Battle : Science vs. Religion

[Light Storm]

Ok lets see who wins

 

Who's more open minded

 

 

 

[mooeypoo]

Would you accept one from a Plasma Cosmologist or would what I view as your conventional viewpoints disallow it? Please note, that I am not saying you are a conventionalist, only that you seem to present yourself that way to my view of you thus far.

 

Second Peter Chapter Three

 

 

Nice, nice, so you were asked to bring a scientific quote from a cosmologist, and you bring one from the bible.

I think that right there explains why you don't really getting along with the rules in this forum.

[Brainteaserfan]

show me a real miracle, not some obvious coincidence dressed up as an act of god....

Miracles in my life probably mean nothing to you. So, here are modern documented miracles in this guy's life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Müller It isn't the best wiki page I ever saw -- it sure needs some cleaning up, but it's understandable.

[mooeypoo]

Miracles in my life probably mean nothing to you. So, here are modern documented miracles in this guy's life. http://en.wikipedia....i/George_Müller It isn't the best wiki page I ever saw -- it sure needs some cleaning up, but it's understandable.

 

Can you point us to where the miracle is? The page is mostly about his work.

[Frontie]

Can you point us to where the miracle is? The page is mostly about his work.

Like an idiot, I bothered reading the relevant section - and I'm glad I did.

 

Here's the pick of the bunch:

 

"In 1862, it was discovered that one of the drains was blocked. Being some 11 feet underground, workmen were unable to find the blockage despite several attempts. Müller prayed about the situation and the workman at once found the site of the problem."

 

I hand on heart find this f***ing funny.

 

Obviously, I am now a Christian - you simply can't ignore such phenomena.

 

It's mental.

 

Think about it, this is the example we were offered as proof of miracles. It's funny, sad and disheartening all at once - but mainly funny.

[Moontanman]

Miracles in my life probably mean nothing to you. So, here are modern documented miracles in this guy's life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Müller It isn't the best wiki page I ever saw -- it sure needs some cleaning up, but it's understandable.

 

 

Doesn't this set a rather low bar for defining a miracle?

[Frontie]

Doesn't this set a rather low bar for defining a miracle?

Yes, it's as though God only intervenes in matters of manual labour, i.e. Muller's blocked drain.

 

"God! There's a massive wave approaching Thailand!"

 

"Is it anything to do with a faulty tap in Malaysia?"

 

"No, there was an earthquake in the Indian Ocean."

 

"Ugh, what have I told you about bothering me unnecessarily!?"

 

"But God, many, many, many people may…"

 

"Not listening!"

 

"But..."

 

"Can't hear you!"

[Phi for All]

Can we conclude that there is no "battle"? That science and religion use methods that won't allow for meaningful resolution of their differences?

 

In hindsight, I really don't want to leave this thread open for future misinterpretations, due to its provocative title.

[Frontie]

Can we conclude that there is no "battle"? That science and religion use methods that won't allow for meaningful resolution of their differences?

 

In hindsight, I really don't want to leave this thread open for future misinterpretations, due to its provocative title.

Not really mate, no.

 

It's beyond a battle, it's a war – by definition.

 

The two are constantly at loggerheads – and the scientific POV is almost exclusively the moral perspective.

 

In the scheme of things, it's pretty crucial the scientific community views religion as something to overcome.

 

There are quite literally, lives at stake.

[Brainteaserfan]

Can you point us to where the miracle is? The page is mostly about his work.

I can understand the other reactions... but you can't find the alleged miracles?? Really? I'll copy and paste a few then.

 

 

 

Once, whilst crossing the Atlantic on the SS Sardinian in August 1877, his ship ran into thick fog. He explained to the captain that he needed to be in Quebec by the following afternoon, but Captain Joseph E Dutton (later known as "Holy Joe") said that he was slowing the ship down for safety and Müller's appointment would have to be missed. Müller asked to use the chartroom to pray for the lifting of the fog. The captain followed him down, claiming it would be a waste of time. After Müller prayed, the captain started to pray, but Müller stopped him; partly because of the captain's unbelief, but mainly because he believed the prayer had already been answered. When the two men went back to the bridge, they found the fog had lifted. The captain became a Christian shortly afterwards.

Through all this, Müller never made requests for financial support, nor did he go into debt, even though the five homes cost over £100,000 to build. Many times, he received unsolicited food donations only hours before they were needed to feed the children, further strengthening his faith in God. For example, on one well-documented occasion, they gave thanks for breakfast when all the children were sitting at the table, even though there was nothing to eat in the house. As they finished praying, the baker knocked on the door with sufficient fresh bread to feed everyone, and the milkman gave them plenty of fresh milk because his cart broke down in front of the orphanage.

 

There are quite literally, lives at stake.

Reference??

 

There are eternal lives at stake, but something tells me that isn't what you meant.

 

 

[Frontie]

I can understand the other reactions... but you can't find the alleged miracles?? Really? I'll copy and paste a few then.

 

 

 

Once, whilst crossing the Atlantic on the SS Sardinian in August 1877, his ship ran into thick fog. He explained to the captain that he needed to be in Quebec by the following afternoon, but Captain Joseph E Dutton (later known as "Holy Joe") said that he was slowing the ship down for safety and Müller's appointment would have to be missed. Müller asked to use the chartroom to pray for the lifting of the fog. The captain followed him down, claiming it would be a waste of time. After Müller prayed, the captain started to pray, but Müller stopped him; partly because of the captain's unbelief, but mainly because he believed the prayer had already been answered. When the two men went back to the bridge, they found the fog had lifted. The captain became a Christian shortly afterwards.

Through all this, Müller never made requests for financial support, nor did he go into debt, even though the five homes cost over £100,000 to build. Many times, he received unsolicited food donations only hours before they were needed to feed the children, further strengthening his faith in God. For example, on one well-documented occasion, they gave thanks for breakfast when all the children were sitting at the table, even though there was nothing to eat in the house. As they finished praying, the baker knocked on the door with sufficient fresh bread to feed everyone, and the milkman gave them plenty of fresh milk because his cart broke down in front of the orphanage.

 

 

Reference??

 

There are eternal lives at stake, but something tells me that isn't what you meant.

 

 

Wow. I really want to swear at you.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

 

As if a reference is required.

[Phi for All]

In the scheme of things, it's pretty crucial the scientific community views religion as something to overcome.

There is much evidence to support a conclusion that you can't use reason to overcome faith, in much the same way you can't use conventional military tactics to overcome terrorism.

 

You can change a few minds to either way of thinking, but the foundational principles seem mutually exclusive.

 

It's not even a question of who's wrong or right. Using science against religion, or vice versa, is like measuring the width of your driveway with a story, a story that is never told the same way twice and can change without notice. I don't think it will ever work.

[Brainteaserfan]

Wow. I really want to swear at you.

 

http://www.guardian....003/oct/09/aids

 

As if a reference is required.

I had no clue they were saying that. Thanks (and I am 100% serious -- hence the +1.)

 

Does that mean, however, that all religion should be eradicated? I don't believe that I hold any views that would kill anyone, in fact, my religion leads me to be quite interested in becoming a doctor, or some other profession that could serve humanity well. This leads me to try to do well in school to achieve that goal.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[Frontie]

I had no clue they were saying that. Thanks (and I am 100% serious.)

 

Does that mean, however, that all religion should be eradicated? I don't believe that I hold any views that would kill anyone, in fact, my religion leads me to be quite interested in becoming a doctor, or some other profession that could serve humanity well. This leads me to try to do well in school to achieve that goal.

It's the harmful and prevalent consequences of religion that need to be eradicated and it's perfectly reasonable to suppose, the only way of doing that is by eliminating religions as recognised, authoritative global organisations – organisations that people are willing to die for no less.

 

If it were just old ladies gathering at the local village church on a Sunday, nobody would have a problem. Unfortunately, in the west that's what many people associate with religion – yet it's that damning effect religion has far from our doorstep, that is the genuine source of anti-religious sentiment, or more specifically militant atheism.

 

Sorry for saying I wanted to swear at you, it was tongue in cheek but it's still a little unnecessary and rude.

[Brainteaserfan]

It's the harmful and prevalent consequences of religion that need to be eradicated and it's perfectly reasonable to suppose, the only way of doing that is by eliminating religions as recognised, authoritative global organisations – organisations that people are willing to die for no less.

Would you die for a scientific belief if you were told that you needed to publically deny its truth?? If not, then you are like those religious people who wouldn't die for their beliefs, because they believe that God shouldn't have put them in that position. If yes, then IMO, it isn't much different from being willing to die for your religion, because we see our religion as infallible, and as having immense evidence. Of course, that isn't to say I endorse those who harm others with their beliefs that they would die for like those on 9/11.

 

If it were just old ladies gathering at the local village church on a Sunday, nobody would have a problem. Unfortunately, in the west that's what many people associate with religion – yet it's that damning effect religion has far from our doorstep, that is the genuine source of anti-religious sentiment, or more specifically militant atheism.

I am NOT an old lady. What do you mean by this section though? I don't think I understand.

 

Sorry for saying I wanted to swear at you, it was tongue in cheek but it's still a little unnecessary and rude.

Thanks.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[mooeypoo]

Like an idiot, I bothered reading the relevant section - and I'm glad I did.

 

Here's the pick of the bunch:

 

"In 1862, it was discovered that one of the drains was blocked. Being some 11 feet underground, workmen were unable to find the blockage despite several attempts. Müller prayed about the situation and the workman at once found the site of the problem."

 

I hand on heart find this f***ing funny.

 

Obviously, I am now a Christian - you simply can't ignore such phenomena.

 

It's mental.

 

Think about it, this is the example we were offered as proof of miracles. It's funny, sad and disheartening all at once - but mainly funny.

 

We are a science forum, and we all share your feeling about unsupported anecdotes regarding so-called miracles, but if you please, drop the condescending attitude. There's no need for it, and it doesn't really contribute to the arguments you're making.

 

You might not convince the "blindly convinced", but this thread exists on the net for the random readers as well. We will all benefit from being respectful and discussing the problems of the arguments that don't make sense rather than ridicule them and, perhaps, convince random readers that we are dogmatic ourselves.

 

~mooey

[tar]

In Exile,

 

 

If God had not "done it again" when you asked, would you today be an "unbeliever"?

 

I ask this question so that you could ask yourself how much of that night was you finding what you wanted to find, and how much was actually the universe responding to your request.

 

For instance, if your God is true, and your understanding of your connection with him/it true, then you could easily grab a video camera, go out on the next starry night (preferably not a night of a known meteor shower) and request he/she/it resolve this debate for us once and for all, by giving us a particular unusual series of "shooting stars" of particular colors, brightness and timing, coming from particular directions, that you would describe in detail, before the fact, and keep the camera rolling, as God performed the exact trick. If the show would then go on, exactly as you impossibly asked, we all would have evidence we could point to, of his/her/its obedience to your whims.

 

I would like to here tell a true story. I was in Japan on business and they were having a long drought. I jokingly told my "guide" that if he gave me a Yen penny, I would talk to the clouds on the way out. He did and I did, sort of humming an "indian rain dance type of song" as I mentally "requested" the clouds to gather and give the area rain. After my return to the U.S, shorty afterward (within the week, I don't remember exactly) I saw on the news that the Tokyo area was experiencing a hurricane with torrential rains. A few years later I was at a conference in the Lake Tahoe region and they were experiencing a VERY long drought. Lake Tahoe was so low that the docks on the North end of the lake were sitting on gravel and you could literally walk across this one cove on dry lakebed. On the ride back to the airport with my workmates, I was telling the Japan story and suggested to our driver, that he give me a penny, and I would talk to the clouds on the way out. He did and I did, humming the raindance song, and urging the clouds to gather. The next week California, including the Tahoe area had tremendous rains and mudslides and the drought was over. My workmates gave me the nickname "Chief Tom Tom" after that.

 

What should this tell me about God, and faith, or for that matter, my power over the universe? Forget God. You should probably worship me instead.

 

(did you ever hear of coincidence?)

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited October 29, 2011 by tar

[Moontanman]

I can understand the other reactions... but you can't find the alleged miracles?? Really? I'll copy and paste a few then.

 

 

 

Once, whilst crossing the Atlantic on the SS Sardinian in August 1877, his ship ran into thick fog. He explained to the captain that he needed to be in Quebec by the following afternoon, but Captain Joseph E Dutton (later known as "Holy Joe") said that he was slowing the ship down for safety and Müller's appointment would have to be missed. Müller asked to use the chartroom to pray for the lifting of the fog. The captain followed him down, claiming it would be a waste of time. After Müller prayed, the captain started to pray, but Müller stopped him; partly because of the captain's unbelief, but mainly because he believed the prayer had already been answered. When the two men went back to the bridge, they found the fog had lifted. The captain became a Christian shortly afterwards.

Through all this, Müller never made requests for financial support, nor did he go into debt, even though the five homes cost over £100,000 to build. Many times, he received unsolicited food donations only hours before they were needed to feed the children, further strengthening his faith in God. For example, on one well-documented occasion, they gave thanks for breakfast when all the children were sitting at the table, even though there was nothing to eat in the house. As they finished praying, the baker knocked on the door with sufficient fresh bread to feed everyone, and the milkman gave them plenty of fresh milk because his cart broke down in front of the orphanage.

 

 

Reference??

 

There are eternal lives at stake, but something tells me that isn't what you meant.

 

 

Brainteaserfan, you do not strike me as a fundamentalist, I would even go as far as to suggest you are more of a live and let live type person, by many peoples definition a "reasonable man" I never fear a reasonable man, you can disagree with a reasonable man and the worst that can happen (if you are both reasonable men) is that you have to agree to disagree. Sadly religion seems geared to produce unreasonable men when it is allowed too much power, religion, the main Abramhamic ones at least, are told to convert everyone, they don't just feel an obligation to convert you, they think it's their right to do so.... Think of it from my point of view, everywhere I turn religion is shoved in my face, billboards, print ads, tv, radio, street corner preachers, aggressive asshole street corner preachers, and FAMILY but my personal favorite is door to door preachers... Oh yes, Saturday morning after Church the emerge, knocking on my door, confronting me in my yard, wanting to know if I've heard the good news... The other day, the thought flashed through my mind that the "real good news" (for them) is that I am prohibited by law from shooting trespassers on sight..

 

That really bothered me, normally I am a no confrontation sort of person, i do my best to avoid confrontation as much as possible and violence rarely solves anything, generally it just shuffles the problem to the future. But that thought did make me smile, not because I wanted to do it but because in our country (in this day and time) knocking on my door is the worst they can do. Sadly as we know religion can inspire people to do much worse to anyone who refuses to convert. "No real Christian" would ever harm you for not converting? No real Scotsman? Religion breeds intolerance, bigotry, and arrogance. Aristarchus in Exile was a good example of this, his arrogance in his assumptions that the only reason I or we hadn't converted yet was because we weren't looking hard enough or we hadn't been looking long enough. This is yet another idea brought about by someone at least well known around the 16th or 17th century, i just can't remember the name, but in essence what he said was if you don't believe you need to pretend you do and eventually the belief will come. To me that idea is just intolerable..

 

Then you get to the actual creationists, they actually ascribe to the belief that no matter how obvious the disconnect between reality and religion is, religion always trumps reality (and it's ok to lie to support your religion). While this is disturbing I honestly feel they do indeed have the right to believe what ever they want but that's not enough for them, they want their religious belief and it's written word to be taught as science, not just to their children (which is a problem) but to everyone else's, this is unacceptable, but more disturbing is the lengths they will go to support their religion, half truths, misrepresentation, out right fabrications, anything to further their world view and to make sure it is the only world view. They believe their holy book must be 100% literally true, ever read it? If actually reading the bible doesn't give you pause to assume it is literally 100% true then you are probably part of the problem.

 

So is their a war? Yes, no doubt and the final shots are far from being fired, if everyone was reasonable and your beliefs were yours and you felt no need to convert by any means anyone who disagreed with you then there would not a be culture war, maybe not even a concept of such a thing. I am not just picking on Christians other religions have their fundamentalists who deny reality, Islam is a hot bed of creationism, Hindus, Seiks, Zoastrianism (sp) and I think the Jews have their own version as well. Some of these creation myths are similar others are totally different and involve totally different gods. Religion always involves coercion, you have to believe or suffer some sort of punishment...

 

There are eternal lives at stake, but something tells me that isn't what you meant.

 

This is blackmail in it's most basic form, believe what I do or suffer eternal torment, science only offers evidence for reality... and requires no worship, no money to build more and grander churches so that more people can be converted. Religion uses it's money to help people you say? Yes, after the expenses of the Church is met, after multi-million dollar mega churches are built, after the evangelical preachers get their grand estates and yachts, incredibly expensive cars, yes some of the money get to the poor and needy but no one knows how much....

 

Rationalists must win this war, not because they are right but because they allow others to be wrong.....

[Brainteaserfan]

Think of it from my point of view, everywhere I turn religion is shoved in my face, billboards, print ads, tv, radio, street corner preachers, aggressive asshole street corner preachers, and FAMILY but my personal favorite is door to door preachers... Oh yes, Saturday morning after Church the emerge, knocking on my door, confronting me in my yard, wanting to know if I've heard the good news... The other day, the thought flashed through my mind that the "real good news" (for them) is that I am prohibited by law from shooting trespassers on sight..

I'm sorry you feel that way, and in no way do I try to aggravate those who don't want to listen. In what way would you like for us to do our best to spread the Gospel without making others annoyed? Other than talking with others, I occasionally hand out pamphlets, or leave them around, but is there a "preferred" method that you would find less intrusive?

 

I will say though, that my dad (one day me too ) enjoys having door-to-door people come and discuss theological issues. So at least some like it I can see your frustration.

 

Sadly religion seems geared to produce unreasonable men when it is allowed too much power, religion, the main Abramhamic ones at least, are told to convert everyone, they don't just feel an obligation to convert you, they think it's their right to do so...

At least to me, not so much a duty to convert everyone as to spread the biblical truths (I know you disagree as to whether they are "truths")

That really bothered me, normally I am a no confrontation sort of person, i do my best to avoid confrontation as much as possible and violence rarely solves anything, generally it just shuffles the problem to the future. But that thought did make me smile, not because I wanted to do it but because in our country (in this day and time) knocking on my door is the worst they can do. Sadly as we know religion can inspire people to do much worse to anyone who refuses to convert. "No real Christian" would ever harm you for not converting? No real Scotsman? Religion breeds intolerance, bigotry, and arrogance. Aristarchus in Exile was a good example of this, his arrogance in his assumptions that the only reason I or we hadn't converted yet was because we weren't looking hard enough or we hadn't been looking long enough. This is yet another idea brought about by someone at least well known around the 16th or 17th century, i just can't remember the name, but in essence what he said was if you don't believe you need to pretend you do and eventually the belief will come. To me that idea is just intolerable..

I am still sort of deciding on the whole idea of "looking hard enough." I won't comment on AiE -- either way gets me into trouble.

Other things than religion have caused people to do terrible things, and not much is done about them, but I guess that is rather irrelevant. Man's desire to learn about something that can keep him alive forever seems to be almost as strong as the desire to reproduce, and so it is rather pointless to spend too much effort trying to control it. Personally, if I was an atheist, I think I might tend to be pro-Christian, because if someone is going to be "fanatical" I would usually tend to want a Christian missionary trying to convert others instead of say a Muslim militant, or something. But then again, I am not an atheist, and I never really was.

Then you get to the actual creationists, they actually ascribe to the belief that no matter how obvious the disconnect between reality and religion is, religion always trumps reality (and it's ok to lie to support your religion). While this is disturbing I honestly feel they do indeed have the right to believe what ever they want but that's not enough for them, they want their religious belief and it's written word to be taught as science, not just to their children (which is a problem) but to everyone else's, this is unacceptable, but more disturbing is the lengths they will go to support their religion, half truths, misrepresentation, out right fabrications, anything to further their world view and to make sure it is the only world view. They believe their holy book must be 100% literally true, ever read it? If actually reading the bible doesn't give you pause to assume it is literally 100% true then you are probably part of the problem.

I actually ascribe to it! But, I don't think that it would go against the Bible to say that before the sun was created at least, that days were just stages in time. Certainly God could have done it many ways though. I decided to try not to spend to much time this year debating it until I have more knowledge on the subject because this year I am taking an AP bio course, so I hope to see the evidence for evolution, and I am also taking a creation biology book, so hopefully I will get the input of both sides. I have found both POV's quite fascinating so far.

Yes, though, I do/have read the bible, and I do believe that it is "100% true." :?

This is blackmail in it's most basic form, believe what I do or suffer eternal torment, science only offers evidence for reality... and requires no worship, no money to build more and grander churches so that more people can be converted. Religion uses it's money to help people you say? Yes, after the expenses of the Church is met, after multi-million dollar mega churches are built, after the evangelical preachers get their grand estates and yachts, incredibly expensive cars, yes some of the money get to the poor and needy but no one knows how much....

I realize this is the "my way is right" attitude, but at my church, the preachers get paid extraordinarily small sums, and our building is a unused old small Methodist church.

I recently saw an email that was showing what percent of different charities actually went to the poor and needy. Those such as the salvation army had by far the highest percentage going to actual (claimed) needy people. Idk if the email was accurate or not, but if so, it was interesting.

[Frontie]

We are a science forum, and we all share your feeling about unsupported anecdotes regarding so-called miracles, but if you please, drop the condescending attitude. There's no need for it, and it doesn't really contribute to the arguments you're making.

 

You might not convince the "blindly convinced", but this thread exists on the net for the random readers as well. We will all benefit from being respectful and discussing the problems of the arguments that don't make sense rather than ridicule them and, perhaps, convince random readers that we are dogmatic ourselves.

 

~mooey

I completely disagree with you. I think it's absolutely proper that such nonsense is ridiculed – and I'd do it again. I hope the random reader does pick up on a general dogmatic outlook, because religion – as it's commonly understood – is utter pish. Bloody angels and miracles – it's mental that this hokum is forced on people. I'd also argue that more people would find consolation in the community's conviction on the matter, than would be repelled by it – even if the said conviction comes in the form of derision.

 

I also don't think you should ever have to suspend your sense of humour – unless the timing's distasteful. If you can't see the funny side of something, that's your loss – I have the right to highlight what tickles me, you have the right to be offended by it, but that doesn't mean you're right. I don't necessarily mean you by the way, I'm just making the point.

 

Brainteaserfan, are you prepared to accept there may not being a God?

[Ophiolite]

I completely disagree with you. I think it's absolutely proper that such nonsense is ridiculed – and I'd do it again.

You may wish to note that mooeypoo is a moderator. His remarks may have been made entirely as a regular member, or he might have been giving you a polite heads-up to what is and is not tolerated on the forum. You could always check that out by making further provocative and ridiculing statements at an appropriate (or inappropriate) time.

 

I agree with you that nonsense should be ridiculed, but that should be done elegantly and with humour. In my opinion your effort lacked both of these qualities. Better luck next time.

[tar]

Thread,

 

Peer pressure is probably an important concept to evaluate here.

 

Peers would have no power over you and your thoughts and decisions, unless you considered them peers. In some logical sense a peer is someone who belongs to the same group as you. You and your peer have some things in common that put you in this peergroup.

 

Established religions help define a peergroup. "WE believe" is an idea strong in the words spoken in the churches I have attended, and strong in the Koran, with Believers being those who understand the truth, and unbelievers being those in error.

 

Interesting to me, is that both science and humanism allow a situation where "EVERYONE" is your peer. This is actually a more "godly" attitude to take, than one that would elevate one peergroup over an other. And the scientific and humanistic attitude actually encourages the belief that we are ALL subject to the same God/Nature/Reality/Universe, which might be considered MORE adherent to the underlying teachings of Moses, and Christ, and Mohammed, (that GOD is the one truth that we all live under), than considering that YOUR peergroup, defined by what you collectively believe, is the one FAVORED by, and inclusive of, God. (and that "others", are not in this peergroup, and hence are "outside" of God, in error).

 

Hopefully my personal stance is clear. No established religion holds the only key to entry into God's group.

 

We all, are already, in.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited October 29, 2011 by tar

[Brainteaserfan]

Brainteaserfan, are you prepared to accept there may not being a God?

Of course, but only if I believed that there was either too little reason to believe in Him, or too much evidence against Him.

[tar]

Ophiolite,

 

Isn't Mooeypoo a young woman?

[mooeypoo]

I am, and for the record, my post was made as a poster and not as staff. Staff comments are usually done with pink little box thing with a "moderator note" on top.

 

That said, I did speak from knowing the rules, I just thought a nudge from a poster was the better approach rather than a scornful "staff note". Our etiquette rules support my (and Ophiolite's) sentiments, though, so despite how much I may agree with the content of what you're saying, Frontie, I urge you to try and use less ridicule in your posts.

 

It's not just about our rules, honestly. I don't know about the rest of you but I'm here discussing to understand people's approaches ("learn the other side" so to speak) and to try and represent my own opinions as best I can. If this was a private discussion, I might have had a different approach, but the fact this forum is open and is discoverable in google/search means that random readers go over our threads. I would rather my own attitude doesn't reinforce the idea that scientists are dogmatic snobbish obnoxiously "too smart for the rest'a'yas" folk that laugh at everyone else.

 

A lot of people on the 'pseudoscience' and the religion side represent scientists and atheists in that manner, and if we are not careful, we might reinforce that before we even get a chance to get through to someone who *is* out there to learn.

 

I know this isn't what you were aiming for, Frontie (btw, you're not the only one, I'm just referring to you now for context) but I think too much ridicule tends to do more damage than good in discussions like these. It's not like they don't have a place -- they do, and there are forums that encourage them more. But usually, those are best for a sort of 'preaching to the choir', and while there are forums and sites that are awesome about that (and I read ad participate in them too) this particular forum is not meant for that.

 

I know there are people who disagree with me, and they're welcome to (hey, discussion's what we're here for) and I know of at least one individual who despite disagreeing with me on this particular point still has my utmost respect (you know who you iAre). As long as you don't push it beyond our rules, this is a matter of attitude and can be discussed.

 

Just be careful not to take these too far, because too far *is* against our rules.

 

~mooey

 

Brainteaserfan, are you prepared to accept there may not being a God?

 

Whether or not he or the other specific people who discuss things in the thread are or are not, I can guarantee you that there are more people reading this forum than people participating in the forum.

 

Out of experience, people take what we say to heart, and I know of some examples of people who (slowly) took this step out and away from a dogmatic belief system and into a more scientific outlook -- but that's not usually done in a day or a single thread, and usually it involves being defensive; when you read something that makes you get even more "closed minded" (because the person on the 'other side' is ridiculing and laughing at you) you get much less of a chance to even consider the points they're making.

 

Isn't it a lot better to answer the points with clearly rational counter-points (pepper it, perhaps, with mild amusement when the points are taken too far) and show we are (a) not panicking over these "accusations" from the other side and (b) know what we're talking about, and don't crumble under pressure. ?

 

People do change their minds, even if the people who are actively posting don't. It happens, I know a few people like that, actually. In fact, I changed my mind since I was younger too. It wasn't about religion, it was about pseudoscience nonsense that I will be severely embarassed to admit to -- but I *did* change my mind. And I can tell you that the 'high in the sky' science people who dismissed me without even *listening* to what I had to say? They just convinced me I had something going, not that I might be wrong.

 

Of course you can disagree, and feel free to, that's why we're discussing things here.

 

 

~mooey

 

 

P.S -- I believe we had a thread discussing this before. I personally think we're on topic on this one, since it is related to the "Battle" of "science vs religion" but if you think we're going off topic, use the report button so another moderator can move thigns to a new thread.

 

 

 

For fairness, you guys should know:

Please don't feel intimidated to answer me because of the little badge I have next to my name. In this particular thread, i'm no longer staff. I am participating in the thread, and therefore gave up my authority as moderator in this thread.

If I think something goes against the rules, I will do what any other member does, and use the "Report" button.