Atheism

[Sheff]

emphasis on the world long btw

[scspkr99]

That's what discover means Sheff. I didn't suggest we invented them though there are some anti-realist philosophers that would defend that we did.

[rickyarbino]

1. The ones you've listed which include circumcision and the westboro baptist church.
2. You're also aware that a lot of what goes on today is helped along by secular states?
3. But you said that studying cosmology will bring us closer to the answer? And if you recognize that there is always another question, then why claim to fuck with Atheism?

Personally, I wouldn't exactly say that cosmology is a science, I know it uses science a lot but it aims to do something outside of it. I also don't think science is absolutely true, the facts it produces are contemporary, so to speak.

Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that science is evidence against 'god', it's just information that conflicts with the more concrete religions.

No I'm not.

[rickyarbino]

I'm not about to phrase this correctly but see if it makes sense, are there any non evolutionary, yet atheist, creation theories?

[lovelydivot]

I guess I consider myself an Agnostic…

Because I believe there is some stuff going on…
but I'm not necessarily attributing it to "GOD"

It could just be some Biological or Cognitive "Magic"
that we haven't figured out yet…

or it could be Aliens - I am really not beyond believing
we could be an an experimental flesh farm…

And I really do like Religious expression…
Especially the Far Eastern ones - Thangkas,
the concept of Boddhisatvas…



My favorite spiritual weapon is the Vajra…
I've had illuminating moments with it…



…and recently I've been having some spiritual experiences
that could be classified as Native American…
ok - I got the Turtle Shell Eagle Claw Dance - twice now...




So naturally - I'm greatly offended
when evangelicals try to tell me I'm doing it wrong.

Especially with their hypocrisy…discrepancies
and extreme inability to understand their own religion.

Those stupid clowns can just fuck off.

And the entire middle east just killing themselves…
with bigotry and xenophobia...

Most "religion" is just failed law
- and not spiritual in nature at all.

The bad ones at least….the Institutional ones.

[Sheff]

Im just failing to see your point, sorry

I don't see what the connection between indisputable laws of science and living by a code written by man many years ago

or am i missing the point completely?



And Jesslem because you haven't encountered such things in your life does it mean its not such a problem? Im sure thats not what you're implying

And i really dont recall talking about cosmology

[quoute]Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that science is evidence against 'god', it's just information that conflicts with the more concrete religions.[/quote]

yeah i understand that man

[Sheff]

and you're saying because science can't answer all the questions then we shouldn't be fucking with atheism?

[rickyarbino]

Im just failing to see your point, sorry

I don't see what the connection between indisputable laws of science and living by a code written by man many years ago

or am i missing the point completely?



And Jesslem because you haven't encountered such things in your life does it mean its not such a problem? Im sure thats not what you're implying

And i really dont recall talking about cosmology

[quoute]Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that science is evidence against 'god', it's just information that conflicts with the more concrete religions.

yeah i understand that man[/quote]
What I'm saying is because scientific ideas are shrugged off whenever a better one comes along, which is increasingly frequent today, our understanding of anything in scientific terms is temporary, so though its general structure doesn't change the information drawn from it does all the time, which means that it's not 'true' in the purest sense. Really science is just the best of what we understand about events at any given point in time, so the science of today will be the astrology of tomorrow. So living your life to the absolute extreme of science isn't really any more valuable than doing so for any religion because the concepts themselves are dated and limited in their scope. It's the same thing just newer, at best. Cosmology is proof of that.

Could you quote the part that led you to saying "because you haven't encountered such things in your life does it mean its not such a problem?"

Forgive me, when you mentioned understanding how the universe was formed I thought you were speaking about Cosmology; the study of the formation of the universe which uses chemistry and physics.


To digress a little, I think hubb introduced a valid point about the morality of science and religion. Science tells us that the strongest survive and dominate the weakest, a bit sociopathic imo.

[Sheff]

Oh right my bad, I was, but I thought you was quoting something specific I'd said when I was just talking about science and research generally


And I think it was from when you first quoted me, after i wrote about some of the bad things that were motivated by religion you was saying you haven't met any people associated with such things from your city

maybe im wrong but im in a poker tournament and having to type in 15 second bursts between hands so forgive me if im wrong

[scspkr99]

Im just failing to see your point, sorry

I don't see what the connection between indisputable laws of science and living by a code written by man many years ago

or am i missing the point completely?

I was just responding to the idea that humans are stupid, those that discovered, are discovering, the laws of science may have a case against

[rickyarbino]

Oh right my bad, I was, but I thought you was quoting something specific I'd said when I was just talking about science and research generally


And I think it was from when you first quoted me, after i wrote about some of the bad things that were motivated by religion you was saying you haven't met any people associated with such things from your city

maybe im wrong but im in a poker tournament and having to type in 15 second bursts between hands so forgive me if im wrong

I said that in response to "why atheism as opposed to those things?" so it doesn't really make sense to jump to the conclusion that I don't think those things 'matter', heck I think the point I've been trying to prove is that atheism doesn't matter so people should shut up about it.

[Muncey]

Science tells us that the strongest survive and dominate the weakest, a bit sociopathic imo.

No it doesn't, not at all. This is a common misinterpretation of evolution and is a very common argument among creationists.. apparently according to science the strongest survive and we act as individuals to fuck everybody over (dominate the weakest). Thats not what evolution says at all, it says the strongest gene pool survives.. if that means living together in harmony and equally then that's what "strongest" means. We aren't the only species to help each other out, protect our young/weak.. a lot of species rely on helping each other out and working together to protect themselves in order to survive.

The phrase "strongest survive" paints a picture of sociopath behavior but it doesn't mean that at all.

[rickyarbino]

That's not what I was saying at all. What you just described is evil, not sociopathy. It's the implications of 'survival of the fittest', those best adapted to their environment find mates etc, that has its own social implications in that those who are physically stronger have the last word, while that isn't as apparent in human society, it's displayed throughout other animals that live collectively. Science doesn't condone that, it merely states it and moves on. That's sociopathic imo.

[Genevieve]

That's not what I was saying at all. What you just described is evil, not sociopathy. It's the implications of 'survival of the fittest', those best adapted to their environment find mates etc, that has its own social implications in that those who are physically stronger have the last word, while that isn't as apparent in human society, it's displayed throughout other animals that live collectively. Science doesn't condone that, it merely states it and moves on. That's sociopathic imo.

No, it has social implications like; we have developed language (which allowed us to interact more intimately), empathy, common bi/homosexuality (for non-breeding members of the tribe to help raise our offspring) and a way to control our emotions (so that we act less aggressively to each other). So evolution favored being "good" rather than "evil" in the evolution of our species.

[rickyarbino]

Ay dickhead, did you not see that I said I wasn't speaking about humans there?

[rickyarbino]

I never said evolution was good or evil, I literally just said that it 'is'.

[Genevieve]

Ay dickhead, did you not see that I said I wasn't speaking about humans there?

No, because you were already posting such an idiotically stupid statement that I didn't bother wasting my time reading the whole thing.

But since you've asked:, sociopathy and evil, etc are human constructs that don't apply to the animal kingdom, so it would be pointless for "science" (a.. method of testing things) to make any claims about that.

If you need to hold a scientist's hand and have him tell you what's 'good' and what is 'evil', that's your fault. Not scientific community's.

[Muncey]

Fair enough, I misunderstood what you was getting at.. but still I don't think its sociopathic, its just explaining reality. "Physically stronger have the last say" isn't necessarily true and even if it is true theres good reason for it to be true, its like a primitive way of find out whos best for the job. Those best adapted to their environment find better mates is like saying people who are financially stable find a better partner.. if true is that sociopathic?

My original point is still sorta valid though.. if sciences explanation is sociopatic (anti social behavior) how can it be that science fully accepts that a fittest gene pool (survival of the fittest) could very well rely on social interactions, acting as a community ect ect?

All science really says is those alive now are alive because they were in a gene pool fit enough to exist. Pandas are going extict because they aren't fucking, thats sociopathic not 'survival of the fittest'

Also in relation to atheism I don't get how religion would do a better job.

[rickyarbino]

Ay dickhead, did you not see that I said I wasn't speaking about humans there?

No, because you were already posting such an idiotically stupid statement that I didn't bother wasting my time reading the whole thing.

But since you've asked:, sociopathy and evil, etc are human constructs that don't apply to the animal kingdom, so it would be pointless for "science" (a.. method of testing things) to make any claims about that.

If you need to hold a scientist's hand and have him tell you what's 'good' and what is 'evil', that's your fault. Not scientific community's.

So now you're saying that evolution is pointless? I don't understand what you're saying.

Can't tell if you're just trolling or not lol, wasn't even me who started talking about good and evil lol, can't speak for them.

[rockonin]

Evolution is bullshit. Religion is even more bullshit.