<p>How do those passages accumulate to serve as a manual for living a better, more fulfilling life, or for creating a better society? In essence, the “God” figure is portrayed as nothing more than a parochial, jaundiced, discriminatory, resentful, malefic, self-possessing monstrosity and, indeed, a sadistic, ethnic cleansing, homophobic, misogynistic, bigoted, genocidal, virulent, chauvinistic, conceited megalomaniac. How do these passages from this “all-knowing force” (in actuality, a group of primitive men propounding their own amoral, ideological agenda) represent a figure that is worthy of any degree of worship or epitome?</p>
<p>Of course, the charge will be that the quoted material and “God’s” vindictive nature is that in which is portrayed within the Old Testament, which supposedly does not really apply any longer (it does still apply otherwise it would not be referenced). Now, somehow, this “God” character changed its mind, which somehow serves as a moral obviation for any prior transgressions? </p>
<p>Regarding Genesis, it is obviously a patently false piece of literature since it inherently contradicts known facts. For instance, it claims that lightness and darkness came before the sun. Quite obviously, the sun came before the Earth and the latter’s rotational motion along its vertical axis created the oscillating light and dark cycle, thus invalidating that truth-claim. Quite obviously, as well, the formation of the Earth came billions of years after light and the formation of the sun; yet, Genesis makes claims to the contrary. Moreover, the great flood never occurred, as evidenced by the archaeological record.</p>
<p>Religion served/serves as the very basis for committing horrific atrocities throughout history, including the Crusades, Jew persecutions, the Inquisition, Gundpowder plot, witch-hunts, suicide bombers, the Partition of India, interminable Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Serbian/Croatian genocide, 9/11, London bombing, and so forth. Religion lies at the very root and, to those committing these historical acts, “justified” those events. Islamist militant organizations (including Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Islamist Jihad) encourage the use of suicide bombings since they believe that they are permitted by Islamist doctrine. Due to their religious inclinations, these individuals believe that there is a better future to live for; therefore, they detonate and mercilessly massacre as they please.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you seriously continuing to dispute this statement: “Something may be considered true when there is demonstrable evidence to support it.” That is a product of common sense, not something that is required to satisfy some petty criteria. Having to satisfy such trivial “standards” is nothing but an attempt at manipulation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Catholicism and other systems of belief clearly assert that they unwilling to compromise on much of its dogma regardless of the scientific proof that demonstrates otherwise. Virtually, a state of perceived infallibility remains and self-correction is essentially a diluted, yet completely necessary, quality whenever science provides a severe blow to its precepts.</p>
<p>You still have not addressed the fundamental question – and basically one that you cannot address – which is providing this evidence for some mystical existence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, actually that does not hold true. I fundamentally depart with religion over the farcical concept of the supernatural. Philosophy, on the other hand, does not haphazardly intertwine itself in such (as its foundation) and explores the appreciable depths of thought and reason and serves as a theoretical basis for knowledge. Yes, its foundations and advances are not necessarily derived from an empirical motivation, but, by its very nature, it does not presumptuously assume that it is an unquestionable authority regarding matters in which it has no basis, unlike religion. Thus, I find it respectable.</p>
<p>In other words, our early associations are more psychologically influential than those that come later in life. The truth is that the impetus to delude oneself with false assertions, regardless of the evidence against it, is predominantly not derived from an intellectual justification whatsoever, but rather what one has been taught since infancy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It obviously has no means of doing so, and merely thrives as an untidy heap of concocted claims.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, some religions account for any inherent misjudgments and fabricated opinions (not doing so would expose their untenable foundations). Religious bodies are simply unwilling to do so on an absolute basis and continue to indiscriminately adhere to their unsubstantiated claims.</p>
<p>But the mere truth that religious leaders are forced to reconstruct their faulty doctrines attests to the very nature of the intrinsic shakiness of religious fault and its invalid authority in matters concerning our world.</p>
<p>Sorry, but that is absolutely incorrect and you have completely blundered in doing so. You are essentially asking the question, “If there is not some religion or spiritual bloke in existence, why be good?” Are you telling me that you only have a sense of morals in order to acquire some preposterous supernatural approval or reward and to avoid punishment? That isn’t morality; that is simply an act of maintaining a fearful sense of servility towards some perceived ally in the sky. If you agree that, in the absence of “God,” you would commit burglary, larceny, and assault, among other crimes, then you have identified yourself as an inherently amoral person and one would be very sensible to maneuver well out of your path. However, if you believe that you would still act morally even when not under the watch of some holy force, then you have terminally spoiled your claim that morality from religion is necessary to conduct oneself appropriately.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you honestly attempting to claim that, for the atheist and agnostic, their lives lack all purpose or any point? Regardless of what you may believe, there are means of psychological completeness besides presumptuously supposing that some imaginary or mythological being lives somewhere in the atmosphere.</p>
<p>I addressed that somewhere in the above response.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course it’s scientifically unverified. Then what defense does it have to baselessly serve as a scientific authority and propound these “truths” to individuals who thoughtlessly consider them fact? The only thing verifiable about it is its nature as a faulty conception of the human intellect, facilitated by a vulnerability to such inappropriate creations and social influence. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Likewise, I too decline the notion of their inherent equivalence. I fault religion for its “certainty” and self-righteous claims in the existence of this god, that god, these gods, in addition to their false claims regarding our world, and an incontestable (“things are what they are because God/Allah/Zeus/the Tooth Fairy did it and don’t question that”) attitude.</p>
<p>For instance, many believe that serious illness is a matter of a will from a higher being and that prayer will somehow cure any misfortune, as if there is not a pathological cause. Please note that I do not dismiss the benefit of positive thinking, but a critical malady will not cure itself through vocal utterances. It’s just as absurd as cavemen drilling holes in each other’s skulls to relieve the “evil spirits.” It’s the same concept. If the complete belief in holy intervention in medical illness were baselessly assumed as fact by all of humanity, our contemporary medical care would be very primitive indeed.</p>
<p>This is approximately the most widely accepted definition of “cult”:</p>
<p>[ul][li]a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object; a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister[/ul]</p>[/li]
<p>
</p>
<p>If something is not in accord with observable or demonstrable reality or blatantly contradicts fact or another similar system of belief, then how can it be considered truth? Something clearly may not be taken as such until it is honorably and systematically justified. Our current epistemological parameters continue to expand and continually force us to become increasingly dubious of potentially sophistic or spurious claims, which is largely occurring in the United States, as evidenced by the [increasing</a> secularization of our society](<a href=“http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/07/crises-of-faith/5967/]increasing”>Crises of Faith - The Atlantic). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, along with much disagreement regarding what is and what is not correct. Many of you simply disagree or regularly contradict each other – one may claim that the world is 6,000 years old, while another argues that the world is not 6,000 years old; evolution is fact, evolution is somewhat true, evolution is not true; “God” did this, “God” does not do this. And this, naturally, is indeed the case even by irrevocably cementing yourselves to fundamentally similar – but different (and hence contrary) ideologies. It surely is not a wonder why so many individuals have such a perplexed or equivocal outlook regarding faith-based concerns.</p>
<p>If one generalizes “we” to include all of humanity, past and present, religious beliefs have a part of the cerebral framework since the human brain evolved the complexity to inquire into the natural surroundings. Ironically, evolution is the parent of religion. That is, evolution itself has created its most profound epistemic barrier. The converse certainly does not hold true, contrary to what those with mongrelized notions may believe. But regarding the point at hand, there have always been gods that have been groundlessly assumed as ontological fact. The ancient Egyptians fervently defended belief in their gods – approximately 2,000 various figures in total – yet it is plainly and unmistakably apparent to the individuals of today that those were indeed fictitious beings (and rightfully so). Moreover, the ancient Romans had their own personal scattering of deities, which, from a modern perspective, are also taken as nothing more than fanciful, mental constructions of the human imagination. Then, of course, there are the ancient Greeks and their own theological equivalents. Yet, these gods too are considered complete hogwash by contemporary cultures. Correspondingly, their mythological structure is considered primitive, silly, na</p>
<p>Then where is it? Claiming that it exists independent of reality demonstrates nothing. Utilizing the “it’s just there” explanation is ineffective and irrational.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The doubly quoted statement is not a definition of religion nor was it stated as such.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Science assists in transcending beyond this spineless fear that humanity has had for so many centuries. It teaches us to evidence and substantiate belief, to no longer seek and misconceive imaginary moral or epistemological crutches, to no longer fabricate superhuman entities in the sky, but rather to look at the world honestly, honorably, and systematically as it is and use the extent of our technology and mental aptitudes to create a better world around us. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, they do, otherwise it would not be labeled as “faith.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why are you equating secular humanism and the non-theistic scientific perspective with nihilism? The combination of the disbelief in the supernatural and adherence to science, naturalism, secularism, and/or humanism is not the functional equivalent of such. Why do you assume that the secular, scientific perspective is entirely devoid of a sense of ethics (which is indeed the explicit charge by fallaciously claiming that the concept of right and wrong is absent without religion or philosophy)?</p>
<p>Science is what we observe and what we see in nature.</p>
<p>Religion is what we make up to explain what we can’t explain using scientific methods.</p>
<p>Science is de facto an a priori argument that supercedes religion. If something can be proven scientifically, it will win over any religious explanation over time.</p>
<p>I am not going to search through this entire thread, but by definition, if one believes that the universe and living organisms originated and evolved through specific acts of godly interaction – in essence, a non-continuous or even an irrational lack of belief in natural processes, then one may be considered a creationist.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which, in turn, derives and ideologically authorizes its pursuits from Islamist fundamentalism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is it fair to characterize science as the root of the eugenics movement or are pseudoscientific conceptions of cultural or ethnic supremacy – which are indeed driven by a particular faith-based consideration – the better culprit? One could also label suicide bombing as a profound indication of scientific malignancy, but what sociological force truly underlies the source of perversion? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, my framework has attested to the central faults in the blind adherence to religious belief.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It should not, yet it does, unfortunately, to countless many individuals. If we can all agree that some holy force has no basis in reality and thus has no authority regarding empirical matters, then we have all indeed made headway.</p>
<p>Sure, but what relevance does that statement have? Unless, of course, you are merely using a simplification that supports the lack of correspondence between the two realms, which would undermine your previous claim.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then you ought to not criticize individuals for any perceived personal attacks if you are willing to employ one yourself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I stated above, if one presumes that the universe and living organisms originated and evolved through specific acts of a holy force, a non-continuous or lack of belief in natural processes, then one may be considered a creationist. Your assertion that you do not believe that humans, in particular, were fully stemmed from a natural process of chemical evolution, leads me to believe that you support some type of pious conviction. If you withhold judgment on parts that you do not understand or have not yet been explained and separate religious belief from scientific findings, then I do not criticize your position. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then, once again, what basis does it have in explaining – or by your personal presumption, appearing in – empirical reality?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, you do. You state that you – somehow – resolutely find some godly influence in scientifically explainable findings. In reality, you are merely interjecting your own emotional biases.</p>
<p>I agree. But that does neither of these two things:</p>
<p>1) Provides evidence that religion is false
2) Provides evidence that religion has a net effect on history</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. I agree with you completely. I just bolded words/phrases that are too vague to be useful. In other words, “demonstrable” =/= empirical unless you establish it as such definitively – many would disagree with you! You can dismiss their opinions, but so far you have not proven your own.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hardly. And it is a product of common sense. But you already introduce assumptions that I am not willing to concede without support – i.e., that empiricism is the only pathway to demonstrable truth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not true. Catholic dogma does not contradict any scientific tenet. That’s what makes Catholicism one of the most scientifically progressive denominations of Christianity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. My evidence can be the necessity of a First Cause, the entire premise of religious philosophers for the existence of God, etc. The fundamental problem is that my parameters are not limited to empirical evidence. Nor should they be unless you legitimately dismiss all other kinds of evidence as valid. This is a stronger statement than establishing them as useless rhetorically.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The bond between religion and philosophy is insoluble. It is not religion, but to claim that the two are completely separate is simply ignorant – let’s take St. Thomas Aquinas as an example. Both stem from non-empirical assumptions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. That’s still only two-thirds. My problem with your comment was a quantitative qualm, not a qualitative one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How convincing. Why don’t we believe everything you assert? Sounds dangerously like religion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Faulty doctrines? Hardly. “Changing” does not mean changing previous teachings, it can mean adding to them. But out of curiosity, find some belief that was self-corrected because of a previously-believed falsehood. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not at all – because part of my belief is in natural law, which permits people to recognize good even if they don’t embrace my religion. That is, some moral truths are self-evident.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. I’m saying that there is no way for them to justify ANY purpose in their lives on an empirical basis whatsoever.</p>
<p>So let’s make this very easy. I have noticed (this comes as a direct consequence of my choice of adjectives that follows) that you have conspicuously avoided answering my real question here:</p>
<p>Can a moral code be empirically proven?</p>
<p>Do it or concede that it cannot. Or point me toward some proof. An atheist who rejects religion on the basis of lack of empirical evidence is necessarily a moral nihilist if he seeks an internally consistent philosophy.</p>
<p>No, you ought to communicate or posit your position more clearly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have repeatedly stated that religion provides a means for intellectual fulfillment; but justifiably, I fundamentally cast aspersions on the validity of that gesture.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Science is not a belief. Again, reiterating one of my earlier claims – science assists in transcending beyond this spineless fear that humanity has had for so many centuries. It teaches us to evidence and substantiate belief, to no longer seek and misconceive imaginary moral or epistemological crutches, to no longer fabricate superhuman entities in the sky, but rather to look at the world honestly, honorably, and systematically as it is and use the extent of our technology and mental aptitudes to create a better world around us. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You state that you “quarrel” with the gradual expansion of structural and biochemical complexity of humanity (and only humanity) and assume that some occult figure intervened in creating reality, without really understanding processes (the separation of atomic charge), or failing to withhold judgment in the event of current scientific, technological, or epistemological limitations. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That functions as your validity (“its true just because I want it to be true”)? If you believe in the Christian Bible’s assertions, then why do you not label yourself as a creationist – or do you simply selectively choose what you wish to believe? </p>
<p>The belief in any religious doctrine, however, if one honestly delves into the psychology of it all, is far more primitive. It is principally stimulated by fear and any claim to the contrary is primarily an act of self-deception. It is the intrinsic terror of the unknown and the desire to have a type of filial entity assist with the complications and barriers of life and any uncertainties. Fear is the fundamental foundation of the entire convoluted, incoherent jumble of assertions – fear of the inexplicable, fear of individual ruination, and, indeed, fear of death. Fear inevitably breeds cruelty, so it is not an anomaly that cruelty and religion interweave themselves into a symbiotic web. Indeed, it is because of fear that the world has given rise to those two things.</p>
<p>Something is not definitively true simply because one wants it to be, which is precisely the rationality you are utilizing. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Rather than one particular empirical phenomenon, the entire book of Genesis attempts to dabble in such scientific matters. But I have referenced specific phenomena earlier among today’s set of posts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you concede to that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>According to your logic for the acceptance of Christianity, if I believed in such, regardless of its inherent contradiction, superficiality, or irrationality, it would be true. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You cannot argue out of religious contradictions by attempting to trivialize their extent. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, the plethora of contradiction, inherent in all beliefs that claim to propound the genuine truth of some spiritual realm, in turn, unravels the entire perspective. Given the ideologies that have ever been in existence and the sheer extent of the assertions that they make, what is the possibility that one is uniformly true? That’s the issue. Faith allows any individual to make whatever claim about reality that he or she pleases, which is based on personal opinion – and indeed even dysmorphic judgments – and is obscured so that it does not require testing against nature, cannot form consistent and dependable conjecture, and steers well clear of peer review. In essence, religion deserves to be consigned to the same category as pseudoscience, fairy tales, superstition, and delusions of all styles.</p>
<p>Having read the “The Stranger” by Albert Camus just recently, learning about the existentialist belief and absurdities of life, engaging in fueled yet disturbing class discussion, etc., I honestly cannot say anymore. If anything, I feel like I’m more inclined to side with science. It probably doesn’t help I have always been cynical of man’s organization of religion - that’s a given. </p>
<p>Just give me some time to figure this out. It’s a lot to process in at once. It [existentialism] sort of messes with your mind and everything you were once led to believe.</p>
<p>Why are you construing my reference to Hume’s “contrary means different” paradigm as something that is immanently biased?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The genuine assertion that “God” is nothing but a figment of the human imagination is stigmatized as the worst of all mortal sins.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The lack of immersion in this case is the lack of exposure to the concept of the supernatural. </p>
<p>Allow me to ask you this: Have you been fully exposed to every religious doctrine that has ever existed in order to fairly form your set of beliefs?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What evidence do you have for your last assertion?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And if you do not attribute the transfer from unicellularity to multicellularity in eukaryotic organisms to the clear evolutionary perspective, then with what do you evidence it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is inherently the basic groundless assumption one makes when using the “God” concept to explain empirical reality – it is a process of active non-thinking, a means of not intelligibly clarifying anything, and purely an acknowledgement that one does not have an explanation.</p>
<p>Scientists prefer natural explanations not because of a fundamental metaphysical bias, but because natural explanations produce understanding, which is defined by the extent in which it methodically and efficiently standardizes, systematizes, and unifies our knowledge. They may be evaluated on a criteria including the elements of austerity (eliminating assumptions), profitability (potential to predict new solutions), extent (what is being explained), and conservatism (congruence with present knowledge within a systematic body of derived findings).</p>
<p>Supernatural explanations, however, do not uniformly fit that criteria, but rather audaciously presume the existence of false entities, do not explain how phenomena is generated or developed or from where it originated, do not form novel predictions, introduce more questions than those that are answered, and indicate that certain natural laws have been transgressed or wholly disregarded. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your use of Genesis and quotation from it, particularly the first line, as my memory serves.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you believe in the actuality of the dinosaurs, then you ought to reject the notion of a 6,000-year-old period of existence.</p>
<p>Regarding Archaeopteryx, it functions as a transitional fossilized structure that provides evidence for the evolutionary divergence of dinosaurs to birds. The steps involved in the evolution of feathers and winged organisms may be found in this scientific paper: Xu, X. and Guo, Y. (2009). “The origin and early evolution of feathers: insights from recent paleontological and neontological data.” Vertebrata PalAsiatica, 47(4): 311-329.</p>
<p>Moreover, symbiosis is a significant selective force driving the process of evolution. The evolution of eukaryotic organisms is derived from that process, precisely.</p>
<p>Again, false. That’s just an assertion that you cannot justify on an empirical level. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I care about how I used it, because that is what is relevant. I was operating on a dictionary definition. If you have a problem with my word choice, fine. But don’t tell me I’m wrong when you are not even operating in my same framework, which is itself justified by a dictionary. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>EXACTLY. That is EXACTLY the question, and your answer is simply insufficient.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A definition that does not include only empiricism unless you establish it as such. You have not. You have only stated that science produces the only answers because by definition those answers must be empirical and no other justification is valid.</p>
<p>I’m not convinced, so convince me. Convince me why empiricism is the only valid justification for anything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I deny the existence BECAUSE I believe in a different religion, not because I intrinsically find that philosophy silly or not worth considering. I don’t have the same opinions on other religions that you do on all religions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The similarities are arguably relevant, not definitively so. The fact that out of thousands of deities in dozens of belief systems, there are some common threads is not astounding. Just like my throwing an egg in Times Square and hitting someone is not particularly astounding. That doesn’t mean that those beliefs are not true. Still others are not theologically relevant (e.g. 25 December, birthday of Jesus and Dionysus).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes it was. It implicitly defined religion as something that could not incorporate scientific beliefs (otherwise you would not have made the quoted statement).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Religion does all of those things (without the fallacious terminology, needless to say). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who is labeling it “faith?” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no empirically justified concept of right and wrong without religion or philosophy.</p>
<p>mifune, let’s just settle this right now! I will concede to all of your points and admit that my religion is a sham if you can justify on a purely empirical level a particular set of moral judgments. This isn’t either/or or anything, they’re completely different issues. But consider this a bet. Prove me wrong. Prove that morals can be justified empirically and I will concede the entire debate to you.</p>
<p>For example, explain to me using empiricism why it would be “bad” for me to wake up and detonate a nuclear bomb.</p>