Action Jesus wrote:
As you might be able to tell, I don't believe in mixing science and religion together. A priest shouldn't be a scientist and a scientist shouldn't be a priest. The role of a scientist is one that should have nothing to do with religion unless he is trying to prove something that has religious relevance. As a scientist his first role is to follow scientific laws and observations, so I would agree with you on religious scientists (at least the ones who try to input religion into their theories without any proof). What I'M saying is that a person CAN accept BOTH religion AND science like I used to, and my father does.
"Accept" how though? If you mean recognise them both as possibilities, then yes, many such people exist. But that doesn't alter the fact that I think they are mistaken.
Quote:
Honestly, organized ANYTHING is potentially destructive. I do disagree with organized religion, though I don't look down on people who follow it or try to disprove their belief as long as they are just as open minded to me.
Sure, I don't look down on someone automatically because they are religious, regardless of how it may appear in this thread. The problem is that the things I do "look down on" often tend to manifest themselves more frequently in the religious. Nearly all the homophobes I have met, for example, have justified those beliefs through religion. And I do require organised
anything to justify itself before I give it credence.
Quote:
And alas, one of the major flaws of an athiest. You cannot just group religious criticism all of the 7 major religions or even ANY of them for that matter! Religion is something that MUST be judged on an individual basis. Religious opinions and beliefs vary infinitely even in individual sects themselves. It is highly unrational to say every single man, woman, child is wrong if he follows that religion.
Of course, each major religion has a myriad of permutations. But a myriad of flawed permutations taking root in one enormous fallacy.
Quote:
Their faith and beliefs are their evidence. Those beliefs allow them to see other evidence that non-believers cannot because they don't share those beliefs. For example, a very devout religious person is terminally ill but is cured. Doctors can't explain it and cannot provide evidence, MAYBE a theory or two. The fact that science itself couldn't prove what happened is the evidence that the same religious person believes in. That is NOT unrational.
Exactly the kind of thing that hinders medical research.
Quote:
Scientific laws and even the word "science" itself are only proved to apply to THIS plane of existence. If there is a being, I'm pretty damn sure it's not going to be anything that follows our laws. The concept of that existence itself defies our laws anyway. Hell, we aren't even sure the entire universe itseIf is limited to all of the same laws. We say that the universe is infinite yet logically, that seems to be impossible, so we don't even know the answer to that. Even so, we haven't come close to discovering all that there is to know about science, universes, "higher beings", different planes, whatever. There is no evidence supporting that another plane would share the same laws and even concept of science itself as this one does. THAT is why you are just assuming. Because of this obvious lack of knowledge, I think atheism is wrong to claim to believe in logic and science yet illogically say that there is definately no God. That is why I am agnostic.
and also...
Quote:
That isn't "Not knowing". That is a certainty
Atheism is the denial of the existence of a deity- commonly defined as an omnipotent, immortal being worthy of worship. Yep, I deny this totally. But it's preposterous to say that "not knowing" isn't a large part of it. Let me paraphrase a self described "militant atheist" who is fairly well known over here- (much more extreme than me, btw)- Johan Hari: "Of course atheists are unable to 100% discount the existence of the Christian god, but then atheists are also unable to discount 100% the suggestion that the earth was created last week by a lamp post, who then planted manufactured memories in all of us". For me, a being that exists beyond all recognised laws of physics, and was capable of
building the planet we inhabit, deserves no more credibility than our lamp post theory. Of course, in the depths of space there may be aliens with intelligences greater than our own, even one enormous alien with powers that seem supernatural to us. But then, we have powers that must seem supernatural to ants- but this hypothetical being is no more likely to be our "creator" than we are to insects.
.
