Science, Religion and the New Atheism

well technically........i could just ask for forgiveness and then god would have to forgive me. isnt that why jesus had himself killed? to pay the price, for "our" sins?

i think what pisses you off is knowing that you are pissed off.

me, I'm mocking your blind faith, and you are getting pissed off because you feel that i make a valid point and you may have anger management issues.

have you ever stopped and considered the fact that i am pushing your evangelical buttons because you are allowing me to? Not that i am "proseletising" to you.

"Religion is about ethics and values" - what a joke!

Religion is about ignorance and superstition.

Quote mining only makes one look desperate and a little pathetic.

then for a fact you are deliberately stupid claiming intelligence about something you know nothing about. you're pathetic unimatrix0. I only wish I enjoyed telling you.

=D lol tragically but well put. hehe

You speak Liberal mentalities all over again...

its not religion i hate, its the people...............who are trying to convince me of bull shit so i have to pay them every week!

its called extortion!

'This kind of debate will keep re-emerging.' true... but there is no winning over a mind that refuses logic and evidence. so it's not even a debate really.

still chasing religious folks??

your like a yapping lap dog...

so your game is rhetoric huh? remember just because some human made up the word for a dog doesn't mean that a dog isn't real and is only in the mind of humans.

and as feeble as our descriptions of the universe are (these words, and these letters, and pictures, and ideas), they're all we have to work with. I believe that regardless of our choice in symbols or descriptions, some things like hate or love or evolution or me or you... are real and somethings like nothingness or god or unicorns or gnomes are not.

theres a thought. how could there be nothingness except within the mind?

so your game is rhetoric huh? remember just because some human made up the word for a dog doesn't mean that a dog isn't real and is only in the mind of humans.

funny you used the word dog..to reply about my comment on polarization and god..anyways i do see your point but mine is,that labels create a polarization of thoughts...take your dog for example...here we call it a dog and see the animal as man's best friend and in china they call it a gǒu and see it as a meal...which one is true about the animal?...both statements are true and false at the same time...its the same with the god theory...one's perception can elevate to a state where the dualistic nature is taken on only by choice.....my bad i kinda went off typing there..but like this whole topic..it doesnt matter...

The same goes for god...some call it god and see it as a higher power or their creator....some call it nature and see it as divine events unfolding...

some see nothing.

Those who believe that what has already been created..is it...are the ones who see nothing...we are creators...but we've been tricked into just becoming repeaters...its actually pretty sickening...btw philosophical thinking is my game...whats yours?

you make perfect sense metalcookie'. the idea that science and religion form a dichotomy in lieu of a duality is bullshit even the traditionally religious can come to see. both really are thriving. but who do you REALLY see fostering such unwelcomeness?

and I still believe even atheists have a right to believe what they want to believe, even if I disagree, and even if they don't even agree on atheism amongst themselves lol =P I recall reading where Gould pissed off Dawkins...but then the real bomb imho for this laughable "New Atheism" is Antony Flew, but there is much of long-standing atheism at odds with the "new" atheism of those like Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and Hitchens. imho, if you don't know who Antony Flew you shouldn't even call yourself an atheist =P hehe...

how could one possibly be in favor of scientific progress and still hold the belief that jesus was born from a virgin? or how can one belive story of genesis when it doesn't explain meteors or other planets, the moon, the seasons, different races (hell asia isn't even mentioned, so where did the japanese come from?)... dinosaurs, DNA, germs, evoltion, quantum mechanics... we've come a long way in understanding the world in which we've found ourselves. all the while religion has done everything it can to stanch and inhibit its development, going so far as burning and torturing people who dared to say the earth is not flat, and possibly revolves around the sun.... or that life may be out on another planet. yes, religion and science are very incompatable. science looks at the world and says 'how can we explain this?', religion on the other hand looks at the books and says what in the world can we find to support these ignorant myths?... then they simply deny the facts of the world which contradict their books.

"study the works of god" newton was a very pious and devout christian. yes, newton was not atheist.

Darius you paint with way too broad a brush. As if everything some individual or group of religious people have done at some point and time in the last few thousand years represents religion and all religious people. They don't. They represent themselves. As if the Soviet Union and China represent you because they are officially atheist.

On another point, if you don't believe that much of the science that supports the evolutionary model is greatly interpretive, I doubt you know as much about your own theory as you seem to suggest.

PS After re-reading your reply Darius, I'm curious why you bring up the issue of what the Bible has to say about the numerous issues you mentioned. I don't mean to say this in a rude manner, but you clearly don't know anything about the topic.

and clearly the bible is not a scientific text. it is a much more clever read than you'll hear of Darius'. Read it and you'll find the bedrock of Western civilization in Christianity. you wouldn't be here now in this democracy if it wasn't for Christianity. people like you call quick remembrance to the sufferings of Galileo but the godly have long put to rest their assumptions for heliocentricity. that transformation was over what in like a century or less??? heh. But since the days of Aristotle, it was science for like a thousand years that demanded an infinite universe. Even Newton had accepted this (it was convenient "scientifically"...they didn't have to explain a few things) But it was the religious who CONSISTLY maintained there HAD to be a beginning!!! And only until the 1960s did "science" finally catch up to the truth! Yes we have our faults, but we have a better track record (oops! lol) and much better "turn-around" time (as so evidenced with such quick edits lol) =P

Well immaculate conception only occurred in Mary according to most Christian sects, especially Catholicism. Mary's conception of Jesus is considered to be a miracle. Not very scientific, but that's the only case that it's actually ever mentioned. Everyone else does it the good ol' fashioned way, and Christians recognize that, so I guess that's why most Christians are alright with lessons on reproduction.

Retards...hmm... Religious people make up the vast majority of the world's populace. It can be rightly assumed that a decent proportion of any large group would include a significant amount of ignorant or very slow-minded people. Statistically speaking, it would also rightly be stated that a decent proportion of a group represented in the billions would be a hell of alot smarter than you also. Frankly, based on your comment, I really doubt you know very much about theological philosophy.

You seem to imply that all people who don't believe in the evolutionary model must be stupid or believe in this for faith-based reasons alone. Unfortunately, this perception is based on mass media usually featuring these types on their programs. I have reasons for why I disagree and none of them are from the Bible.

would you die to save humanity???

Save humanity from what, exactly? Generally, yes, if I knew that my death could save humankind from something (extinction, etc.), I would gladly give it. However, that's a fantasy scenario. I think you'd need to suffer from a messiah complex to really take that scenario seriously.

for someone ignorant like you, what you think about religion is your religion. you still want it? you wouldn't be alone. After all, MOST of the world does believe in SOME form of religion, even if it's quite marginally NO religion...or even if it's just to SAY what they THINK they're best guess is. but following your lead, IF ridding the world of religion, definitively shut your special brand of stupidity up for good, i'd probably do that "fantasy scenario" too ;) ...mutually