Science is our friend - says Lion IRC (is not, is too, is not, is too,)

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I've never seen any science that weighs against God's existence.
Have you?

Scientific inquiry doesn't attempt to plumb the behavior of something that is pretend. It can examine human behavior related to such statements and come up with some revealing brain scans and predictions about what will happen next with a given brain when exposed to similar stimuli, but it is factual in its hypotheses and its methods. Untestable religious claims are as moot as talking baby doll claims from toddlers.

 

[Lion IRC]

But you saw what malintent wrote.
The accusation was that I'm only pro-science when science supports the God conclusion.

 

[Lion IRC]

...If science is the friend of religion, then why is irreligion more common among scientists than among the general population?

I would argue that religion/theism is the majority worldview among scientists.
Of course I accept that you probably want to pick and choose who is allowed to call themself a scientist.
Do you claim that it's hard to find millions of Hindu scientists in India?
How many muslim scientists do you think there are in Indonesia?
You think the majority of scientists in China are atheists?

 

[beero1000]

...If science is the friend of religion, then why is irreligion more common among scientists than among the general population?

I would argue that religion/theism is the majority worldview among scientists.
Of course I accept that you probably want to pick and choose who is allowed to call themself a scientist.
Do you claim that it's hard to find millions of Hindu scientists in India?
How many muslim scientists do you think there are in Indonesia?
You think the majority of scientists in China are atheists?

You really should check the data before making proclamations like that. You're just embarrassing yourself.

 

[Lion IRC]

I've never seen any science that weighs against God's existence.
Have you?

Every single bit of science weighs against a creator.

Talk is cheap.

You cannot rationally accept any science (and thus it cannot "help" support your beliefs) unless you accept the most fundamental principles of scientific reasoning and method, which say that faith has zero validity...

I agree that science (observation/testing) is used when faith isn't sufficient.
But even science is frequently motivated by and often requires presuppositions.
We start out with the presupposition that everything is tentative unless or until proven wrong. Correcting of mistakes is anticipated. And even if a hypothesis is (apparently) proven wrong we can't necessarily be 100% certain that the supposed disproof is sound. In other words, even scientists disagree on certain conclusions.

...Any type of God belief or afterlife belief requires faith which ignores and goes well beyond what is supported by such evidence.

If you saw a miracle that would be observational evidence which might surpass your previously held "belief" in miracles.
It might move you from faith to certainty. So no, I don't accept that there cannot be observational, experienced evidence for God. All evidence, empirical or otherwise is derived from the senses.
Are you going to tell people they can't believe the evidence they observe?

Thus, science makes rational belief in God impossible, requiring all theists the directly contradict the most basic principles of scientific thought, making any use of specific scientific knowledge an act of dishonest hypocrisy.

I cant accept this.
It might be your sincere belief, but generations of scientists have used science to confirm their belief in the existence of God.
Do you accept that Christian apologists like William Lane Craig draw heavily on scientific evidence in cosmology and astro-physics to support their arguments against a past-eternal universe?
You might not agree with the conclusions or inferences they draw from that scientific evidence but so what? Scientists don't agree on everything either.

...That aside, your claims of religious ideas supported by specific scientific knowledge are also all wrong, but I'll put that in another post.

I keep an eye out.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Beliefs in magical spacemen are comforting and satisfying. Lots of beliefs work this way. Believing I'm immensely wealthy and can fly like a bird feels quite good, despite the fact those things are neither real nor accurate.

Believing I have a female companion that loves me is also satisfying and comforting. But the difference between her and a magic spaceman is the difference between having something and having a belief in something.

No one really has their magic spaceman. They have only a comforting, satisfying belief in one.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Indeed. If Santa didn't exist, man would need to invent him.

 

[Lion IRC]

Beliefs in magical spacemen are comforting and satisfying. Lots of beliefs work this way. Believing I'm immensely wealthy and can fly like a bird feels quite good, despite the fact those things are neither real nor accurate.

Fair enough.
We must therefore account atheism as the belief that God and the afterlife aren't real - and that atheists take comfort in this belief. That must be because they want to live like there's no tomorrow. Do whatever they want.

As the billboard wishful thinking declares...

 

[Elixir]

Fair enough.
We must therefore account atheism as the belief that God and the afterlife aren't real - and that atheists take comfort in this belief.

No, we must NOT account atheism as a source of comfort for atheists. Obviously you suffer from a need to project your reliance on something that is comforting-yet-imaginary, upon those who have learned to appreciate that which actually exists, and derive whatever comfort they need from that.

Put more simply, the fact that you derive comfort from your own beliefs does not require others' comfort to come from their beliefs.

 

[Keith&Co.]

We must therefore account atheism as the belief that God and the afterlife aren't real - and that atheists take comfort in this belief. That must be because they want to live like there's no tomorrow. Do whatever they want.

Well, if you want to be taken as an apologist cliche, yes, you must do that.
Then we can just point and giggle.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Beliefs in magical spacemen are comforting and satisfying. Lots of beliefs work this way. Believing I'm immensely wealthy and can fly like a bird feels quite good, despite the fact those things are neither real nor accurate.

Fair enough.
We must therefore account atheism as the belief that God and the afterlife aren't real - and that atheists take comfort in this belief. That must be because they want to live like there's no tomorrow. Do whatever they want.

Technically you are correct.

Worth stating, however, is that atheism is the same as the belief that I am not a billionaire despite someone telling me I am a billionaire. If he wants me to be convinced shouldn't he show me my billions?

 

[atrib]

Beliefs in magical spacemen are comforting and satisfying. Lots of beliefs work this way. Believing I'm immensely wealthy and can fly like a bird feels quite good, despite the fact those things are neither real nor accurate.

Fair enough.
We must therefore account atheism as the belief that God and the afterlife aren't real - and that atheists take comfort in this belief. That must be because they want to live like there's no tomorrow. Do whatever they want.

Still continuing with that shit, eh? You did not respond to any of my posts on this subject in the other thread, but you keep repeating your bullshit claim like it were not exposed to be a pile of stinking shit. There is no reason to believe in your god because there is no credible evidence to suggest that it exists, or has ever existed. Disbelief in a magical supernatural creature is the default position in the absence of evidence. Keep moving the goalposts as much as you like, but the fact remains that it is responsibility of the person making a claim to support the claim with evidence, which is even more true when the claim involves supernatural creatures that nobody has ever seen. The emperor has no clothes. The only question is, how much longer are you going to keep pretending like your position has any credibility despite the fact it has been debunked many times, and everyone here, including you, knows that. Why are theists so fucking dishonest?

 

[abaddon]

... The emperor has no clothes. The only question is, how much longer are you going to keep pretending like your position has any credibility despite the fact it has been debunked many times, and everyone here, including you, knows that. Why are theists so fucking dishonest?

It is an amazing thing, isn’t it? In a way it's inertia. The energy it’d take to review their belief is more than they are willing to expend. And they probably perceive a shame in it. Believers believe in belief itself, it gives them a sense of self-certainty so they're very deeply invested in keeping the belief no matter what.

 

[Lion IRC]

You did not respond to any of my posts on this subject in the other thread

If anyone thinks I am deliberately ignoring or avoiding a certain post or line of argument and wants me to specifically reply to them please feel free to send me a PM. Then, if I still don't answer, you can announce to everyone that I'm ignoring you.

Otherwise, I don't feel obligated to answer every single comment - especially if the post is full of rhetorical questions or doesn't mention my user name or is written in an abusive way.

I try to read every post made in threads I'm following and frankly, some posts are taken as..."ok you've made your point, I've made mine, we obviously aren't going to agree, we both think the other is mistaken..that's all...let's move on."
Why would I want to wash, rinse, dry, repeat over and over again ad nauseam?

ETA - I don't reply to people who have negative repped me. (At least not until they up vote me to neutralise the bad karma.

 

[bilby]

Fair enough.
We must therefore account atheism as the belief that God and the afterlife aren't real - and that atheists take comfort in this belief. That must be because they want to live like there's no tomorrow. Do whatever they want.

Technically you are correct.

Worth stating, however, is that atheism is the same as the belief that I am not a billionaire despite someone telling me I am a billionaire. If he wants me to be convinced shouldn't he show me my billions?

He's only correct if you take comfort from your poverty, and if your reasoning when declaring yourself a non-billionaire is that you are using it as an excuse to avoid having to comply with the NYSE and IRS disclosure rules.

 

[Lion IRC]

Clever bilby just gave me a negative rep vote so that I won't respond to any of his/her/zir posts.
Gosh, darn it, I've been outsmarted.
Now I won't be able to respond to all those bilby posts I won't bother reading.

ETA - You too bigfield. No problem. Your wish is my command. Just up vote me if you ever want to have a discussion again.

 

[bigfield]

...If science is the friend of religion, then why is irreligion more common among scientists than among the general population?

I would argue that religion/theism is the majority worldview among scientists.

Lion IRC probably doesn't actually have any data to back up that claim.

Whereas I have this:

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

And that's only for the USA, which is considerably more religious than the rest of the developed world.

It's irrelevant, anyway, because my point was that religious belief is negatively correlated with scientific expertise. If science was the friend of religion then religious belief would be greater among scientists than the general population, not the other way around. Religion is for the ignorant.

 

[Lion IRC]

Hindu scientists
https://www.hindujagruti.org/articles/31.html


https://www.google.com.au/search?ei...i131k1j0i10k1j0i8i13i30k1j30i10k1.vjfdDpJYs-8

 

[bigfield]

See? No data.

 

[Elixir]

... The emperor has no clothes. The only question is, how much longer are you going to keep pretending like your position has any credibility despite the fact it has been debunked many times, and everyone here, including you, knows that. Why are theists so fucking dishonest?

It is an amazing thing, isn’t it? In a way it's inertia. The energy it’d take to review their belief is more than they are willing to expend. And they probably perceive a shame in it. Believers believe in belief itself, it gives them a sense of self-certainty so they're very deeply invested in keeping the belief no matter what.

Much has been written about the evolutionary function of irrational beliefs. It generally boils down to a set of real-life Pascal-type wagers; it was safer to believe that XYZ stimulus is something that must be heeded than to ignore it and end up getting eaten. Religions play to that instinct but try to raise the stakes beyond what is available to our physical senses, appealing to the emotional feel-good-ism of assurance of safety beyond death, as well as the drive to exact disproportionate punishment for any perceived transgression. These are very basic forces that control the behavior of humans when they fail to exercise introspection and understand the forces working on their subjective experience. Religious zealots are immature throwbacks to pre-civilized tribalism.