Do you agree?

KaRl

We're the regulators that de-regulate We're the animators that de-animate

Marc Clifton

K(arl) wrote:

Figures. :rolleyes: Marc

People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith

Red Stateler

Marc Clifton wrote:

Though what really disappoints me is how we see everything so black and white nowadays. Yes, the poster asked "do you agree" but in reality, a statement like this is ripe for a lot of interesting discussion and thinking. And thinking seems to be in such short supply nowadays

I agree. Though very poorly worded, it makes the valid point that science and religion aren't in competition and that they serve two separate and important roles. Atheists refuse to acknowledge that fact because they've essentially adopted science as religion, thereby creating opposing theologies. Speaking to a physicalist about science makes me feel like I'm talking to a Muslim about...well...anything. In many instances, they've blurred the line between theological and non-theological topics.

Jorgen Sigvardsson

No, he's just a smart man.

-- Verletzen zerfetzen zersetzen zerstören Doch es darf nicht mir gehören Ich muss zerstören

Marc Clifton

Red Stateler wrote:

it makes the valid point that science and religion aren't in competition

Oddly though, I think many people do see them in competition.

Red Stateler wrote:

and that they serve two separate and important roles.

Which people on both sides of the fence refuse to acknowledge regarding the other.

Red Stateler wrote:

Atheists refuse to acknowledge that fact because they've essentially adopted science as religion

Now that's an interesting statement! :) Marc

Thyme In The Country

People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith

Red Stateler

Then why is he so often cited in theological discussions as a representative of specifically structured atheist beliefs?

Red Stateler

Marc Clifton wrote:

Which people on both sides of the fence refuse to acknowledge regarding the other.

I disagree with that to an extent. When specifically referring to evolution...yes, there are many protestant groups that oppose it being taught as authoritative on theological grounds. With regards to most everything else, however, I think the religious (excluding Muslims, of course) place stricter moral boundaries on science (embryonic stem cell research, for example), but overall encourage it for its benefit to mankind. The Catholic Church even as its own astronomers.

Marc Clifton wrote:

Now that's an interesting statement!

It's the basis of my atheism-as-religion argument. Like it or not, atheism is a category of theology. Its modern dogma is a materialistic philosophy derived from science. It also explains the oddly emotive and reactionary response elicited by atheists whenever scientific results are brought into question...even though that's how science advances.

Jorgen Sigvardsson

I just told you. He's a smart man. I suggest you read his book "The God Delusion". Might do you some good. Or is your faith too weak to be tested?

-- Verletzen zerfetzen zersetzen zerstören Doch es darf nicht mir gehören Ich muss zerstören

Red Stateler

Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:

I suggest you read his book "The God Delusion". Might do you some good. Or is your faith too weak to be tested?

I think I might read it. My understanding is that it's the authoritative text on atheist theology and, though I'm pretty confident that I have a firm grasp on atheism, I might gleam something new off of it.

led mike

Marc Clifton wrote:

a statement like this is ripe for a lot of interesting discussion and thinking.

Even when it is posted by Kyle? :rolleyes:

led mike

led mike

Yes. And in both cases there is so much that is unkown there is no fact based answer it is all basically opinion and/or faith. Not that there is anything wrong with that as long as it is acknowledged which many times it is not. Which for me raises the possibility that both sides might be mostly correct. In other words much if not all of both could co-exist in reality. Now to unfortunately interject logic once again.... since science does exist, then as a person of faith one must believe that to a great degree science is part of Gods plan. Now the difficult part becomes "knowing" (not opinion) where the lines are and of course there is no absolute way to know in many/most cases.

led mike

Red Stateler

led mike wrote:

Now to unfortunately interject logic once again.... since science does exist, then as a person of faith one must believe that to a great degree science is part of Gods plan. Now the difficult part becomes "knowing" (not opinion) where the lines are and of course there is no absolute way to know in many/most cases.

I don't think that all that many religious people (Muslims excluded) think otherwise. However, the materialist interpretation intertwines science with the belief system. In other words, we are the physical world and nothing more and that physical world can be studied and measured, thus making science dogmatic. Religions assert that we are more than the physical and the two (generally speaking) are separate and distinct. One can therefore study science and religion separately, whereas a materialist will have difficulty doing that.

led mike

Umm... I agree? YIKES! :laugh:

led mike

Red Stateler

Leftists suck! :~

led mike

Extremists suck more ;P

led mike

Red Stateler

What's the difference?