Atheists, quit confusing the two. - Page 3

Khan · 8th July 2011, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by Resume

I don't see the difference.

Christianity and Islam have many followers today, Greek Paganism doesn't.

To be fair, I do agree with your point, I just have my own arbitrary way of separating the two in my mind. For the most part they're the same, although theology seems to be a nicer way of saying it. Generally any teachings I've had in Mythology have dealt only about religions in the beginnings of human history that have long since died out, so that's probably where I got the separation.

learner · 8th July 2011, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by Complexity

The OP is wrong.

Science is the study of reality, of nature.

There is nothing apart from nature, nothing 'supernatural', nothing that is off-limits for science.

Complexity arrives at a non complex answer, as usual...Good stuff, I agree.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th July 2011, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by hgc

Yes

Don't know what that is

Yes

The point being thus: The OP opened with a suggestion that theology provides knowledge of ethics, morals and whatever else supposedly isn't in the realm of science. (I paraphrase). I obliquely suggested that it's a fool's errand, since theology is just intellectual wankery. It may have important literary or historical value, such as with Augustine and Aquinas, but it has about as much chance of offering good moral lessons as any other literature.

That's all I was trying to say.

The evidence directed unknowable is the unknowable there is some evidence might exist. It might be that there is something outside the Universe and/or that something existed before the BB. There is at least some logic supporting these hypotheses as opposed to purely imagined thought gods exist but are undetectable.

As for the ethics/morals and so on that are also supposedly outside the realm of science, I'm lean heavily toward natural biology explaining that stuff as well. I realize philosophers love to think their field is meaningful and I suppose it is to them and other people. I tend to be a more strict biology explanationist. I'm not saying we have no free will. I don't know the answer to that question yet. But if you ask me about morality I look to the evidence of how morals evolved and believe biology and genetics explains morality better than contemplation.

From my perspective, the biological criteria we judge these esoteric things by are being used, but just sometimes outside the realm of conscious thought. My question to philosophers is, if these things are outside the realm of science, then explain what they are without including the biological brain.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th July 2011, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by Khan

Christianity and Islam have many followers today, Greek Paganism doesn't.

To be fair, I do agree with your point, I just have my own arbitrary way of separating the two in my mind. For the most part they're the same, although theology seems to be a nicer way of saying it. Generally any teachings I've had in Mythology have dealt only about religions in the beginnings of human history that have long since died out, so that's probably where I got the separation.

Just an FYI for those people who don't realize the world's populations are not all Judeo-Christian.

Religious Adherents is a website with one of the best data bases I've seen for how many people believe which religions.

Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents

6% of the world's population are identified as "Primal Indigenous".

Quote:

primal-indigenous: Alternatively termed "tribal religionists, "ethnic religionists," or "animists," estimates range from 100 million to 457 million. (457 million is the combined total for "Ethnoreligionists," "Animists," and "Shamanists" from Barrett's 2001 world religion calculations. But this total includes all African Traditional religionists, which we have listed as a separate category.) This group also includes, but is not limited to, people whose native religion is a form of shamanism or paganism (such as millions of people in traditional Siberian shamanist cultures). Obviously this is broad classification, not a single religion. This grouping includes thousands of distinct religious traditions, mostly the religious-cultural worldviews of peoples who have been grouped together in one category because they are pre-literate or less advanced technologically than Western/European cultures. There are similarities among many primal-indigenous religions/cultures, such as use of an oral rather than written canon, and a lack of rigid boundaries between the sacred and secular (profane) aspects of life. But few, if any, generalizations hold for all groups.
Previously, adherents of African traditional religion were grouped here, and many religious statisticians would continue to do so. But adherents of African traditional religions and diasporic derivatives are currently listed ennumerated separately on this page. [See below.] Most remaining primal-indigenous religionists are in Asia (including India).

And while "Greek Paganism" may be passe, there are between 1 & 3 million people in the world who identify their religion as some kind of Neo-Paganism.

Quote:

"HOW many Witches, Wiccans and pagans are there? No one knows for sure but we do know that the number is increasing rapidly. Our best estimate here at The Witches' Voice is about 1 million in the U.S. and 3 million worldwide. Adherents.Com estimates about million Neo-pagans worldwide in its list of the world's major religions.

Complexity · 8th July 2011, 08:41 PM

learner - Love the birds!

learner · 9th July 2011, 01:35 AM

Originally Posted by Complexity

learner - Love the birds!

Thanks!

TeapotCavalry · 9th July 2011, 02:13 AM

Originally Posted by Khan

It appears theology is also defined as the study of religion and it's influences in general. Given the amount of religions there are in the world I'd say theology has a lot of subjects to study.

It indeed does, if we're talking about the academic field. Among the obvious ones - specific religious dogmas - you get psychology of religion, philosophy of religion, religious ethics, and lots of comparative religion. If someone insists theology isn't within the realm of knowledge, then neither is history or comparative literature, for a few examples.

Originally Posted by Khan

I'm betting there's a quite a bit of overlap in subjects. One could argue that theology is just a branch of mythology; or that they're one and the same. I generally consider mythology to be the study of ancient religions(Greek Paganism), while theology covers religions that are still popular today(Christianity, Islam). I may be entirely wrong.

No, you're not wrong. That was the basic gist how they made the distinction in my religious studies as well. It's not a rock-solid one, but it's useful.

Lamuella · 9th July 2011, 03:25 AM

as has already been mentioned by many in this thread: many religions make claims about events within the physical world. Indeed, I can't think of a religion that doesn't. These can range from the age of the earth to the magical abilities of certain of the religion's followers, to the nature of the universe itself. All of these are directly scientific claims. It is definitely within the wheelhouse of skeptics to address these claims.

Robin · 9th July 2011, 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by TFian

Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God.

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us.

And neither does Theology.

Skeptic Ginger · 9th July 2011, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Robin

And neither does Theology.

Touche'

godless dave · 11th July 2011, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

A moot point. Studying old stories does not seem much of a science to me

No, it's part of the humanites. But, as human behavior, it's within the realm of science.

godless dave · 11th July 2011, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

That is a positive assertion that science would demand evidentiary support of,

The lack of evidence for their existence is the evidence that they don't exist. To believe something exists when there is no evidence to suggest it does is irrational.

Robin · 11th July 2011, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

And how do you do this?

When you are hurtling through the air 9,000 metres up at 1,000 km per hour in an aluminum tube or having a philosophical discussion with someone on the other side of the world in real time or looking at photographs from the surface of Mars, it is a little hard to escape the conclusion that there might be something to the epistemic system that made these things happen.

Robin · 11th July 2011, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Touche'

Unfortunately I later notices that two others had gotten there first.

Belz... · 11th July 2011, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by TFian

Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God.

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science.

No it isn't. It's a claim about the nature of reality. It's very much scientific.

Even if you ask "do you like chocolate", I'm sure with the right tools of science you could answer it in someone's stead. And science can surely tell us much about ethics.

So this special pleading by you is just an attempt to escape scrutiny for your claims.

Humes fork · 11th July 2011, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by TFian

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us.

Theologians are no more qualified to do so than anybody else, and should probably stop.

Originally Posted by TFian

Science is a philosophy of skepticism and empirical evidence, and as such has no ability to explore metaphysical questions, which have nothing to do with skepticism or empirical evidence, and everything to do with subjective experience.

They are simply two different, separate, and exclusive realms of knowledge and thought.

You don't get away by hiding behind "metaphysics". I'd still prefer some evidence rather than the rantings of Bronze Age desert nomads.

godless dave · 11th July 2011, 09:48 AM

Or even an iron age civilization in the Fertile Crescent.

hgc · 11th July 2011, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by Humes fork

You don't get away by hiding behind "metaphysics". I'd still prefer some evidence rather than the rantings of Bronze Age desert nomads.

Just to get some things straight here: Much of these rantings are of early and middle Iron Age transcription (though much lifted from earlier sources), and the producers were more settled folk than nomads. Also, not quite so deserty as it is today.

Skeptic Ginger · 11th July 2011, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by godless dave

Or even an iron age civilization in the Fertile Crescent.

Tsk tsk, that very egocentric of you.

The Hero With An African Face

Humes fork · 11th July 2011, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by hgc

Just to get some things straight here: Much of these rantings are of early and middle Iron Age transcription (though much lifted from earlier sources), and the producers were more settled folk than nomads. Also, not quite so deserty as it is today.

Fair enough. They still had brutal and cruel societies and they knew very, very little beyond the necessities of survival and the maintainence of their societies.

devnull · 12th July 2011, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by mikeyx

So you do in fact support the creation of the Frankenstein monster? Nice.....

wow. nonsense alert!

What?

Trakar · 12th July 2011, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by godless dave

The lack of evidence for their existence is the evidence that they don't exist. To believe something exists when there is no evidence to suggest it does is irrational.

You can't derive a positive assertion from a lack of evidence. The most that could be stated is that there is no evidence to support any claim or assertion of existence.

Tricky · 12th July 2011, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by Complexity

The OP is wrong.

Science is the study of reality, of nature.

There is nothing apart from nature, nothing 'supernatural', nothing that is off-limits for science.

To test if this is true, can somebody give us any characteristic of the Christian God (or other gods) which cannot be, at least potentially, investigated by some kind of science?

For example, let's take something simple like "God is good." (I'm pretty sure I've heard that in a prayer somewhere.) Well, first, you have to define what is "good", and that involves a branch of sociology called "ethics". You could studies the different things that various people think of as "good" and see if God's actions (or the claims of his action) satisfy the definition of "good" and in what world settings they do so. In my experience, much of God's behavior as described in the Bible, would not fulfill normal definitions of "good", even by the standards of most Christians. (Mass murderer, eg.)

Or, take for example, the claim that "God watches over us". While that might seem to be non-scientific, recall that the science of physics includes "the observer effect". To "watch over" anything requires that the observer change the environment of the observed, at least in some small way. Theoretically, instruments could be designed to measure this effect.

Go ahead and try it. You will find that what this will resolve to is that theology and science don't overlap as long as the god you propose has no characteristics whatsoever.

Is that how you feel about your God, theists? Is He/She/It completely undefinable in all ways? If so, then I humbly accept your contention that theology and science are completely separate fields.

Lowpro · 12th July 2011, 10:08 PM

Hmm Tricky I actually ended up saying something like that to Punshhh recently in the materialism thread except I went a step further mentioning that because your body, your "probe" to reality can only interact with reality, the very idea you can experience something "supernatural" is impossible; there's no apparatus in reality that can be acted on by the supernatural. So, when people claim to supernatural experience, it begs being scrutinized as a mislabeling of the event. You should just stop smokin' the crackpipe.

Trakar · 12th July 2011, 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Hmm Tricky I actually ended up saying something like that to Punshhh recently in the materialism thread except I went a step further mentioning that because your body, your "probe" to reality can only interact with reality, the very idea you can experience something "supernatural" is impossible; there's no apparatus in reality that can be acted on by the supernatural. So, when people claim to supernatural experience, it begs being scrutinized as a mislabeling of the event. You should just stop smokin' the crackpipe.

I would agree with this reasoning fully.

Tricky · 12th July 2011, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Hmm Tricky I actually ended up saying something like that to Punshhh recently in the materialism thread except I went a step further mentioning that because your body, your "probe" to reality can only interact with reality, the very idea you can experience something "supernatural" is impossible; there's no apparatus in reality that can be acted on by the supernatural. So, when people claim to supernatural experience, it begs being scrutinized as a mislabeling of the event. You should just stop smokin' the crackpipe.

Eventually it all resolves to the same thing: Effects are, by definition, scientifically measureable. If God has any effect, it must be scientifically measurable, or it is not an "effect".

But I see no need to be insulting. All of us hold some irrational beliefs. (One of mine is that cockroaches are harmful and worthy of a scream when you see one, though I have no such problems with spiders and snakes.) There are many reasons, both environmental and emotional, that theists hold their irrational beliefs, so I feel like it is counterproductive to make personal insults about irrational beliefs, because it isn't going to convince anyone. And you can't convince me that cockroaches aren't harmful by calling me a big sissy.

Trakar · 12th July 2011, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

Quote:

Originally Posted by godless dave
The lack of evidence for their existence is the evidence that they don't exist. To believe something exists when there is no evidence to suggest it does is irrational.

You can't derive a positive assertion from a lack of evidence. The most that could be stated is that there is no evidence to support any claim or assertion of existence.

I would be willing to take this a step further, however, given consideration to Lowpro's comment. The divine and supernatural do not exist within the natural universe, and to the evidence I am aware of, cannot (or do not) interact with the natural world in any significant fashion.

tkmikkelsen · 13th July 2011, 12:29 AM

Originally Posted by TFian

Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God.

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us.

Science is a philosophy of skepticism and empirical evidence, and as such has no ability to explore metaphysical questions, which have nothing to do with skepticism or empirical evidence, and everything to do with subjective experience.

They are simply two different, separate, and exclusive realms of knowledge and thought.

Science does have a lot to say about moral and ethics. I believe that most psychologists and a lot of biologists would have a lot of very good answers as to why we feel it is wrong to murder and steal. I can recommend that you read The Science of Good and Evil by Michael Shermer. After that you should have a very clear idea of what science has to say about moral and ethics.

Oystein · 13th July 2011, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by TFian

Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God.

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us.

Science is a philosophy of skepticism and empirical evidence, and as such has no ability to explore metaphysical questions, which have nothing to do with skepticism or empirical evidence, and everything to do with subjective experience.

They are simply two different, separate, and exclusive realms of knowledge and thought.

Everything has probably been said, but not yet by everyone

So here is my take:

Theology is the study and teaching of all things pertaining to supposed "gods".

A. Theology doesn't tell us what's moral or ethical, it may at most make claims about what morals certain gods want us to follow.

Not all theologies are like that: The Greek pantheon is best remembered for its amoral frollicking. People did not follow then or believe in them because they were seeling guidance, but because they were fooled into believing, and because those gods were thought to wield power. it was thought that you could influence them positively by praying and making sacrifices, and negatively by, well, praying and sacrificing to other gods (

).

To decide if the commandments of any given god are actually moral and ethical, you have to step outside the realm of that particular theology. For example, when Moses ordered the Israelite army to commit a complete genocide against the Midianites, his theology posited that "killing all men, women and children of an entire people is moral and ethical". Moses' men apparently thought differently, they killed only the men, and let the women and children live (in captivity). Today; Christians claim to follow the same god that Moses followed. It has to be the same theology. Do Christians believe that only total genocides are morally good, while partial ones are an abomination to the lord - yhw does not approve of mercy towards women and children? Is studying the relevations of a god really the way to figure out what's moral or what's not? Do believers really want to claim that they have no moral compass, no idea about what's right or wrong, of theology doesn't explain to them what god wants? What a sorry state such believers would be in!

B. Which theology teaches factual truth?

The existence of many theologies, most of them mutually exclusive, raises the simple question: Which one describes actually existing gods? How can we tell which theologies describe gods that don't actually exist?
We would expect any theology to convince us that their base premise is at least true. To do so, in this day and age, any theology must either surrender and say it can't prove its base premises, or enter the realm of science and use the scientific method.

Summary:
- Theology cannot tell us what is moral, or ethical
- Theology must overlap with the realm of science, or no-one would take it serious

hgc · 13th July 2011, 05:15 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

We would expect any theology to convince us that their base premise is at least true. To do so, in this day and age, any theology must either surrender and say it can't prove its base premises, or enter the realm of science and use the scientific method.

Uh, that's just the problem, isn't it? Theology always assumes the premise of the existence of its deities. It's a basic feature, like stripes on a tiger. Why would a theology ever surrender? Theologians have faith; otherwise this would all be moot.

Cainkane1 · 13th July 2011, 05:49 AM

Humans being social animals are usually born with a set of ethics. Just as a nest of ants or a school of sharks don't bite each other humans are genetically wired for living in harmony with their fellow man. So science can explain the origen or morality as well or better than metaphysics or religion ever could.

Mojo · 13th July 2011, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by TFian

Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God.

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical...

Nor does theology. It just tells us what the people who invented gods thought was moral or ethical.

Aepervius · 13th July 2011, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Nor does theology. It just tells us what the people who invented gods thought was moral or ethical.

Which is a distinction which become flagrantly apparent on the subject of stoning people for various small infraction, or slavery, eating oyster, or wearing a cotton-wool mix t-shirt.

dafydd · 13th July 2011, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by mikeyx

So you do in fact support the creation of the Frankenstein monster? Nice.....

Frankenstien's monster. It was fictional,by the way.

Trakar · 13th July 2011, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by Tricky

Eventually it all resolves to the same thing: Effects are, by definition, scientifically measureable. If God has any effect, it must be scientifically measurable, or it is not an "effect".

But I see no need to be insulting...

Ah,...for some reason I didn't register the "crackpipe" ending statement, I certainly agree that insults are not necessary, and should probably modify my "completely agree" to reflect that.

godless dave · 13th July 2011, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

You can't derive a positive assertion from a lack of evidence.

Of course you can.

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

The most that could be stated is that there is no evidence to support any claim or assertion of existence.

And that's all that needs to be said. If there is no evidence to support a claim, then there is no reason to believe the claim is true.

If the only reason you think something might exist is because you can imagine it, human experience shows us that you can immediately assume it doesn't exist.

Trakar · 13th July 2011, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by godless dave

Of course you can.

not using sound logic

Quote:

And that's all that needs to be said. If there is no evidence to support a claim, then there is no reason to believe the claim is true.

beliefs don't require evidences, and this presumes that someone is trying to convince others that their claims about their beliefs are objectively true.

dafydd · 13th July 2011, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

not using sound logic

beliefs don't require evidences, and this presumes that someone is trying to convince others that their claims about their beliefs are objectively true.

Thank you for toning down the thesaurus. This is not a dig at you,I mean it.

Pure Argent · 13th July 2011, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

beliefs don't require evidences

Unless you want them to be rational.

godless dave · 13th July 2011, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

beliefs don't require evidences, and this presumes that someone is trying to convince others that their claims about their beliefs are objectively true.

Rational beliefs require evidences. And what about convincing yourself? Don't you examine your own beliefs to make sure they're based in reality?

8th July 2011, 07:37 PM	#81
Khan Scholar Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 100	Originally Posted by Resume I don't see the difference. Christianity and Islam have many followers today, Greek Paganism doesn't. To be fair, I do agree with your point, I just have my own arbitrary way of separating the two in my mind. For the most part they're the same, although theology seems to be a nicer way of saying it. Generally any teachings I've had in Mythology have dealt only about religions in the beginnings of human history that have long since died out, so that's probably where I got the separation.
Khan Scholar Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 100

8th July 2011, 07:38 PM	#82
learner Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2008 Location: dorset england Posts: 1,589	Originally Posted by Complexity The OP is wrong. Science is the study of reality, of nature. There is nothing apart from nature, nothing 'supernatural', nothing that is off-limits for science. Complexity arrives at a non complex answer, as usual...Good stuff, I agree.
	__________________ "I would give my right arm to be ambidextrous" - My Mate Dave " How do you expect me to use my initiative if you wont tell me what to do?" - Dave again

8th July 2011, 07:55 PM	#83
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,602	Originally Posted by hgc Yes Don't know what that is Yes The point being thus: The OP opened with a suggestion that theology provides knowledge of ethics, morals and whatever else supposedly isn't in the realm of science. (I paraphrase). I obliquely suggested that it's a fool's errand, since theology is just intellectual wankery. It may have important literary or historical value, such as with Augustine and Aquinas, but it has about as much chance of offering good moral lessons as any other literature. That's all I was trying to say. The evidence directed unknowable is the unknowable there is some evidence might exist. It might be that there is something outside the Universe and/or that something existed before the BB. There is at least some logic supporting these hypotheses as opposed to purely imagined thought gods exist but are undetectable. As for the ethics/morals and so on that are also supposedly outside the realm of science, I'm lean heavily toward natural biology explaining that stuff as well. I realize philosophers love to think their field is meaningful and I suppose it is to them and other people. I tend to be a more strict biology explanationist. I'm not saying we have no free will. I don't know the answer to that question yet. But if you ask me about morality I look to the evidence of how morals evolved and believe biology and genetics explains morality better than contemplation. From my perspective, the biological criteria we judge these esoteric things by are being used, but just sometimes outside the realm of conscious thought. My question to philosophers is, if these things are outside the realm of science, then explain what they are without including the biological brain.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

8th July 2011, 08:10 PM	#84
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,602	Originally Posted by Khan Christianity and Islam have many followers today, Greek Paganism doesn't. To be fair, I do agree with your point, I just have my own arbitrary way of separating the two in my mind. For the most part they're the same, although theology seems to be a nicer way of saying it. Generally any teachings I've had in Mythology have dealt only about religions in the beginnings of human history that have long since died out, so that's probably where I got the separation. Just an FYI for those people who don't realize the world's populations are not all Judeo-Christian. Religious Adherents is a website with one of the best data bases I've seen for how many people believe which religions. Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents 6% of the world's population are identified as "Primal Indigenous". Quote: primal-indigenous: Alternatively termed "tribal religionists, "ethnic religionists," or "animists," estimates range from 100 million to 457 million. (457 million is the combined total for "Ethnoreligionists," "Animists," and "Shamanists" from Barrett's 2001 world religion calculations. But this total includes all African Traditional religionists, which we have listed as a separate category.) This group also includes, but is not limited to, people whose native religion is a form of shamanism or paganism (such as millions of people in traditional Siberian shamanist cultures). Obviously this is broad classification, not a single religion. This grouping includes thousands of distinct religious traditions, mostly the religious-cultural worldviews of peoples who have been grouped together in one category because they are pre-literate or less advanced technologically than Western/European cultures. There are similarities among many primal-indigenous religions/cultures, such as use of an oral rather than written canon, and a lack of rigid boundaries between the sacred and secular (profane) aspects of life. But few, if any, generalizations hold for all groups. Previously, adherents of African traditional religion were grouped here, and many religious statisticians would continue to do so. But adherents of African traditional religions and diasporic derivatives are currently listed ennumerated separately on this page. [See below.] Most remaining primal-indigenous religionists are in Asia (including India). And while "Greek Paganism" may be passe, there are between 1 & 3 million people in the world who identify their religion as some kind of Neo-Paganism. Quote: "HOW many Witches, Wiccans and pagans are there? No one knows for sure but we do know that the number is increasing rapidly. Our best estimate here at The Witches' Voice is about 1 million in the U.S. and 3 million worldwide. Adherents.Com estimates about million Neo-pagans worldwide in its list of the world's major religions.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

8th July 2011, 08:41 PM	#85
Complexity The Woo Whisperer Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Minnesota, USA Posts: 9,263	learner - Love the birds!
	__________________ "It is a great nuisance that knowledge can only be acquired by hard work." - W. Somerset Maugham "Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, established intuititions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man." - Bertrand Russell

9th July 2011, 01:35 AM	#86
learner Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2008 Location: dorset england Posts: 1,589	Originally Posted by Complexity learner - Love the birds! Thanks!
	__________________ "I would give my right arm to be ambidextrous" - My Mate Dave " How do you expect me to use my initiative if you wont tell me what to do?" - Dave again

9th July 2011, 02:13 AM	#87
TeapotCavalry Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Estonia Posts: 211	Originally Posted by Khan It appears theology is also defined as the study of religion and it's influences in general. Given the amount of religions there are in the world I'd say theology has a lot of subjects to study. It indeed does, if we're talking about the academic field. Among the obvious ones - specific religious dogmas - you get psychology of religion, philosophy of religion, religious ethics, and lots of comparative religion. If someone insists theology isn't within the realm of knowledge, then neither is history or comparative literature, for a few examples. Originally Posted by Khan I'm betting there's a quite a bit of overlap in subjects. One could argue that theology is just a branch of mythology; or that they're one and the same. I generally consider mythology to be the study of ancient religions(Greek Paganism), while theology covers religions that are still popular today(Christianity, Islam). I may be entirely wrong. No, you're not wrong. That was the basic gist how they made the distinction in my religious studies as well. It's not a rock-solid one, but it's useful.

9th July 2011, 03:25 AM	#88
Lamuella Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,480	as has already been mentioned by many in this thread: many religions make claims about events within the physical world. Indeed, I can't think of a religion that doesn't. These can range from the age of the earth to the magical abilities of certain of the religion's followers, to the nature of the universe itself. All of these are directly scientific claims. It is definitely within the wheelhouse of skeptics to address these claims.
Lamuella Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,480

9th July 2011, 04:20 AM	#89
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	Originally Posted by TFian Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God. But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us. And neither does Theology.
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	__________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

9th July 2011, 11:36 AM	#90
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,602	Originally Posted by Robin And neither does Theology. Touche'
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

11th July 2011, 08:23 AM	#91
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,131	Originally Posted by dafydd A moot point. Studying old stories does not seem much of a science to me No, it's part of the humanites. But, as human behavior, it's within the realm of science.
	__________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm Last edited by godless dave; 11th July 2011 at 09:47 AM. Reason: horribly embarassing spelling error

11th July 2011, 08:24 AM	#92
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,131	Originally Posted by TShaitanaku That is a positive assertion that science would demand evidentiary support of, The lack of evidence for their existence is the evidence that they don't exist. To believe something exists when there is no evidence to suggest it does is irrational.
	__________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

11th July 2011, 08:52 AM	#93
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	Originally Posted by I Am The Scum And how do you do this? When you are hurtling through the air 9,000 metres up at 1,000 km per hour in an aluminum tube or having a philosophical discussion with someone on the other side of the world in real time or looking at photographs from the surface of Mars, it is a little hard to escape the conclusion that there might be something to the epistemic system that made these things happen.
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	__________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax" Last edited by Robin; 11th July 2011 at 08:54 AM.

11th July 2011, 08:56 AM	#94
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Touche' Unfortunately I later notices that two others had gotten there first.
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	__________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

11th July 2011, 09:17 AM	#95
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,522	Originally Posted by TFian Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God. But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. No it isn't. It's a claim about the nature of reality. It's very much scientific. Even if you ask "do you like chocolate", I'm sure with the right tools of science you could answer it in someone's stead. And science can surely tell us much about ethics. So this special pleading by you is just an attempt to escape scrutiny for your claims.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

11th July 2011, 09:21 AM	#96
Humes fork Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,359	Originally Posted by TFian But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us. Theologians are no more qualified to do so than anybody else, and should probably stop. Originally Posted by TFian Science is a philosophy of skepticism and empirical evidence, and as such has no ability to explore metaphysical questions, which have nothing to do with skepticism or empirical evidence, and everything to do with subjective experience. They are simply two different, separate, and exclusive realms of knowledge and thought. You don't get away by hiding behind "metaphysics". I'd still prefer some evidence rather than the rantings of Bronze Age desert nomads.

11th July 2011, 09:48 AM	#97
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,131	Or even an iron age civilization in the Fertile Crescent.
	__________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

11th July 2011, 09:50 AM	#98
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,019	Originally Posted by Humes fork You don't get away by hiding behind "metaphysics". I'd still prefer some evidence rather than the rantings of Bronze Age desert nomads. Just to get some things straight here: Much of these rantings are of early and middle Iron Age transcription (though much lifted from earlier sources), and the producers were more settled folk than nomads. Also, not quite so deserty as it is today.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

11th July 2011, 11:08 AM	#99
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,602	Originally Posted by godless dave Or even an iron age civilization in the Fertile Crescent. Tsk tsk, that very egocentric of you. The Hero With An African Face
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

11th July 2011, 11:46 AM	#100
Humes fork Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,359	Originally Posted by hgc Just to get some things straight here: Much of these rantings are of early and middle Iron Age transcription (though much lifted from earlier sources), and the producers were more settled folk than nomads. Also, not quite so deserty as it is today. Fair enough. They still had brutal and cruel societies and they knew very, very little beyond the necessities of survival and the maintainence of their societies.

12th July 2011, 09:13 PM	#101
devnull Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 4,533	Originally Posted by mikeyx So you do in fact support the creation of the Frankenstein monster? Nice..... wow. nonsense alert! What?
	__________________ no, i don't think i need to read naturalistic literature more accurately, to be convinced its true. - Gibhor

12th July 2011, 09:27 PM	#102
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,928	Originally Posted by godless dave The lack of evidence for their existence is the evidence that they don't exist. To believe something exists when there is no evidence to suggest it does is irrational. You can't derive a positive assertion from a lack of evidence. The most that could be stated is that there is no evidence to support any claim or assertion of existence.
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,928	__________________ Trakar AKA/formerly TShaitanaku "Dubitanda quippe ad inquisitionem venimus; inquirendo veritatem percipimus." (By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth.) — Peter Abelard

12th July 2011, 09:59 PM	#103
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,371	Originally Posted by Complexity The OP is wrong. Science is the study of reality, of nature. There is nothing apart from nature, nothing 'supernatural', nothing that is off-limits for science. To test if this is true, can somebody give us any characteristic of the Christian God (or other gods) which cannot be, at least potentially, investigated by some kind of science? For example, let's take something simple like "God is good." (I'm pretty sure I've heard that in a prayer somewhere.) Well, first, you have to define what is "good", and that involves a branch of sociology called "ethics". You could studies the different things that various people think of as "good" and see if God's actions (or the claims of his action) satisfy the definition of "good" and in what world settings they do so. In my experience, much of God's behavior as described in the Bible, would not fulfill normal definitions of "good", even by the standards of most Christians. (Mass murderer, eg.) Or, take for example, the claim that "God watches over us". While that might seem to be non-scientific, recall that the science of physics includes "the observer effect". To "watch over" anything requires that the observer change the environment of the observed, at least in some small way. Theoretically, instruments could be designed to measure this effect. Go ahead and try it. You will find that what this will resolve to is that theology and science don't overlap as long as the god you propose has no characteristics whatsoever. Is that how you feel about your God, theists? Is He/She/It completely undefinable in all ways? If so, then I humbly accept your contention that theology and science are completely separate fields.

12th July 2011, 10:08 PM	#104
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,527	Hmm Tricky I actually ended up saying something like that to Punshhh recently in the materialism thread except I went a step further mentioning that because your body, your "probe" to reality can only interact with reality, the very idea you can experience something "supernatural" is impossible; there's no apparatus in reality that can be acted on by the supernatural. So, when people claim to supernatural experience, it begs being scrutinized as a mislabeling of the event. You should just stop smokin' the crackpipe.
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

12th July 2011, 10:32 PM	#105
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,928	Originally Posted by Lowpro Hmm Tricky I actually ended up saying something like that to Punshhh recently in the materialism thread except I went a step further mentioning that because your body, your "probe" to reality can only interact with reality, the very idea you can experience something "supernatural" is impossible; there's no apparatus in reality that can be acted on by the supernatural. So, when people claim to supernatural experience, it begs being scrutinized as a mislabeling of the event. You should just stop smokin' the crackpipe. I would agree with this reasoning fully.
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,928	__________________ Trakar AKA/formerly TShaitanaku "Dubitanda quippe ad inquisitionem venimus; inquirendo veritatem percipimus." (By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth.) — Peter Abelard

12th July 2011, 10:38 PM	#106
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,371	Originally Posted by Lowpro Hmm Tricky I actually ended up saying something like that to Punshhh recently in the materialism thread except I went a step further mentioning that because your body, your "probe" to reality can only interact with reality, the very idea you can experience something "supernatural" is impossible; there's no apparatus in reality that can be acted on by the supernatural. So, when people claim to supernatural experience, it begs being scrutinized as a mislabeling of the event. You should just stop smokin' the crackpipe. Eventually it all resolves to the same thing: Effects are, by definition, scientifically measureable. If God has any effect, it must be scientifically measurable, or it is not an "effect". But I see no need to be insulting. All of us hold some irrational beliefs. (One of mine is that cockroaches are harmful and worthy of a scream when you see one, though I have no such problems with spiders and snakes.) There are many reasons, both environmental and emotional, that theists hold their irrational beliefs, so I feel like it is counterproductive to make personal insults about irrational beliefs, because it isn't going to convince anyone. And you can't convince me that cockroaches aren't harmful by calling me a big sissy.

12th July 2011, 10:45 PM	#107
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,928	Originally Posted by TShaitanaku Quote: Originally Posted by godless dave The lack of evidence for their existence is the evidence that they don't exist. To believe something exists when there is no evidence to suggest it does is irrational. You can't derive a positive assertion from a lack of evidence. The most that could be stated is that there is no evidence to support any claim or assertion of existence. I would be willing to take this a step further, however, given consideration to Lowpro's comment. The divine and supernatural do not exist within the natural universe, and to the evidence I am aware of, cannot (or do not) interact with the natural world in any significant fashion.
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,928	__________________ Trakar AKA/formerly TShaitanaku "Dubitanda quippe ad inquisitionem venimus; inquirendo veritatem percipimus." (By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth.) — Peter Abelard

13th July 2011, 12:29 AM	#108
tkmikkelsen Thinker Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Makati, Philippines Posts: 190	Originally Posted by TFian Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God. But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us. Science is a philosophy of skepticism and empirical evidence, and as such has no ability to explore metaphysical questions, which have nothing to do with skepticism or empirical evidence, and everything to do with subjective experience. They are simply two different, separate, and exclusive realms of knowledge and thought. Science does have a lot to say about moral and ethics. I believe that most psychologists and a lot of biologists would have a lot of very good answers as to why we feel it is wrong to murder and steal. I can recommend that you read The Science of Good and Evil by Michael Shermer. After that you should have a very clear idea of what science has to say about moral and ethics.

13th July 2011, 12:38 AM	#109
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,797	Originally Posted by TFian Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God. But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us. Science is a philosophy of skepticism and empirical evidence, and as such has no ability to explore metaphysical questions, which have nothing to do with skepticism or empirical evidence, and everything to do with subjective experience. They are simply two different, separate, and exclusive realms of knowledge and thought. Everything has probably been said, but not yet by everyone So here is my take: Theology is the study and teaching of all things pertaining to supposed "gods". A. Theology doesn't tell us what's moral or ethical, it may at most make claims about what morals certain gods want us to follow. Not all theologies are like that: The Greek pantheon is best remembered for its amoral frollicking. People did not follow then or believe in them because they were seeling guidance, but because they were fooled into believing, and because those gods were thought to wield power. it was thought that you could influence them positively by praying and making sacrifices, and negatively by, well, praying and sacrificing to other gods (). To decide if the commandments of any given god are actually moral and ethical, you have to step outside the realm of that particular theology. For example, when Moses ordered the Israelite army to commit a complete genocide against the Midianites, his theology posited that "killing all men, women and children of an entire people is moral and ethical". Moses' men apparently thought differently, they killed only the men, and let the women and children live (in captivity). Today; Christians claim to follow the same god that Moses followed. It has to be the same theology. Do Christians believe that only total genocides are morally good, while partial ones are an abomination to the lord - yhw does not approve of mercy towards women and children? Is studying the relevations of a god really the way to figure out what's moral or what's not? Do believers really want to claim that they have no moral compass, no idea about what's right or wrong, of theology doesn't explain to them what god wants? What a sorry state such believers would be in! B. Which theology teaches factual truth? The existence of many theologies, most of them mutually exclusive, raises the simple question: Which one describes actually existing gods? How can we tell which theologies describe gods that don't actually exist? We would expect any theology to convince us that their base premise is at least true. To do so, in this day and age, any theology must either surrender and say it can't prove its base premises, or enter the realm of science and use the scientific method. Summary: - Theology cannot tell us what is moral, or ethical - Theology must overlap with the realm of science, or no-one would take it serious

13th July 2011, 05:15 AM	#110
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,019	Originally Posted by Oystein We would expect any theology to convince us that their base premise is at least true. To do so, in this day and age, any theology must either surrender and say it can't prove its base premises, or enter the realm of science and use the scientific method. Uh, that's just the problem, isn't it? Theology always assumes the premise of the existence of its deities. It's a basic feature, like stripes on a tiger. Why would a theology ever surrender? Theologians have faith; otherwise this would all be moot.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

13th July 2011, 05:49 AM	#111
Cainkane1 Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 7,198	Humans being social animals are usually born with a set of ethics. Just as a nest of ants or a school of sharks don't bite each other humans are genetically wired for living in harmony with their fellow man. So science can explain the origen or morality as well or better than metaphysics or religion ever could.
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

13th July 2011, 06:52 AM	#112
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,091	Originally Posted by TFian Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God. But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical... Nor does theology. It just tells us what the people who invented gods thought was moral or ethical.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

13th July 2011, 07:32 AM	#113
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,761	Originally Posted by Mojo Nor does theology. It just tells us what the people who invented gods thought was moral or ethical. Which is a distinction which become flagrantly apparent on the subject of stoning people for various small infraction, or slavery, eating oyster, or wearing a cotton-wool mix t-shirt.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

13th July 2011, 07:33 AM	#114
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,480	Originally Posted by mikeyx So you do in fact support the creation of the Frankenstein monster? Nice..... Frankenstien's monster. It was fictional,by the way.

13th July 2011, 07:36 AM	#115
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,928	Originally Posted by Tricky Eventually it all resolves to the same thing: Effects are, by definition, scientifically measureable. If God has any effect, it must be scientifically measurable, or it is not an "effect". But I see no need to be insulting... Ah,...for some reason I didn't register the "crackpipe" ending statement, I certainly agree that insults are not necessary, and should probably modify my "completely agree" to reflect that.
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,928	__________________ Trakar AKA/formerly TShaitanaku "Dubitanda quippe ad inquisitionem venimus; inquirendo veritatem percipimus." (By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth.) — Peter Abelard