of others'.

I agree. Perhaps when JREF and Skeptics society (http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/discover_skepticism.html) change their about us pages to say that self-examination means one must be an atheist, I will change my mind too.

Until then, we'll just have to disagree and try and work out a compromise.

articulett

15th August 2007, 12:27 AM

Actually it's not an opinion, it's a claim about me. And I'll thank you in advance not to aver incorrect things about me. I shall take it to forum management if it continues.

Threats to the management... even more like The Atheist. Sorry dude-- it's an opinion. And I supported it with a definition and evidence as well. Unlike your totally unprovoked and nasty assertion that I hate Christians... and other similar nasty assertions in other threads. Boy are you one giant pot screaming about the kettle being black. But that was your opinion too. I don't find it actionable, but a lot more actionable than calling someone an apologist. Apologist.

If you don't want to be called an apologist quit vilifying those who dare to be skeptic of religious claims. It's not hatred. It's not an indictment of religious people-- it's just an assertion that the claims made or the actions taken on behalf of some religions are wrong-- false-- bad-- harmful-- woo. The same as if those claims were made about Scientology, Astrology or rain dancing.

articulett

15th August 2007, 12:44 AM

Gayak... pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... he started this god-hating diversion because he couldn't continue it on another thread where he was doing his apologist dance --http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88044&page=4

Rule 12 violation removed

Why do you think they get so touchy with the term "apologist". Especially when they say far more offensive things to people first while asserting their own moral superiority in the process. After a while they just start to sound alike to me... they seem to think they have valuable insight to contribute... but I never see it... and they don't seem to engender the concurrence they imagine in their heads.

UnrepentantSinner

15th August 2007, 12:45 AM

It's apparent you're getting hysteric so I'm going to try and calm you down a little bit.

If you don't want to be called an apologist quit vilifying those who dare to be skeptic of religious claims.

Again with the utter lack of irony... Telling people they should lighten up on believers who might be interested in organized skepticism is not "vilifying those who dare be skeptics of religious claims" (ironically, something I've been saying all along if you would actually read what I write) and it certainly is not being a Christian apologist.

Now please quit lying about me and cut the gratuitous personal attacks like the post 108. Thank you.

articulett

15th August 2007, 12:48 AM

It's not god-hater rhetoric. Disagreeing with someone's opinions or beliefs is not hate. Mocking them is not hate either. It's the way skeptics learn what is true and what is opinion or semantics or conjecture or belief. Non theists don't hate god anymore than you hate Santa Claus or Leprechauns. They just don't find opinions and belief on par with facts... the same way you feel about Scientology and Sylvia Browne's claims.

Christians or any woo believers are welcome to post here. However, if they expect special respect for their beliefs or opinions different than the respect one would give similarly unsupported claims or opinions-- then they've chosen the wrong forum to preach at. Such behavior indicates a belief that one has something to teach while showing blindness to all that one might learn here.

UnrepentantSinner

15th August 2007, 12:55 AM

Can you please learn to use the quote function so it's obvious you're replying to someone rather than just going on a hysteric rant.

six7s

15th August 2007, 12:56 AM

There needs to be room in organized skepticism for the religious as long as they're not woo. If you define being religious as woo, then we have a problem that we're going to have to try and work out.

Houston, we have a problem

Born and raised a catholic, I see ALL religion as woo of the highest order and I am genuinely surprised that one who professes to eschew 'apologising' can seriously contend otherwise

articulett

15th August 2007, 01:16 AM

It's apparent you're getting hysteric so I'm going to try and calm you down a little bit.

Again with the utter lack of irony... Telling people they should lighten up on believers who might be interested in organized skepticism is not "vilifying those who dare be skeptics of religious claims" (ironically, something I've been saying all along if you would actually read what I write) and it certainly is not being a Christian apologist.

Now please quit lying about me and cut the gratuitous personal attacks like the post 108. Thank you.

You must really stop this armchair analysis because you get it wrong every time and you do it so often. I am not hysterical... in fact I find it relaxing to goad self-important blowhards. And you accuse me of lying-- you know, the only other people who have done that on this forum are other blow hards. I am not a liar. And if you don't like personal attacks, then quit flinging them and then dragging them from post to post.

I do read what you write. And I am a pretty bright person. I can make sense of most everybody here. But not of you... at least not in your calling me a liar, repeating that I fail to understand irony though that is much more evident of you--as JoeEllison et. al. have noticed... and your damned insistence that criticism of religion is christian-hatred. AND THEN (irony alert) you are going to alert the management because I (gasp) dared to call you an "apologist". (sound the alarm bells!!!)

I think I have gotten a pretty good gage of your character and the value of that which you have to say, and I have come to the conclusion that you are an apologist (must remember to notify new members who you might make feel unwelcome and vilified due to this tendency...) and I'll do us both a favor and put you on ignore. Since you have a complete inability to understand what I am saying, then perhaps you may wish to do yourself a favor and do the same for me. It will save you from all then knee-jerk analysis you imagine yourself to be good at.

I love many Christians--but not because they are Christians... they tend to be Christians because people they trusted told them that it was a good or necessary thing to be. And I don't hate anyone despite your trust in your divination powers. I am not in hysterics... in fact, I find your hypocrisy oddly hysterical. You are doing that thing that so many religionists do-- you are spouting insults and platitudes that would serve you better than the one's you inflict them on and then claiming to be the aggrieved party--as though we should all be grateful for your wisdom or morality or insight or whatever it is you imagine yourself to be adding to the conversation.

At least be honest with yourself. You entered this thread because you couldn't continue to vilify me on the other one... and you've done it before... unbidden... and like all apologists you go around trying to garner support in your fatwa against those who dared to mock you or call you on your blustery nothingness. Heck I'll take garden variety Christian over blowhard any day.

Why don't you worry about calming yourself rather than calming me. You seem to have the need to prove to someone that you really are not an apologist or you really do know what irony means or you really are not a hypocrite or that I really am a christian-hater (rather than a blow hard antogonist) or whatever...

I'm fine. I actually get stress release from venting at the blowhards on line--makes me nicer to the few who inhabit my actual reality. You seem like you could use a glass of wine and a touch of humility per my unwanted armchair analysis. :) What comes around, goes around, eh?

I encourage anyone to post--especially blow hards-- where else could I sharpen my claws so guilt free? I don't know why Christians post here... but I think the blow hards post here because they think they have something special to teach and nothing whatsoever to learn.

articulett

15th August 2007, 01:35 AM

Houston, we have a problem

Born and raised a catholic, I see ALL religion as woo of the highest order and I am genuinely surprised that one who professes to eschew 'apologising' can seriously contend otherwise

I'm with you... it stymies me... but we do have a few on this forum. And the weirdest thing is that they consider the label of "apologist" to be on par with calling someone a lying, immoral, Christian-hater. It's an epithet. Rather than examine what might make someone call them that--they make threats and act affronted and throw attention off of the fact by demonizing the claimant.

It reminds me of the way "intelligent design proponents" eschew being called "creationists". I think of hating Christians on par with hating kids who believe in Santa-- it's nonsensical-- but I reserve the right to mock all beliefs and opinions asserted as fact--especially unsupported ones. That doesn't make me a villain or hater or an unwelcoming skeptic forum member. Yet when U S calls me a hater (as he has done on several occasions) or a liar (as he has also done) I don't take him nearly as seriously as he takes my labeling of him as an apologist. It's his opinion... I examine it to see if it's true... I find that it's not... I find the labels might even fit him better... I laugh it off. (And then I call him an "apologist" again because I think it's funny that it pisses him off more than his more derogatory labels piss me off--but I suspect that it's because there is some truth in my label he doesn't want to admit; whereas, his opinions of me have no merit.)
'
Like you, I don't think religion is exempt. Woo is woo. Even "faith". I don't think faith is worthy of respect because it's called "faith"... or "religion" or "god fearing" etc. If you don't want your beliefs or opinions questioned or prodded or critiqued or mocked... and/or you don't want to have someone ask about the evidence-- it's probably best NOT to post them on a skeptic forum.

If you want respect for your unsupported claims...proffer them at the appropriate woo or apologetics forum. Isn't that basic common sense? If you don't like the party you are at-- go to one where you fit in.

I just find it incredibly ironic that, even on a skeptics forum, some brands of woo get special deference because some people think that it's good woo or true woo or "off limits" or something. Religion--especially Christianity seems to be a woo that earns a knee jerk defense from the most apologists-- and they aren't even Christians... or at least they say they aren't. They seem to think it's fine conspire to keep the "faith", even though they've "grown beyond them". Amazing. (of course, I'm a person who thought it necessary to inform all my friends when I learned that Santa was a lie.)

But the apologists are a minority. A very vocal, pedantic minority unfortunately. I don't even think most of the religionists on this forum are apologists. They tend to keep the beliefs they don't want questioned to themselves.

articulett

15th August 2007, 01:39 AM

Can you please learn to use the quote function so it's obvious you're replying to someone rather than just going on a hysteric rant.

Don't you worry your apologetic little head, I'll be putting you on ignore... and I encourage you to do the same. You have trouble with long posts, I know...

So I shan't be quoting you and shan't be reading you unless someone feels you are worth quoting! There now, don't you feel better?

And I used to kind of like some of your posts--but now I feel like you've gone off the apologist deep end with The Atheist and a couple of others.
tsk

UnrepentantSinner

15th August 2007, 01:52 AM

Houston, we have a problem

Born and raised a catholic, I see ALL religion as woo of the highest order and I am genuinely surprised that one who professes to eschew 'apologising' can seriously contend otherwise

There's a difference between defending the faith and theology of a religion and not considering someone being religious as being inherently woo.

Arti's just too hysterical to understand the difference.

six7s

15th August 2007, 01:56 AM

There's a difference between defending the faith and theology of a religion and not considering someone being religious as being inherently woo.

Arti's just too hysterical to understand the difference.

Well, I'm not hysterical at all, although I am genuinely puzzled by your assertion that religion is not 'inherently woo'

Please, do explain

The Atheist

15th August 2007, 02:12 AM

Step right up, folks:

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s97/TheAtheist/anicaro3.gif

UnrepentantSinner

15th August 2007, 02:28 AM

Well, I'm not hysterical at all, although I am genuinely puzzled by your assertion that religion is not 'inherently woo'

Please, do explain

Woo, at least for me, is the stuff we can measure and analyze via the scientific method and debunk. Science we can evidence or stuff that lies in a postulated future or outside the scope of science we have to evaluate by some other method. Therefore UFOlogy/woo, SETI/not woo. Strong Antropic principle/woo, Cryonics/wooish, but you never know. YECism, Faith Healing, etc./woo, religious belief/no way of knowing for sure.

I pointed out in my response to qayak and have been for a long time. We really can't determine the validity of religion via the scientific method because there really is not way to calculate for "god" in the error bar, and no way to formulate a valid falsification (ex. in prayer efficacy studies, we can only determine if there was a measurable effect, but we can't know the mind of God so we can't have a valid falsification). We can however (ex. prayer efficacy) determine whether religious claims themselves have any validity. This is all the more true when we look into things like claims of miracle healing where the is a medical record and is a slam dunk when it comes to YECism.

UnrepentantSinner

15th August 2007, 02:34 AM

This message is unintelligible because articulett is hysteric.

Do whatever you need to do. You just need to stop lying about me.

six7s

15th August 2007, 03:25 AM

Thanks for the reply

YECism, Faith Healing, etc./woo, religious belief/no way of knowing for sure.

We really can't determine the validity of religion via the scientific method because there really is not way to calculate for "god" ... <snip/> ... but we can't know the mind of God so we can't have a valid falsification)

I really, really do hope you're not playing games with me here

You're distancing god(s) from religion
This is absurd, especially so in the context of this thread

You can apply the woo label to 'Faith Healing'
OK... I ain't arguing... instead, I am curious to know how and then why the same reasoning doesn't apply to 'religous belief'

You're differentiating religion from religious claims
If you're suggesting that any religion - esp christianity - is anything more than the sum total of its (often conflicting) claims, then may I humbly suggest that you put yourself in my shoes and get an insight into why I am increasingly inclined to regard you as an apologist

We really can't determine the validity of religion via the scientific method because there really is not way to calculate for "god" in the error bar, and no way to formulate a valid falsification

cf:

We really can't determine the validity of the tooth fairy via the scientific method because there really is not way to calculate for "the Flying Spaghetti Monster" in the error bar, and no way to formulate a valid falsification

I for one see no significant difference

Mr Clingford

15th August 2007, 04:47 AM

I came to this site as a Christian who is very sceptical about stuff. I followed links from internet searches and arrived here. Voila!

ponderingturtle

15th August 2007, 04:58 AM

I disagree, but it's silly semantics. I take it on evidence-- not faith. Because the evidence shows that predictions are important... faith generally denotes belief without supporting evidence-- or despite supporting evidence... While you can use the matrix theory and other semantic word stories to make some claim about reality being "faith based" it still doesn't mean that scientists are accepting a claim on faith. The more evidence there is in support of a notion, the less you need any kind of faith to bridge the gap. And facts are true whether people have faith in them or not. I don't think anyone would say they take "gravity" on faith or that they have faith that two times six is 12

... science is like that from my perspective. Faith is a misleading word to insert there.

The faith that science requires is not faith in a particular theory, it is that our perceptions reflect the real world and such. It is faith because science has philosophical underpinnings.

ponderingturtle

15th August 2007, 05:02 AM

You still are using apologist incorrectly. I'll give you a little hint as to why it doesn't apply to me. "Hate the sin, not the sinner." Now that might be a little arcane for you, but I think you'll see what I mean if you put it into context.

I don't care what you say, I will continue to hate Benny Hinn.

ponderingturtle

15th August 2007, 05:11 AM

articulett

15th August 2007, 05:34 AM

I think all opinions or beliefs stated as facts or claims are fair game on a skeptics forum-- I don't seem special exceptions. If you wouldn't make the exception for Scientology or Astrology or Sylvia Browne, then why would you make the exception because it involved something about what God wants or Jesus did etc.

Benny Hinn is abusing trust. The trusting faithful are not well served to think they musn't question "faith" because "it's arrogant to question god" and sinful to "bite from the tree of knowledge. When faith is off limits for scrutiny, the deference that believers feel entitled to escalates--as does the abuse. If it's true and good and valuable-- then it shouldn't be fearful of inquiry and shouldn't need apologists to keep others from pointing out that the emperor doesn't appear to be wearing any clothes.

I think it does everybody good to question faith... to wonder why someone tries to discourage dissent or inquiry. I don't think any claim deserves special protection or is off limits to scrutiny. And I don't trust those who try to make me feel bad about questioning. In fact, I think that's a sure warning sign that someone is either lying to you or themselves.

qayak

15th August 2007, 06:05 AM

Really? Where am I telling people not to question religious claims or even religious belief itself? What I'm saying is that this is not an atheist forum. There needs to be room in organized skepticism for the religious as long as they're not woo. If you define being religious as woo, then we have a problem that we're going to have to try and work out.

By definition, religion is woo. Tht whole "belief in a supernatural deity" thing.

Because it is a skeptic forum and not an atheist forum does not mean religion gets a free ride. Like I said, if a psychic is skeptical about dowsing we don't give their particular brand of woo a free ride.

Nope, just suggesting we tone down the God-Hater rhetoric a bit so maybe we can attract more people to organized skepticism - remember, this is a skeptics organization, not an atheists organization.

I understand what you are saying, "Let's ignore certain woo because it makes the woos on the list uncomfortable."

Sorry, but religious beliefs and psychic powers and dowsing are not the same. You're falsly equivicating something that lies outside the scope of genuine skeptical inquiry with two things which are ideally suited for investigation by the scientific method.

Religion does not lie outside the scope of skeptical inquiry. Neither does god. In fact, both are perfect subjects for skeptical inquiry and scientific inquiry. You are adopting the Stephen J. Gould method of allowing religion to exist unquestioned. I don't buy that idea. When reliogion claims to have a world view that people should follow, when it claims to be better at explaining the universe than science, and when it demands respect because of it, it is time to put religion to the same test we put everything else to.

Again, I disagree. There are woo religious beliefs, but religion isn't woo per se.

Then you deny the very definition of religion.

Fundamentalism, YECism, Church/State Accomodationism are problems we should fight constantly. You seem to be confusing those things with people having religious beliefs. Of course if you think they're crazy or abusing their children simply by having those beliefs, I can see why you'd be so worried about it. I'm more worried about attracting people to organized skepticism so we can fight the true religious woo like fundyism, YECism and accomodationism.

You assume there is a difference between fundamentalists and moderates in religion. Same woo, just different degrees. When pressed, moderates don't become more moderate, they become more fundamental.

Because it cannot be. The supernatural is outside the scope of the scientific method whereas everything else you listed is.

The claims made about the supernatural being's interaction with the natural world are not outside the scope of science.

Apparently erecting straw men is easy however. :rolleyes:

I accept your admission that you recognize the validity of the point and while having no response to it, you lack the strength of character to admit it.

I agree. Perhaps when JREF and Skeptics society (http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/discover_skepticism.html) change their about us pages to say that self-examination means one must be an atheist, I will change my mind too.

I don't care if another member is an atheist or a fundamentalist. What I object to is your contention that we should take it easy on religion so we can attract woo to an anti-woo forum.

Until then, we'll just have to disagree and try and work out a compromise.

Why would I ever try to compromise when your position is so ridiculous? The alternative is to keep pointing out the wooishness of religions.

We disagree because you have not put up any argument to support your position. You have not shown that religion is not woo and you certainly have not shown why it shouldn't be the subject of skeptical inquiry.

qayak

15th August 2007, 06:10 AM

The faith that science requires is not faith in a particular theory, it is that our perceptions reflect the real world and such. It is faith because science has philosophical underpinnings.

I comletely disagree with this. Science is not faith. Faith is an unreasoned belief. Science is based on a reasoned examination of the evidence to come to a belief. When the evidence changes, the belief changes.

This is completely different from religious faith which is unreasoned, unquestioned, and unsupported.

ponderingturtle

15th August 2007, 06:14 AM

qayak

15th August 2007, 06:23 AM

So you deny that science is based on any philosophical principles? Having faith in the belief that we can understand the world, that past events are a reliable indicator of future events, that the world is not some vast illusion, these are not things that science needs?

That is not faith. It is a belief based on the evidence. Past events have shown themselves to be good indicators of future events. We have come to understand a lot about the world and there is no reason to believe that that will stop or that everything we learned will suddenly become wrong. It is obvious that the world is not some vast illusion. You cannot interact with an illusion but we interact with the world every moment we are alive.

ponderingturtle

15th August 2007, 06:37 AM

That is not faith. It is a belief based on the evidence. Past events have shown themselves to be good indicators of future events. We have come to understand a lot about the world and there is no reason to believe that that will stop or that everything we learned will suddenly become wrong. It is obvious that the world is not some vast illusion. You cannot interact with an illusion but we interact with the world every moment we are alive.

So you think there are no philosophical underpinnings in science? The very belief that evidence has value is something you take on faith.

sts60

15th August 2007, 06:45 AM

I think Hal considers himself a deist--not a Christian-- and he is a great skeptic. I think KellyB is a Christian... and a well-liked member as well.

I think that people perceive any criticism of Christianity or "faith" in general as "hatred towards Christians" no matter how mild.
Just to be clear, I don't share that perception. There's a lot of whining about how Christians, or white males, or married heterosexuals, are under attack in this country (U.S.) today. But I happen to belong to all those categories, and you know what? Try as I might, I just can't work up a good feeling of being oppressed.

Oh, BTW,
And now, it's late and I'm going to bed, secure in my faith... that the 'Stros can hang on to a four-run lead in the eighth.
See? My faith was rewarded. (http://houston.astros.mlb.com/news/gameday_recap.jsp?ymd=20070814&content_id=2148480&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp&c_id=hou) ;)

qayak

15th August 2007, 06:48 AM

So you think there are no philosophical underpinnings in science? The very belief that evidence has value is something you take on faith.

No, it isn't something I take on faith. I can see the value of it. It allows me to make better and more accurate predictions, which has great value. In some cases, it is what has kept me alive.

Elind

15th August 2007, 06:49 AM

Because they're not. This isn't Dawkins.net. Unless we're talking about YECers or people who think they can faith heal. And they we need to stick around even more so we can fix them.

Fair enough, although while I'm prepared to debate I don't evangelize and don't "fix" (humor noted) anyone. I became an atheist long before the internet and before Dawkins was old enough to be a writer, and when the ability to discuss such matters with anyone was limited to a friend from time to time. I suppose it's like going the other way, one needs to come to certain conclusions personally and internally first. Then a forum like this can help, but convert; no.

Try www.christianforums.com (http://www.christianforums.com) and you tell me. From what I've experienced, an angry God-Hater would be more tolerated on CF than a believer espousing their beliefs would be here. (see your quote above)I don't do that anymore. Too many sincere crazies to get anywhere. Not all, but too many.

As to angry; you should know better. One cannot be angry at something one doesn't believe exists. I can feel anger at people depending on how they behave, but a god, no.

Elind

15th August 2007, 06:59 AM

I comletely disagree with this. Science is not faith. Faith is an unreasoned belief. Science is based on a reasoned examination of the evidence to come to a belief. When the evidence changes, the belief changes.

This is completely different from religious faith which is unreasoned, unquestioned, and unsupported.

Yes. Strange that this particular issue (interpretation of "faith") keeps popping up in different threads. I'm not sure if it's the religious who are determined to prove that they have a lot in common with "science", or the scientists who are determined to prove they have little in common with "blind faith".

As I already said somewhere, it reminds me of the mis usage of the word "theory" by some.

Perhaps we could coin some new words for the English language that have specific separate defintion for their relative contexts and get rid of this overlapping subtlety? After all, religion has a whole vocabulary that has meaning only for those who already have the faith.

ponderingturtle

15th August 2007, 07:02 AM

Yes. Strange that this particular issue (interpretation of "faith") keeps popping up in different threads. I'm not sure if it's the religious who are determined to prove that they have a lot in common with "science", or the scientists who are determined to prove they have little in common with "blind faith".

As I already said somewhere, it reminds me of the mis usage of the word "theory" by some.

Perhaps we could coin some new words for the English language that have specific separate defintion for their relative contexts and get rid of this overlapping subtlety? After all, religion has a whole vocabulary that has meaning only for those who already have the faith.

And I keep wondering why people feel it useful to deny the philosophical underpinnings of the scientific method.

Elind

15th August 2007, 07:13 AM

And I keep wondering why people feel it useful to deny the philosophical underpinnings of the scientific method.

Perhaps because the semantics that we are discussing inevitably makes that sound synonymous with religion, and we are having trouble finding words that make that distinction. Some seem to say that because the words are similar the philosophy is equivalent, others say no, that's semantics only.

ponderingturtle

15th August 2007, 07:18 AM

Perhaps because the semantics that we are discussing inevitably makes that sound synonymous with religion, and we are having trouble finding words that make that distinction. Some seem to say that because the words are similar the philosophy is equivalent, others say no, that's semantics only.

But it is different. It is like having faith in the abstract value of human life and that humans have fundamental rights.

Yes religion also has philosophical principles it takes on faith, but everyone has many things that they believe, and it might even produce a better result(what ever that is) but is fundamentaly an unsupported belief.

Also most religions involve the belief in things outside abstract philosophical principles.

ponderingturtle

15th August 2007, 07:19 AM

For everyone who says faith and belief are irrelevent to science, I would like to see your experiment or proof of materialism.

Elind

15th August 2007, 08:42 AM

But it is different. It is like having faith in the abstract value of human life and that humans have fundamental rights.

I'm not sure we are on the same track here. I was suggesting that the problem is that, regardless of whether one hold the religious view or the science one, the language seems to suggest that they are one and the same, philosophically speaking. On the one hand you seem to suggest that there are differences, yet you then sound as if you think they have more in common than not.

As to the faith you describe above, one could argue that there is no such thing in the abstract. Religious people often claim that atheists can have no such faith without religion. I don't think of it as an abstract fundamental. I think of it as concepts (the rights) that we have to abide by if we are to live side by side with other humans, and even that we are wired to think that way by evolution, or we would have killed each other off long ago.

I think I remember Dawkins expressing that somewhat better somewhere.

Elind

15th August 2007, 08:43 AM

For everyone who says faith and belief are irrelevent to science, I would like to see your experiment or proof of materialism.

Huh?

ponderingturtle

15th August 2007, 09:33 AM

I'm not sure we are on the same track here. I was suggesting that the problem is that, regardless of whether one hold the religious view or the science one, the language seems to suggest that they are one and the same, philosophically speaking. On the one hand you seem to suggest that there are differences, yet you then sound as if you think they have more in common than not.

Many religions require the belief in things like the resurrection of Jesus. This is not a purely philosophical matter, so that is a difference.

As to the faith you describe above, one could argue that there is no such thing in the abstract. Religious people often claim that atheists can have no such faith without religion. I don't think of it as an abstract fundamental. I think of it as concepts (the rights) that we have to abide by if we are to live side by side with other humans, and even that we are wired to think that way by evolution, or we would have killed each other off long ago.

I think I remember Dawkins expressing that somewhat better somewhere.
I am referring to faith as a belief in an abstract philosophical principle.

The problem when people compare science to religion is that they are looking as scientific theories, not the underling philosophies that are required for science.

Elind

15th August 2007, 10:47 AM

The problem when people compare science to religion is that they are looking as scientific theories, not the underling philosophies that are required for science.

I guess I'm not smart enough to understand those underlying philosophies, without getting tied up in semantics.

ponderingturtle

15th August 2007, 11:01 AM

I guess I'm not smart enough to understand those underlying philosophies, without getting tied up in semantics.

That is the point it is heavily about semantics, but you need such things to describe world views. You need to believe that the world operates in certain ways and people can do certain things, and that your senses represent reality.

I listened to part of a lecture series about how apocalyptic thought brought about science, secularism and many other things we regard well here, but do not hold much of apocalyptic thought.

six7s

15th August 2007, 11:38 AM

I listened to part of a lecture series about how apocalyptic thought brought about science, secularism and many other things we regard well here, but do not hold much of apocalyptic thought.

I have re-read this a few times and have a couple of questions

1) From a language perspective, it doesn't seem to make sense. Have you omitted some punctuation and/or a word or three?

2) From a sceptical perspective, the phrase "apocalyptic thought brought about science" makes no sense, to me, whatsoever. Which branch(es) of science? And which 'thoughts'?

ponderingturtle

15th August 2007, 11:54 AM

I have re-read this a few times and have a couple of questions

1) From a language perspective, it doesn't seem to make sense. Have you omitted some punctuation and/or a word or three?

2) From a sceptical perspective, the phrase "apocalyptic thought brought about science" makes no sense, to me, whatsoever. Which branch(es) of science? And which 'thoughts'?

The argument was that thought about the various nature of the Apocalypse brought about changes in how people think about the world.

In the past people viewed the world as a set of fixed hierarchies and so every thing and person could be said to be better or worse than someone or something else depending on their position in society. Some apocalyptic thought focused on the changes that needed to be made to the structure of society to permit the Apocalypse.

The lecture series that talks about this is called Apocalypse Now, Apocalypse Then.

six7s

15th August 2007, 12:25 PM

I appreciate the reply

Alas, I am no closer to an understanding of what you mean

ponderingturtle

15th August 2007, 12:29 PM

I appreciate the reply

Alas, I am no closer to an understanding of what you mean

I can't explain it that well as I really did not understand, or think the lectures where particularly well done.

Darth Rotor

15th August 2007, 12:49 PM

:dl:
[not to suggest anyone respects DR! ;)]

I guess it's gonna take me cooking you a blue steak to get any respect in this joint.

*readjusts tie, yet again*

"I get no respect." :cool:

DR

six7s

15th August 2007, 01:02 PM

I can't explain it that well as I really did not understand, or think the lectures where particularly well done.

Thanks!

I have just wasted over 20 minutes reading a host of web pages that mention "Apocalypse Now, Apocalypse Then". The only sites that seemed in any way relevant were referencing Arthur Williamson, who - it seems - was primarily concerned with "the millennialist thinking that guided Cromwell and his coalition of Roundheads, Fifth Monarchy Men, Levelers, and Diggers (http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2006/4/17/203124/944)"

I humbly request/suggest that, when you don't understand something, you refrain from stating ideas as facts (esp when you have 'Philosopher' in your avatar) and, instead, pepper your comments with phrases that imply a less authoratative stance

e.g
The problem when people compare science to religion is that they are looking as scientific theories, not the underling philosophies that are required for science.
cf:
The problem for me when people compare science to religion is I get the impression that they are looking as scientific theories, not the underling philosophies that are required for science and I don't understand this

ponderingturtle

15th August 2007, 01:06 PM

Thanks!

I have just wasted over 20 minutes reading a host of web pages that mention "Apocalypse Now, Apocalypse Then". The only sites that seemed in any way relevant were referencing Arthur Williamson, who - it seems - was primarily concerned with "the millennialist thinking that guided Cromwell and his coalition of Roundheads, Fifth Monarchy Men, Levelers, and Diggers (http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2006/4/17/203124/944)"

I humbly request/suggest that, when you don't understand something, you refrain from stating ideas as facts (esp when you have 'Philosopher' in your avatar) and, instead, pepper your comments with phrases that imply a less authoratative stance

I listened to part of a lecture series about how apocalyptic thought brought about science, secularism and many other things we regard well here, but do not hold much of apocalyptic thought.

This is a statement of fact, you see that lecture series from the teaching company does make that link. I was later trying to present their arguments in support of such a claim.

The problem for me when people compare science to religion is I get the impression that they are looking as scientific theories, not the underling philosophies that are required for science and I don't understand this

Yes, but that isn't the point. Science does require certain philosophical beliefs.

And note my title there is do solely to a large post count and not requesting a special title.

Elind

15th August 2007, 01:33 PM

That is the point it is heavily about semantics, but you need such things to describe world views. You need to believe that the world operates in certain ways and people can do certain things, and that your senses represent reality.

I listened to part of a lecture series about how apocalyptic thought brought about science, secularism and many other things we regard well here, but do not hold much of apocalyptic thought.

Semantics can mislead greatly if everyone doesn't agree on the same meaning as G. Orwell knew very well. I try to keep things simpler and don't need a philosophy to tell me that my senses represent reality, although you may very well say I have one without realizing it. Solipsism maybe?

As to "apocalyptic" thought being responsible for all that you describe, if the majority of humans in the past thought that way (we may not agree on that meaning either), and they probably did in ancient time, before recorded history, then how does that differ from just simply saying that one way or another the human mind came to think rationally?

People today hear voices that tell them to do things. Pat Robertson, George Bush, Jerry Falwell (PBUH), and the Mormons actually train each other to hear them.

Now if the majority of people once heard such voices regularly, as is possible, one could say that some eventually began thinking the same orders without being told to do them by the voices. The former would presumably be called apocalyptic thought and the latter rational thought, but I still wouldn't give any undue credit to Apocalyptic brain whether it existed or not, just because it was eventually made redundant.

No offense but all this sounds like theology, which is the philosophy of validating theology.

six7s

15th August 2007, 01:44 PM

This is a statement of fact, you see that lecture series from the teaching company does make that link

Alas, I do not see... you can say it's a fact until, well... until the apocalypse... but without some specifics, it's a rather vacuous phrase

A hyperlink to a site that supports/explains your stance would help, as would attention to simple punctuation and grammar

English is my first language and I assume that, living in NY, you speak it too. However, I have no idea what you mean by
... a lecture series about how apocalyptic thought brought about science, secularism and many other things we regard well here, but do not hold much of apocalyptic thought

-----------

Science does require certain philosophical beliefs

Such as?

And, please, don't play with semantics re faith/trust/belief... Instead, please assume that science, for the purposes of this discussion, is simply the pursuit of understanding from a cold, hard, clinical, logical, etc standpoint - devoid of all superstition, hope, faith, navel gazing, etc

Tanstaafl

15th August 2007, 02:03 PM

I'm thinking this underlying philosophy of science is something along the lines of...

The physical world exists, is real, and operates according to consistent physical laws. There is a physical reality which is the same for different observers. This is what makes theorizing and experimenting worth pursuing.

Probably not well stated, as I am not well versed on this, but I think that's somewhere in the ballpark.

Matt the Poet

15th August 2007, 02:09 PM

And, please, don't play with semantics re faith/trust/belief... Instead, please assume that science, for the purposes of this discussion, is simply the pursuit of understanding from a cold, hard, clinical, logical, etc standpoint - devoid of all superstition, hope, faith, navel gazing, etc

OK, since I'm on a philosophy kick in here: it seems to me that science is based on the idea that certain consistencies can be percieved in the world around us, that these regularities can be described in such a way that they are usable to predict other regularities before they have been observed.

Contra Pondering Turtle, you don't need to believe in a real, actually existing world to do that. My 'world' might be The Matrix, or whatever - as long as it's got some underlying mechanism that doesn't arbitrarily change

Enlightenment philosophers -particularly, if I recall aright, Hume and Berkeley - argued pretty unassailably that we have no w of confirming that this is the case. The second law of thermodynamics might get turned off some time in the next half hour. Gravity might go sideways tomorrow.

To do science at all I have to believe, or at the very least behave as if I believe (and that's a key point) that such things won't happen - that my world is at base a predictable one. Which is, I think, where the philosophy comes from in science.

ponderingturtle

15th August 2007, 02:11 PM

Alas, I do not see... you can say it's a fact until, well... until the apocalypse... but without some specifics, it's a rather vacuous phrase

Look it is a fact that the guy made the argument. You seem to utterly fail to differentiate between ideas presented by an individual and ideas presented representing someone else. I never made any direct claims, any more than mentioning a case made in any media by someone else, be they Behe, Dawkins or who ever.

And, please, don't play with semantics re faith/trust/belief... Instead, please assume that science, for the purposes of this discussion, is simply the pursuit of understanding from a cold, hard, clinical, logical, etc standpoint - devoid of all superstition, hope, faith, navel gazing, etc

Fine there is nothing incompatible with a totally gnostic view of the universe and modern science. Also ideas that our consciousness shapes the world around us and presents to us what we want.

As for so called evidence against the latter idea, well most people don't believe it so of course you can find evidence against it, you would expect that if it is true.

This means that learning more about the universe is a pointless endeavor what you need to do is set about convincing more people that the world is different than it is now and you will make that world come about.

ponderingturtle

15th August 2007, 02:14 PM

ponderingturtle

15th August 2007, 02:16 PM

OK, since I'm on a philosophy kick in here: it seems to me that science is based on the idea that certain consistencies can be percieved in the world around us, that these regularities can be described in such a way that they are usable to predict other regularities before they have been observed.

Contra Pondering Turtle, you don't need to believe in a real, actually existing world to do that. My 'world' might be The Matrix, or whatever - as long as it's got some underlying mechanism that doesn't arbitrarily change

Enlightenment philosophers -particularly, if I recall aright, Hume and Berkeley - argued pretty unassailably that we have no w of confirming that this is the case. The second law of thermodynamics might get turned off some time in the next half hour. Gravity might go sideways tomorrow.

To do science at all I have to believe, or at the very least behave as if I believe (and that's a key point) that such things won't happen - that my world is at base a predictable one. Which is, I think, where the philosophy comes from in science.

But why would you engage in scientific procedures if you did not believe that the information gained had any meaning?

The Atheist

15th August 2007, 02:38 PM

I came to this site as a Christian who is very sceptical about stuff. I followed links from internet searches and arrived here. Voila!

Gosh, you're an infrequent visitor - I was just saying some nice things about you! Now I know you're lurking I'll stop that immediately.

I guess it's gonna take me cooking you a blue steak to get any respect in this joint.

*readjusts tie, yet again*

"I get no respect." :cool:

DR

Well, you get my respect - nobody else uses my infinite wisdom in their sig.

You'll have to start abusing me so I can return the favour!

Matt the Poet

15th August 2007, 02:39 PM

But why would you engage in scientific procedures if you did not believe that the information gained had any meaning?

Lots of reasons. I might be mad. I might consider it an agreeable way to earn a living. I might have come from a long line of distinguished scientists and given in to the pressure to carry on the tradition.

The thing is - I'm still agreeing with you about a philosophical underpinning. Even if I don't believe in the predictability principle, I would still be affirming it by my actions.

six7s

15th August 2007, 03:04 PM

Look it is a fact that the guy made the argument. You seem to utterly fail to differentiate between ideas presented by an individual and ideas presented representing someone else

In this thread, you have so far mentioned, by name, one person and one person alone: Benny Hinn.

I have, politely, asked for clarification, which you seem either unwilling or unable to provide

In light of this, I find the exasperation implied by your use of the words 'Look' and 'utterly fail' to be, frankly, not only rather absurd but also rude

The Atheist

15th August 2007, 03:46 PM

And, please, don't play with semantics re faith/trust/belief... Instead, please assume that science, for the purposes of this discussion, is simply the pursuit of understanding from a cold, hard, clinical, logical, etc standpoint - devoid of all superstition, hope, faith, navel gazing, etc

Mate, I don't think we've met, but the combination of points like the above, your location and what you have in your sig line cheer me up no end.

Clearly, you don't live in The Matrix, but as a JAFA, I'd be interested to know which bit you're from.

Quite a few Kiwis here now.

Just ignore me, I'm a noted religious apologist - according to qayak and articulett. Interesting that despite their loathing of religion, they are absent from questioning how an atheist teacher, who teaches at a religious school reconciles his beliefs with the fact that he's about to deliver a prayer to the staff there, while still claiming to be "fighting the good fight". Depends who the poster is as to the level of apologetics one may claim, it seems.

It's a great shame irony is less-valued when the "y" is added to the word, because I could mine a shipload of it around here.

My 'world' might be The Matrix, or whatever - as long as it's got some underlying mechanism that doesn't arbitrarily change.

Enlightenment philosophers -particularly, if I recall aright, Hume and Berkeley - argued pretty unassailably that we have no w of confirming that this is the case. The second law of thermodynamics might get turned off some time in the next half hour. Gravity might go sideways tomorrow.

Nope, that's a horror argument. Appeal to [very dubious] authority, as any call to philosophy must, empirically vacuous and ultimately a position which any smart 17-year old should be already beyond.

Even the cat knew that.

qayak

15th August 2007, 05:11 PM

And I keep wondering why people feel it useful to deny the philosophical underpinnings of the scientific method.

Who's denying that? No one in this thread. You seem to think that if religion has a philosophy and science has a philosophy, they must be the same. They are not. In fact, they are at opposite ends of the spectrum.The philosophy of religion is based on belief with a complete lack of evidence (faith) while the philosophy of science is belief based solely on evidence and reason.

I think you need to invest in a dictionary.

Elind

15th August 2007, 05:33 PM

I came to this site as a Christian who is very sceptical about stuff. I followed links from internet searches and arrived here. Voila!

And then there was light???? Or what? Why do you bother to post for that?

Actually I'm just pissed that none of the more intelligent people have answered me yet.

UnrepentantSinner

15th August 2007, 05:52 PM

By definition, religion is woo.

That's your definition. Until we can get beyond that, nothing else really is worth saying at this time.

qayak

15th August 2007, 05:55 PM

That's your definition. Until we can get beyond that, nothing else really is worth saying at this time.

Actually, it is the dictionary's definition.

UnrepentantSinner

15th August 2007, 05:55 PM

(esp when you have 'Philosopher' in your avatar)

Philosopher is PTs title, not avatar, just as yours is Scholar which are automatically used unless one requests a custom title. Mine's a post by Alan Smithee, but I stand by the content of my posts.

Elind

15th August 2007, 05:59 PM

Personally I prefer Illuminator. I think I'll have to stop posting so much to ensure I don't become a philosopher.

UnrepentantSinner

15th August 2007, 06:17 PM

Actually, it is the dictionary's definition.

Really? Can you cite me which dictionary says Religion (n.) 1. Woo.?

Feel free to post a link if it's on line.

qayak

15th August 2007, 06:41 PM

Really? Can you cite me which dictionary says Religion (n.) 1. Woo.?

Feel free to post a link if it's on line.

Actually it relies on two definitions.

From the Collin's Canadian English Dictionary and Thesaurus:

Religion: n 1 belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny.

Woo: The belief in something that has no supporting evidence.

As there is no supporting evidence for supernatural beings or powers, religion is woo.

mijopaalmc

15th August 2007, 06:50 PM

Elind

15th August 2007, 07:07 PM

mijopaalmc

15th August 2007, 07:32 PM

Simply saying that something is not subject to the natural laws (testable) is a pretty weak, if not pitiful, claim for special privileges.

I'm sorry but I don't have a lot of patience for people who deliberately misrepresent what I am saying.

I never said that religion should enjoy any special respect because its claim are untestable and therefore unfalsifiable. I was just distinguishing it from woo, which by and large makes falsifiable (and falsified) claims. Therefore, religion is not by definition woo, even though many religious people may believe in woo things.

qayak

15th August 2007, 07:35 PM

qayak-

Is the central tenet of supernaturalism (i.e., there exists something that is not subject to the natural laws of the universe) a scientifically testable claim if science take as its foundational assumption that most, if not all, things are subject to the natural laws of the universe?

How did they find black holes? They knew some of the laws, they made predictions about what they should find and they went looking. Low and behold, they found black holes.

So, we know what many of the natural laws are. We make a prediction of what would happen if those laws were suspended and then we go looking. It would be easy to spot an area where the laws of the universe had been suspended, don't you think? Let's say god suspends the law of gravity around our moon, would you notice?

But we can't find any place in the universe where the laws are suspended. Now this doesn't mean that there is no god, but it does mean there is no evidence to base a belief on. Therefore, religion is woo.

Sheesh, the more one thinks about it, the more wooish religion shows itself to be.

articulett

15th August 2007, 08:04 PM

And then there was light???? Or what? Why do you bother to post for that?

Actually I'm just pissed that none of the more intelligent people have answered me yet.

I thought that too. I wanted to hear more. He has been a long time member, but he doesn't have a lot of posts. Does he think this forum is hostile to Christian woo in particular? Does he bring up his beliefs as though they were statements of fact. Does he expect special deference? I don't think this forum has any problem attracting woo of all stripes... and it's nice to see that it attracts some very intelligent people as well. I always why the preachy woos post... but for the most part I don't know anybody s beliefs... I presume that most skeptics don't have beliefs in anything supernatural unless they make an issue of it or unless they are doing that wishy washy semantic dance where they use words to say nothing and/or rush to vilify Dawkins or other outspoken atheists by calling them arrogant, close minded, shrill, christian haters, etc.

The Atheist

15th August 2007, 08:35 PM

And then there was light???? Or what? Why do you bother to post for that?

I think if you compare Clingy's post to the thread title, all will be revealed.

UnrepentantSinner

15th August 2007, 08:42 PM

Actually it relies on two definitions.

By which a lot of words could be equivocated. Thank you for admitting woo is not the definition of religion - otherwise it would have been listed under the entry for religion... that's what "definition" means.

And is woo really defined as that in your Colliers? I don't see that definition on the MW on line.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/woo

Sorry for questioning you... I'm skeptical.

The Atheist

15th August 2007, 09:33 PM

And is woo really defined as that in your Colliers?

It does rank ninth at Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo&page=1), just after other descriptions, like:

3. woo 57 up, 33 down

The great word said by wrestling legend Ric Flair

6. woo 19 up, 7 down

A cigarette dipped in formaldehyde. Smoking a stick of woo causes the user to become very warm, creating a desire to strip away clothing.

8. woo 23 up, 17 down

when your blunt is laced with crack its called a woo

Yep, "woo" is a well-defined term.

qayak

15th August 2007, 10:02 PM

By which a lot of words could be equivocated. Thank you for admitting woo is not the definition of religion - otherwise it would have been listed under the entry for religion... that's what "definition" means.

And is woo really defined as that in your Colliers? I don't see that definition on the MW on line.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/woo

Sorry for questioning you... I'm skeptical.

That is the Tao of dictionaries. They do not give lists they give definitions.

If someone calls you or I a wimp can we get around the claim by saying our names aren't in the dictionary next to the word 'wimp'? No, we read the definition and then see if it fits.

How about the word 'duty?' There isn't a list there either. One person's duty is not necessarily that of another. For instance, Athon's prayer at tea. It is his duty according to his employment agreement but I certainly wouldn't give it. On the other hand, a religious person, not obligated but invited to give it, may see it as their pleasure rather than their duty.

ETA: The Atheist beat me to the definition of woo. See his post.

Elind

15th August 2007, 10:10 PM

Simply saying that something is not subject to the natural laws (testable) is a pretty weak, if not pitiful, claim for special privileges. profanity removed

Woo woo! BS (disguised) was removed, as a profanity. I barely remember even writing it, but I thought this was a forum of adults, occasional juvenile visitors regardless. Bull ?? is now a profanity as well? Perhaps my opinion is just too old fashioned for for this new sanitized world.

Elind

15th August 2007, 10:16 PM

I'm sorry but I don't have a lot of patience for people who deliberately misrepresent what I am saying.

Deliberately misrepresent? That sound dishonest. Now if you would have said ...you misunderstand,; I meant....Then we could have continued. What reason do you think I would have to "deliberately misrepresent" what you said, even though it just happened to sound like woo woo to me?

UnrepentantSinner

15th August 2007, 10:43 PM

That is the Tao of dictionaries. They do not give lists they give definitions.

If someone calls you or I a wimp can we get around the claim by saying our names aren't in the dictionary next to the word 'wimp'? No, we read the definition and then see if it fits.

How about the word 'duty?' There isn't a list there either. One person's duty is not necessarily that of another. For instance, Athon's prayer at tea. It is his duty according to his employment agreement but I certainly wouldn't give it. On the other hand, a religious person, not obligated but invited to give it, may see it as their pleasure rather than their duty.

This is the most rediculous and desperate attempt I've seen to try and excuse the fact that your claim "religion, by definition is woo" is not correct.

ETA: The Atheist beat me to the definition of woo. See his post.

Yeah, except since you claimed above that you combined the definitions, religion now means a word said by Ric Flair, a cig dipped in formaldehyde and a blunt laced with crack.

qayak

16th August 2007, 12:29 AM

This is the most rediculous and desperate attempt I've seen to try and excuse the fact that your claim "religion, by definition is woo" is not correct.

argumentum ad ignorantiam: You have made a claim based on a misunderstanding of how a dictionary works. Can you offer up some evidence or some reasoning that would support your claim?

Also a Wishful Thinking Fallacy: You wish religion was not woo and you believe that makes it so. It doesn't.

Yeah, except since you claimed above that you combined the definitions, religion now means a word said by Ric Flair, a cig dipped in formaldehyde and a blunt laced with crack.

Reductio ad absurdum: please explain how the belief in a supernatural being does not fit this definition of "woo."

Woo: n.(or adj), the way a person is when they uncritically believe unsubstantiated or unfounded ideas. Short for "woo woo".

Appeal to emotion: You find the idea of religion being woo personally repugnant and feel this is evidence that it is not true. It isn't.

Poisoning the well fallacy: You make a ridiculous claim about something I said. I said that I used two definitions to arrive at the conclusion that religion is woo, I did not say I combined all the definitions of woo.

The Atheist

16th August 2007, 12:30 AM

Yeah, except since you claimed above that you combined the definitions, religion now means a word said by Ric Flair, a cig dipped in formaldehyde and a blunt laced with crack.

Have to say, I'd never seen blunt used as a noun before:

UD says:

1. blunt 1242 up, 93 down

Cigar hollowed out and filled with marijuana, can be smoked in public (somewhat)inconspicuously.

The number of votes on a usage I'd never seen doesn't compare all that favourably with "woo":

9. woo 12 up, 8 down

n.(or adj), the way a person is when they uncritically believe unsubstantiated or unfounded ideas.

20 votes against 1300.

Very popular word, "woo".

articulett

16th August 2007, 12:45 AM

Deliberately misrepresent? That sound dishonest. Now if you would have said ...you misunderstand,; I meant....Then we could have continued. What reason do you think I would have to "deliberately misrepresent" what you said, even though it just happened to sound like woo woo to me?

He's a creationist and an apologist though denies being both. Behe-esque. I have him on ignore-- makes the whole forum seem so much smarter. He always accuses people of "deliberately misrepresenting" him whenever they nail him and he has no valid response.

And I've had my wrists slapped a few times with this new "child friendly" new forum in place... but I think we are free to be our normal barbed selves back on Forum Members only boards. It does make the battle of the woo a little more difficult and there is much protest--nevertheless, skeptics tend to be very resourceful when it comes to language, logic, etc. and I don't think it will matter too much.

(I wonder if I'll be smote by mods for giving you the heads up on Mijo?)

Oh-- and no more kitten pix or recipes either. (I learned the hard way--which is too bad, because it was a fabulous picture of a two headed kitten that could serve to educate the public).

UnrepentantSinner

16th August 2007, 01:07 AM

{snip}

When I first started debating on-line I encountered all the logical fallicies I had never encountered before (having done College Bowl, but not debate in school) and trotted them out all the time thinking they were impressive and devestating to my opponent.

Now I find its best to get my point across rather than act like my point is more substantive than it is.

Do you have a cite for your "definition" of woo, or is it another one you pulled out of your backside?

And apparently, the Urban Dictionary, which you embraced when you felt supported you, isn't nearly as supportive as you thought (20 votes, 4:3 ratio, vs. something like "blunt").

I'm still waiting for -
Religion: 4. see Woo

articulett

16th August 2007, 02:10 AM

Religion IS woo. Faith (belief without evidence) or anything involving the supernatural--or entities indistinguishable from the imaginary (gods, souls, engrams, sprites, demons, fairies, etc.) IS woo. Therefore, religion is woo.

I don't know why some people think religion should be shielded from woo investigation, but the apologists do love to do so.

People are free to believe whatever they want (I'm not sure you can make people believe or not believe things anyhow)--but on a skeptics forum no claim is free of woo scrutiny. If you make a claim involving entities that interact with planet reality-- and there is no evidence that such entities exist-- expect that the woo bell will be rung. If you don't want people to examine your claims for signs of woo-- don't bring them up here. Everyone is welcome. And no woo gets a pass or special privileges.

ponderingturtle

16th August 2007, 05:11 AM

Lots of reasons. I might be mad. I might consider it an agreeable way to earn a living. I might have come from a long line of distinguished scientists and given in to the pressure to carry on the tradition.

The thing is - I'm still agreeing with you about a philosophical underpinning. Even if I don't believe in the predictability principle, I would still be affirming it by my actions.

The lecture series from The Teaching company has been discontinued it was by lecturer Arthur Williamson.

Your google fu is quite weak.

ponderingturtle

16th August 2007, 05:13 AM

Who's denying that? No one in this thread. You seem to think that if religion has a philosophy and science has a philosophy, they must be the same. They are not. In fact, they are at opposite ends of the spectrum.The philosophy of religion is based on belief with a complete lack of evidence (faith) while the philosophy of science is belief based solely on evidence and reason.

I think you need to invest in a dictionary.

Please show me where I equated them? I said that both require faith in philosophical principles. So your arguement then must be that science does not require faith in any philosophical principles. So it can not have any philosphical underpinnings or requirements.

ponderingturtle

16th August 2007, 05:27 AM

articulett

16th August 2007, 05:47 AM

Religion is very often definitively woo, as it makes claims that are contradicted by evidence. As for claims that are by their nature not definitively contradicted by evidence, well many forms of unsupported belief are generally classed as woo as well.

The problem is that how then do you class a belief that say freedom of speech is and important and fundamental right? Is this a woo belief, or can you get evidence to support this principle? I don't see a direct testable claim in it.

So how do you separate these three beliefs

1."The freedom of speech is a fundamental right"
2.A deist position
3."The world was created 6000 years ago in 6 days, then the lord for his own ineffable reasons(or Satan to lead people from the true path) planted evidence that the world is billions of years old and that evolution happened"

I think most people here would classify the third belief as woo, some the second and none the first.

The first is a motto or ideal-- it's like an opinion.
You philosophers get very confused and do this weird "scientists have faith" semantic game. I encourage others not to engage you. I have never seen these conversations go anywhere. And you sound much more confused than the people responding to you. Remember hammegk? You are starting to sound like him... or "interesting Ian"--

Look--we don't agree. You think scientists have faith. Whether they have faith or not is irrelevant. The truth is the same even when you don't have faith in it and reality is reality even if you haven't got a clue. Religionists and philosophers like to say that scientists have faith too, but science is a method--not a belief system. And scientists don't have faith in science anymore than a mathematician has faith in math (or numbers). You just aren't saying anything.

cj.23

16th August 2007, 05:51 AM

ponderingturtle

16th August 2007, 07:03 AM

The first is a motto or ideal-- it's like an opinion.
So is that everyone should worship Jesus Christ the Lord Our Savior to be saved, and we should force them to do so.

Why is a motto or ideal not equally subject to being woo? Why isn't deism an ideal?

Everyone builds their lives on ideas that can not be proven, and I don't see a strong reason to separate out the theistic beliefs from others.

You philosophers get very confused and do this weird "scientists have faith" semantic game. I encourage others not to engage you. I have never seen these conversations go anywhere. And you sound much more confused than the people responding to you. Remember hammegk? You are starting to sound like him... or "interesting Ian"--

Why is faith the wrong word? It is a strong belief in an abstract philosophical principle?

Look--we don't agree. You think scientists have faith. Whether they have faith or not is irrelevant. The truth is the same even when you don't have faith in it and reality is reality even if you haven't got a clue. Religionists and philosophers like to say that scientists have faith too, but science is a method--not a belief system. And scientists don't have faith in science anymore than a mathematician has faith in math (or numbers). You just aren't saying anything.

This is a statement of belief, you have faith in the objective nature of reality.

qayak

16th August 2007, 07:41 AM

Please show me where I equated them? I said that both require faith in philosophical principles. So your arguement then must be that science does not require faith in any philosophical principles. So it can not have any philosphical underpinnings or requirements.

Faith is not a requirement for a philosophy. Although it maybe part of a religious one.

qayak

16th August 2007, 07:43 AM

When I first started debating on-line I encountered all the logical fallicies I had never encountered before (having done College Bowl, but not debate in school) and trotted them out all the time thinking they were impressive and devestating to my opponent.

Now I find its best to get my point across rather than act like my point is more substantive than it is.

Do you have a cite for your "definition" of woo, or is it another one you pulled out of your backside?

And apparently, the Urban Dictionary, which you embraced when you felt supported you, isn't nearly as supportive as you thought (20 votes, 4:3 ratio, vs. something like "blunt").

I'm still waiting for -
Religion: 4. see Woo

You claim to be a skeptic and you don't know what the skeptical definition of woo is. Interesting.

ponderingturtle

16th August 2007, 08:34 AM

Faith is not a requirement for a philosophy. Although it maybe part of a religious one.

How is faith so different from belief than? You are wrong if you say that you have faith that someone will do what they said?

mijopaalmc

16th August 2007, 12:16 PM

(I wonder if I'll be smote by mods for giving you the heads up on Mijo?)

No, you won't; you will just be called a liar, because that is what you are.

I suggest you pay attention here, Elind, because articulett's comments about me are exactly what I refer to as "deliberate misrepresentations" of my arguments. For instance, she label anyone who point out that evolution has been most successfully modeled as a stochastic process a "creationist". She also flings the insult of "religious apologist" at anyone who dares to question Dawkins' assessment of religion as child abuse. That is what I mean by misrepresentation, which you epitomized when you assumed that I was saying that I was claiming that religion deserved "special privileges" because of its supernaturalist claims.

six7s

16th August 2007, 03:18 PM

In my book, the world of woo includes anything and everything where the practitioners profess expertise in invoking other-worldly entities, magick, bull-science and/or any similarly 'spooky' stuff to assert their personal status in the eyes of their clients, followers, adherents, apologists, etc

Religion = Woo
Religious People = Woo-ists

articulett

16th August 2007, 04:26 PM

Is multiple universe theory woo?

cj x

If someone believes in it more than the evidence warrants, I guess so.
Who knows whether someone believes woo until they make a claim about something that can be tested or an assertion that something IS true though nothing can be done to test it.

I think Hal Bidlack, a skeptic and deist was pretty darn good at distinguishing between woo claims and non-woo claims in his skepticality podcast interview. http://skepticality.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=186999

Elind

16th August 2007, 05:53 PM

He's a creationist and an apologist though denies being both. Behe-esque.

That's for the updates. Takes time to know the conventions, and players, after an absence. I've had a few the past 6 six years, but I keep coming back for more anyway, for some reason.

I'll just use woo in place of the B word followed by the S word in future, just for the record.

:cool:

qayak

16th August 2007, 05:54 PM

How is faith so different from belief than?

Faith is "unreasoned belief." Obviously one can also have a reasoned belief, if not they wouldn't have made a special word for unreasoned belief. :D

Sciencist do believe in science but it is a reasoned belief based on evidence, testing and past history.

Religions demand that their followers have faith because they know that if they insist on a reasoned belief, they would lose many of their followers.

You are wrong if you say that you have faith that someone will do what they said?

I would be wrong unless I had no evidence to base my belief on and then it would indeed be faith. However, if I have some evidence, perhaps a past history where this person has always done what they said they would, it wouldn't be faith, it would be a reasoned belief.

qayak

16th August 2007, 06:03 PM

I'm still waiting for -
Religion: 4. see Woo

I don't know why you are waiting for that, I never claimed it. I said that religion was woo by definition. One more time:

1-The definition of religion is a belief in the existence of a supernatural power or entity.

2- The definition of woo is believing in something that has no evidence to support it.

3- There is absolutely no evidence of any supernatural power or entity existing.

Conclusion: Religion is woo.

Elind

16th August 2007, 06:10 PM

So how do you separate these three beliefs

1."The freedom of speech is a fundamental right"
2.A deist position
3."The world was created 6000 years ago in 6 days, then the lord for his own ineffable reasons(or Satan to lead people from the true path) planted evidence that the world is billions of years old and that evolution happened"

I think most people here would classify the third belief as woo, some the second and none the first.

I thought we have already talked about this and I don't recall a reply to my response about inalienable human rights, but I'm too lazy to go scrolling for it again.

We agree 3: is woo (damned it's hard not to say the other words)

Number two (as opposed to Theist) doesn't have to be woo inasmuch as it surely has to be agreed to be just a supposition completely unprovable by anything we know, and as it also means that we are now alone it's not something that is worshipable. Personally I think something's lab experiment could have blown up and a wormhole between universes got choked off, thereby creating a new singularity in a new universe, and presto, bang. That could explain dark matter too, as it's the leftovers that leaked from the other universe. The casing of the wormhole, so to speak. However since I see little point in preaching this and just intend to use it for a science fiction book, it can't be woo.

Number one is NOT a belief or faith at all in any sense as applied to religion. It is no more than a conclusion that this is a social principle that works best for our particular system of governance. Islam has no such concept and it's followers don't want it. Neither do fundamentalists Christians. Just because we think it is important doesn't make it any different from the principle that we need to have taxes to run a society. Now president Bush may think that it's a god given right, and believe so faithfully, but of course God doesn't believe in freedom of speech where He is concerned, so obviously Bush is full of woo.

articulett

16th August 2007, 06:34 PM

Elind... I noticed earlier that I thought "matrix" and wrote it at about the same time you did in regards to pondering turtle... and I agree with all you say. I hate the philosophy digressions. It was hammegk's forte as I recall. Sometimes I have the feeling that Pondering Turtle is a teenager. Rest assured-- it's not you that has the communication problem. See my sig. (The least able or the most likely to overestimate their ability.)

Elind

16th August 2007, 08:14 PM

I hate the philosophy digressions. It was hammegk's forte as I recall.

So what happened to Hammegk? Evaporated? Yes I remember he was one to read, but never answer, on the pain of pain.

Elind

16th August 2007, 08:17 PM

I don't know why you are waiting for that, I never claimed it. I said that religion was woo by definition. One more time:

1-The definition of religion is a belief in the existence of a supernatural power or entity.

2- The definition of woo is believing in something that has no evidence to support it.

3- There is absolutely no evidence of any supernatural power or entity existing.

Conclusion: Religion is woo.

The definition of woo, according to the censors now, is a bovine brain, preferably male. (I'm working on the other sex. Watch this space if you have lots of patience)

The definition of woo woo is what comes out.

articulett

16th August 2007, 08:33 PM

So what happened to Hammegk? Evaporated? Yes I remember he was one to read, but never answer, on the pain of pain.

qualia. woo speak. banished, I think. Over at the SC now, I believe.

Elind

16th August 2007, 08:50 PM

SC?

Also I had to look up qualia, and it sounds like reading hammegk for sure. Are you trying to impress someone with your language skills?

articulett

16th August 2007, 09:06 PM

SC?

Also I had to look up qualia, and it sounds like reading hammegk for sure. Are you trying to impress someone with your language skills?

The Skeptical Community. I think that's what it's called. A big skeptic's forum.
Dr. X is there-- he used to post here... lots of cross posters... I don't post there--too many guys... and a little right wing for my taste...

I'm not trying to impress... I'm just lazy, and don't want to say anything that inflames a woo-- so I try posting over their heads... and I don't know who knows who or what... qualia was in reference to your "pain of pain"... they do the same thing with the redness of an apple-- "how do you know my red is your red", etc.

It appears hammegk was booted in the spring.

articulett

16th August 2007, 09:14 PM

epistemology-- monism-- reductionism-- "the hard problem" --wittgenstein...

These are things I associate with Hammy. He is also a member at the Skeptics Forum, but I don't think he posts there. He does like posting on skeptic forums though. Interesting guy. I always wish I know what drives them to post when they seem to have a dislike of skeptics.

UnrepentantSinner

16th August 2007, 09:19 PM

Why are you so angry and hysteric? Did someone in your Christian upbringing abuse you?

mijopaalmc

16th August 2007, 09:39 PM

Why are you so angry and hysteric? Did someone in your Christian upbringing abuse you?

She feels that her Christian upbringing was abuse.

Ladewig

17th August 2007, 06:33 AM

2- The definition of woo is believing in something that has no evidence to support it.

I disagree with this definition of woo. My experience on this board has been that woo is not simply an unsupported belief but rather an unsupported belief in something that if true would completely change our fundamental understanding of how the world works.

For instance, I would define the following as not woo: "while I have never seen it and have no evidence to support my claim, I believe that there is a rattlesnake living in my garage." Definitely woo: "I have an invisible fire-breathing, levitating dragon in my garage."

With this definition, claims such as "God answers prayers everyday" is definitely woo. Claims such as "I believe we are watched over by a spirit who does not interfere in the workings of the world" is not woo. Both claims can be called religious. Not all religion is woo; theism and deism are not, by definition, woo.

ponderingturtle

17th August 2007, 06:36 AM

Faith is "unreasoned belief." Obviously one can also have a reasoned belief, if not they wouldn't have made a special word for unreasoned belief. :D

Sciencist do believe in science but it is a reasoned belief based on evidence, testing and past history.

Religions demand that their followers have faith because they know that if they insist on a reasoned belief, they would lose many of their followers.

You are mixing up what I said that they had faith in. Their faith is not in any particular theory, although they do believe in those, their faith is in the underlying philosophical principles that science depends on.

They need faith that the universe makes sense, and that people can understand it. That what we think and believe does not shape the universe, and that our perceptions are valid.

These might seem like statements of fact, but then others find saying that the bible is the literal word of god to be a statement of fact.

I would be wrong unless I had no evidence to base my belief on and then it would indeed be faith. However, if I have some evidence, perhaps a past history where this person has always done what they said they would, it wouldn't be faith, it would be a reasoned belief.

How do you have evidence that your perceptions reflect the world as it truly is?

Science requires faith in certain underlying assumptions about how the universe works. For example that there is not some capricious being messing with us, and so on. These are not testable, as the very idea of evidence for or against them is meaningless.

People are wrong when they say scientists have faith in a scientific theory, but they are not so wrong when discussing the scientific method.

ponderingturtle

17th August 2007, 06:41 AM

I thought we have already talked about this and I don't recall a reply to my response about inalienable human rights, but I'm too lazy to go scrolling for it again.

We agree 3: is woo (damned it's hard not to say the other words)

Why? there is no evidence against the idea(all evidence against a 6000 year old earth is predicted by the belief). The only reason to not believe in it is for aesthetic reasons.

So if there can not be evidence against such a belief how can it be woo?

Number two (as opposed to Theist) doesn't have to be woo inasmuch as it surely has to be agreed to be just a supposition completely unprovable by anything we know,
This holds for three as well.

and as it also means that we are now alone it's not something that is worshipable. Personally I think something's lab experiment could have blown up and a wormhole between universes got choked off, thereby creating a new singularity in a new universe, and presto, bang. That could explain dark matter too, as it's the leftovers that leaked from the other universe. The casing of the wormhole, so to speak. However since I see little point in preaching this and just intend to use it for a science fiction book, it can't be woo.

You are not providing a consistent rational behind what is and is not woo.

ponderingturtle

17th August 2007, 06:43 AM

So what happened to Hammegk? Evaporated? Yes I remember he was one to read, but never answer, on the pain of pain.

Banned.

plumjam

17th August 2007, 07:54 AM

and is there such a thing as a skeptical Christian?

that's just like asking is there such a thing as an open-minded skeptic

Elind

17th August 2007, 12:07 PM

Why? there is no evidence against the idea(all evidence against a 6000 year old earth is predicted by the belief). The only reason to not believe in it is for aesthetic reasons.

Of course there is evidence, it just happens to be woo woo evidence.

So if there can not be evidence against such a belief how can it be woo?

This holds for three as well.I get this funny feeling the goal posts keep moving. Not sure, but it's there somewhere.

You are not providing a consistent rational behind what is and is not woo.I'd like to know what your magic formula for a woo detector is?

On second thought I'm not sure I do. I might have to call it woo.

ponderingturtle

17th August 2007, 12:42 PM

Of course there is evidence, it just happens to be woo woo evidence.

Look do you really not get that the very idea of that says that there must be only positive proof that the world is NOT 6000 years old?

This is not the creationist beliefs of the DI and those who think that they can scientifically prove YEC. This is a very different belief, one that has no evidence against it, because it predicts all the evidence for an old earth.

I get this funny feeling the goal posts keep moving. Not sure, but it's there somewhere.

No you just seem to be not thinking through what the belief that the world is 6000 years old, but contradictory evidence was planted by supernatural means, results in.

There is no evidence against this belief, as the only evidence that would contradict it would be evidence that the world really is 6000 years old.

The reason most reject it is that they find the idea of a supernatural conspiracy to fool people about the age of the world unbelievable.

Sure I agree that the belief has no observable benefit, but it can't be disproven, and only has aesthetic arguments against it. That would seem to make it not in what some categorize as woo.

I'd like to know what your magic formula for a woo detector is?

I am really not sure. But you need to look carefully at the way any particular belief is stated. The YEC belief above is very different from other YEC beliefs that have strong evidence against them.

So the only clear line between what beliefs are woo and what are not, is when those beliefs are worded as such that they can be shown to have real substantive evidence against them.

Or you could make claims about any super natural claim and then all religion would be woo by definition. But I can not see any thing other than aesthetics differentiating deism from the specific YEC belief I have been talking about.

On second thought I'm not sure I do. I might have to call it woo.

I am beginning to think that many here have not considered exactly when is something woo, or when it should be confronted and shown to be an unsupported belief. But if all unsupported beliefs are woo, then many ideals that we hold dear might well class as woo as well.

six7s

17th August 2007, 01:18 PM

But if all unsupported beliefs are woo, then many ideals that we hold dear might well class as woo as well.

Indeed

Once the shock subsides, it's quite liberating in terms of allowing the mind to think, uncluttered by the trappings of superstition

I whole heartedly recommend it :)

ponderingturtle

17th August 2007, 01:20 PM

Indeed

Once the shock subsides, it's quite liberating in terms of allowing the mind to think, uncluttered by the trappings of superstition

I whole heartedly recommend it :)

So how nice it much be to give up ideas of inalienable human rights. Never heard them classes as superstition before though.

articulett

17th August 2007, 01:25 PM

that's just like asking is there such a thing as an open-minded skeptic

No, it's not. It's like asking if there are skeptics who subscribe to supernatural beliefs.

(Woos suck at analogies.)

(They also seem to have a hard time separating facts from everything else--opinions, beliefs, mottos, credos, notions, conjecture, hypothesis, memes, etc. I blame the notion that "faith is good" for this brain this woo thinking snafu.)

six7s

17th August 2007, 01:25 PM

Which "inalienable human rights" are based on "unsupported beliefs"?

articulett

17th August 2007, 02:20 PM

Just want to say six7's and Elind-- I would respond as you would-- I'm having trouble parsing pondering turtle, and no one is stepping in to clarify. I forget what the goalpost is... and his questions reek of woo-- they infer stuff not in evidence and don't mean anything.

Woos aim to obfuscate understanding (they like "mystery). Science aims to clarify it. When intelligent people can't follow, the statements are probably infected with "woo".

Darth Rotor

17th August 2007, 02:31 PM

When intelligent people can't follow, the statements are probably infected with "woo".
Or, the "intelligent person" has blinders on.

Either case can be true.

Which "inalienable human rights" are based on "unsupported beliefs"?
All of them. The existence of inalienable human right are an assertion, or perhaps accepted as axiomatic, and cannot be shown, nor supported, with other than a stated belief in them. It doesn't help that a right starts out as an abstraction.

"We hold these truths to be self evident."

In other words "we say this, deal with it."

DR

articulett

17th August 2007, 03:01 PM

Or, the "intelligent person" has blinders on.

Either case can be true.

DR

I'm sure there are plenty of alternative answers... that's why I said "probably"... you've created a false dichotomy.

Intelligent people ask if others can sum up or translate-- if there are no takers, it's probably safe to assume the communication problem lies with the sender not the receiver. Us mortals have invented some cool ways to hone in on the problem and distinguish the woo from the true. (And the facts from everything else...if it isn't falsifiable or axiomatic-- it isn't a fact.)

Axiomatic claims are those that would be absurd to deny-- such as "Australia is a continent" or "a pair is 2 of something". etc. You can deny claims like "all men are created equal" or "Jesus was a real person" without it leading to an absurdity.

qayak

17th August 2007, 05:03 PM

You are mixing up what I said that they had faith in. Their faith is not in any particular theory, although they do believe in those, their faith is in the underlying philosophical principles that science depends on.

I did not mix it up and besides, it doesn't matter. Scientists do not have faith in the underlying philosophy of science. They have a belief based on evidence. Science has proven to be the best way to investigate the natural world. Scientists see the past performance and use it as evidence that future performance will be as productive.

No faith.

They need faith that the universe makes sense, and that people can understand it. That what we think and believe does not shape the universe, and that our perceptions are valid.

No they don't. They have evidence that the universe makes sense and we can understand it. The evidence is all those things that we have come to know and understand in the universe.

These might seem like statements of fact, but then others find saying that the bible is the literal word of god to be a statement of fact.

It is not a statement of fact to say that science relies on faith. That is false.

How do you have evidence that your perceptions reflect the world as it truly is?

This is a completely different subject but on the surface, we know that our perceptions reflect the world because we are successful at living in our environment even when it is dangerous.

And we know that our perceptions are sometimes wrong and we have designed tools and equipment to extend our perceptions. We have also developed reasoning based on past knowledge to help us better perceive the world around us.

It is not faith to say that the sun will rise tomorrow. It is a belief based on the fact that the sun has risen everyday for many billions of years. It would be faith to say it wasn't going to rise tomorrow. That's what science doesn't use faith, it leads to such outrageous claims.

Science requires faith in certain underlying assumptions about how the universe works. For example that there is not some capricious being messing with us, and so on. These are not testable, as the very idea of evidence for or against them is meaningless.

Wrong. Science does not require faith, it is supported completely by evidence.

Scientists do not believe there is a supernatural being playing tricks on us because there is NO EVIDENCE to support the idea. Religious people believe there is such a being because they will believe in things that have no evidence. They have FAITH that such a being exists.

People are wrong when they say scientists have faith in a scientific theory, but they are not so wrong when discussing the scientific method.

They are completely wrong to say it at anytime. Geez, man! This is elementary school science! There is a huge body of evidence attesting to the success of the scientific method. Scientists believe in science because of this evidence, not because of faith.

Faith is reserved for religious belief.

qayak

17th August 2007, 05:13 PM

I disagree with this definition of woo. My experience on this board has been that woo is not simply an unsupported belief but rather an unsupported belief in something that if true would completely change our fundamental understanding of how the world works.

How would the existence of a god that could do the things religions claim their god can do, not change our fundamental understanding of how the world works?

How would the existence of a being that operates outside the natural world, not change our fundamental understanding of how the world works?

Elind

17th August 2007, 05:36 PM

Or you could make claims about any super natural claim and then all religion would be woo by definition. But I can not see any thing other than aesthetics differentiating deism from the specific YEC belief I have been talking about.

I think I'm running out of steam on this. On the surface we agree, but you are pedantic to the extreme on your insistence that ANY concept we hold is a faith belief of some sort, just that some are more provable that others by direct experience.

I suppose you can say that if you wish, but by your own words, I think, it makes no difference to the reality we live, or The Matrix for that matter.

You like semantic games and call it philosophy. I'm going to plead unsophistication and just go with common sense, and all this highbrow pretense can take a hike.

No offense intended.

six7s

18th August 2007, 12:40 AM

@ponderingturtle

I want to echo the sentiments in Elind's post

The way you deliver your messages simply leaves me wondering what your agenda is

As I would still like clarification on the points that I (politely) asked for, I'll stay subscribed to this thread in the hope that you can dispense with your obfuscating 'philosophical' jargon for long enough to compose a message that I can actually read and understand

Ladewig

18th August 2007, 04:48 AM

How would the existence of a god that could do the things religions claim their god can do, not change our fundamental understanding of how the world works?

Yes, that would change our understanding of the world and therefore it would be woo. That's why I said, "claims such as "God answers prayers everyday" is definitely woo."

How would the existence of a being that operates outside the natural world, not change our fundamental understanding of how the world works?

If such a being never interferes with the natural world as we observe and experience it, then our understanding of the world is not changed. Obviously, there could never be any evidence to support such a supernatural being. As such, there would never be a logical reason to believe in such a being. I have no faith that such a being exists, but I am hesitant to say that those people who do have faith in such a being are woos.

I would label such people as "believers," but I do not think all "believers" are "woos."

qayak

18th August 2007, 10:01 AM

If such a being never interferes with the natural world as we observe and experience it, then our understanding of the world is not changed.

You don't think that knowing there is a being outside of our own universe but that can interact with it, would change our understanding?

I have no faith that such a being exists, but I am hesitant to say that those people who do have faith in such a being are woos.

But that is neither here nor there. Your hesitation doesn't mean they don't fit the definition.

g4macdad

18th August 2007, 10:03 AM

Erm, this is the religion section?

UnrepentantSinner

18th August 2007, 05:48 PM

But that is neither here nor there. Your hesitation doesn't mean they don't fit the definition.

Would that be the definition you made up or the one that doesn't exist in any dictionary?

articulett

18th August 2007, 06:01 PM

Erm, this is the religion section?

Yes. Religion AND Philosophy. And the question is, why do people (such as yourself) decide to post on a skeptics forum (and in your case, only to tell skeptics how wrong they are not to believe in your Jesus?) What brought you to the JREF forum g4macdad?

qayak

18th August 2007, 08:05 PM

Would that be the definition you made up or the one that doesn't exist in any dictionary?

You are trying to re-write history now. When I originally said "all religion is woo" you knew exactly what I was talking about. Now you are claiming that you didn't know and there is no such thing as a skeptical definition of woo, even though you belong to a skeptic community and post in the forums all the time.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/woo_woo

1-(slang) Person readily accepting supernatural or emotion-based beliefs and explanations.

The most you can do is complain I didn't put the second woo in but using "woo" instead of "woo woo" is perfectly acceptable.

http://skepdic.com/woowoo.html

Woo-woo (or just plain woo) refers to ideas considered irrational or based on extremely flimsy evidence or that appeal to mysterious occult forces or powers.

Your argument becomes more pathetic with each post you make.

Ladewig

19th August 2007, 06:32 AM

You don't think that knowing there is a being outside of our own universe but that can interact with it, would change our understanding?

But that is neither here nor there. Your hesitation doesn't mean they don't fit the definition.

I'll think about it.

g4macdad

19th August 2007, 06:57 AM

Yes. Religion AND Philosophy. And the question is, why do people (such as yourself) decide to post on a skeptics forum (and in your case, only to tell skeptics how wrong they are not to believe in your Jesus?) What brought you to the JREF forum g4macdad?

Because I was an admirer of Randi before I came here. Now I see that he is just as much a scam artist as all the "psychics". He spews just as much woo as they do, and you sheep suck it up like leeches. He has a racket and I want to to debunk his pathetic woo.:D :cool: ;)

So now!

Elind

20th August 2007, 04:24 PM

Christ; not another troll.

six7s

20th August 2007, 04:58 PM

'Fraid so :(

And there will be more... they take everything literally remember... incl. "Go forth and copulate yourselves senseless"

Hmmm... methinks of a new pick up line at atheist parties...

Miss Anthrope

23rd August 2007, 05:28 PM

Please refrain from personalizing the argument. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Elind

23rd August 2007, 05:39 PM

I didn't see an argument. Just a troll.

Now if you had censured the troll for gratuitous insults, I wouldn't complain, but that is not how I read it.

six7s

23rd August 2007, 06:37 PM

Because I was an admirer of Randi before I came here. Now I see that he is just as much a scam artist as all the "psychics". He spews just as much woo as they do, and you sheep suck it up like leeches. He has a racket and I want to to debunk his pathetic woo.:D :cool: ;)

So now!

Re the above statement: An argument? hardly
Insulting to sceptics? absolutely
Worthy of any more attention? not at all

fishkr

23rd August 2007, 08:06 PM

I do not fear science and in fact believe that science can be enormously valuable in coming to an accurate understanding of the bible.

Kind of like thinking reading Principia is going to help you with your arithmetic?

articulett

23rd August 2007, 08:45 PM

I think the trolls run and demand the attention of mods like little tattletales... and the mods don't have time to read through everything to see how much more offensive the trolls are. I usually ignore them. But maybe I should report them. What if good members were continually sanctioned because of the trolls and the trolls stayed because everyone had them on ignore?

Elind

23rd August 2007, 09:14 PM

Hokulele

23rd August 2007, 09:47 PM

I, partly, dropped out of here for a while because I got tired of the "mods" (read hall monitors, for those ever blessed with boarding school experience) trying to reconcile adults saying things as they are (expletives excepted) versus the desire to accommodate middle school skeptics. The latter is an admirable objective, but not compatible with the former.

I haven't really had time to analyzed the new forum structure yet, but as far as I can understand it, the frankness has been relegated to a corner, while the main debate has been sanitized even more.

Also, for what it's worth, I've contributed close to $1000 so far to the Jref over longer than the forum has existed and I've asked several times (I've got my card for this year already), but my handle still hasn't been graced with the "donor" label.

So, I'm making a plug to ask why the rest of you regular entertainers haven't; but I'm pissed that I can't show I have a higher place in Jref heaven.:cool:

Please do not take this the wrong way, but I believe that contributions to JREF should not add weight to your arguments on the forum. If your posts cannot stand on their own merits, maybe additional work is required.

BTW, I have your posts enlightening, so this is not a critique of your comments, and I personally turn off any "merit badges" as I tend to keep my personal finances and financial support of things private.

articulett

23rd August 2007, 09:47 PM

I demand a donor label for Elind! I am an official TAM volunteer plus I paid for my forum t-shirt and NEVER got one. Plus, I've donated to JREF-- but I don't see anything by my name either.

Maybe we should pm moderators like the nutters do... squeaky wheel and all... I got sanctioned just today for a post on this thread that I made over a week ago to one who said far worse than I did. Hmph. (And for some reason I got a whole bunch of copies of the wrist slap in my pm).

Hey, Elind... you live in Florida-- that's where JREF is, right? They can at least show special love for a fellow Floridian. If we have to be nice to the nutters and woos then it's the very least they can do, right?

What do we need to do to get some kindly attention here?!! Moderator, Moderator-- give this person his/her due!