Er enkelte religiøse grupper intolerante?

[Zepticon]

I get paid to believe in things that are currently unproven. Many of my scientific ideas are currently unprovable but they are not considered insane or ridiculous because they are currently unprovable. Einstein was a great scientist because he conceived of the unimaginable, and was lucky enough to have many of his ideas proven. Otherwise you would likely consider him ignorant and foolish as did many at the time.

Then you are a pretty bad scientist. You dont get paid to believe shit. What you get paid to do, is to make a hypothesis, and then test it. There is a fundamental difference between a believer and a scientists, and the way you formulated yourself now makes me very sceptical to your claim of beeing one.

 

Religious people claim a truth, then look for evidence to support it.

Scientists look for evidence, and let them form a truth.

 

It is currently unproven that the universe was a big ball of cheese prior to big bang. But the statement is ridiculuous, and should be treated as such.

If you are trying to tell me that the god hypothesis is similar to einsteisn theory of relativity, then you are far of.

 

Firstly, we dont hold unproven statements in science as true.

You hold the unproven statement about god true.

 

Taking some provable facts- E=MC² (elegant and well ordered) and forming a hypothesis that this elegance and order could be a result of supernatural forces is neither ignorant nor foolish.

It is a ridiculous statement to be honest. Of course it is both ignorant, and foolish. Apply Occams Razor to your claim, and watch it bleed.

 

No, statistics support my thesis- many intellgent, well educated people support the idea of a supernatural god. It is therefore not an appeal to authority for this thesis.

"Many" is still a minoity.

 

We saw from the Ecklund study that the greatest predictor of supporting religion was exposure to religion before being fully educated, not the reverse. The fact that there are more athiests in higher education does not negate the fact that there are still many who do.

Yes, brainwashing in a early age, while your mind is still unspoiled is very effective at making people religious, and stop them from beeing critical thinkers, a key skill for scientists.

 

The greatest minds often thought things considered ignorant and foolish before they were proven. In fact, this is most often the case with big breakthroughs. One cannot today say with absolute certainty that believing in a god will never be proven.

Neither of those claims have been based on a 100% unnprovable 2000 year old claim made by people who thought the earth was flat and the heaven was a bowl with holes in it.

 

I agree, most literal interpretations of events described in the bible have been disproven. The idea of a supernatural god has not though and I am not sure that we are capable of understanding this with our limited intelligence if we only rely on logic and limit ourselves to only accepting what we can prove.

You allways claim a supernatural god, yet the guys who first made the assumption about this god, was never in a position to even make an educated guess.

 

Science, though supports the notion that the laws of nature appear to be elegant and well ordered, not so random. I agree with Einstein that it is as if wondrous powers have set up a system in motion that transcends time and space. THis notion is not ignorant or foolish but is an extension of provable facts, just unprovable at this time.

You see this "order" as a sign of a supernatural creator? This order is here because its the only way the universe would exist. If not because of this order, there would be no universe.

[jjkoggan]

 

 

And your point is?

 

My point is NOT to pull over more imigrants, but to focus on the group with the highest criminal rates. In the example you are making they should pull over more white drivers, since the white drivers had a higher crime rate.

 

Also, profiling should not be done unless there is a clear statistical difference in the two groups.

 

No, minorities are convicted of carrying contraband at a much higher rate per person than whites and are imprisoned at a much higher rate than whites. This would suggest that, according to you, racial profiling if minorities would be much more effective. The study found that using race as the main factor was ineffective at catching minorities who are convicted of crime at higher rates. It resulted in unnecessary harassment and racism, not effective policing

 

 

A real world study

[тurbonєℓℓo]

You take a very narrow view that reality is as we see it,

Because I do not believe in a old outdated concept? Because I do not believe in an entity that the majority in the world believe in? You must be kidding me?

 

that other dimensions, other tremendously different perspectives (do we live in a gigantic fish bowl?)

No. We do not, but believing in God does not make any difference.

 

are impossible. I see possiblities, other reasons for our existence and limitations in our knowledge that don't give us tools to understand.

Because I se other possibilities than you, how does that make me having a narrow view and you not? I'm striving to se realistic possibilities... God is not realistic if you link God to the Christian god, and this god is omnipotent and all that (...) I know that you are just as limited as I am, and that you believe in God, does not change that

 

This I believe because it seems very limiting to think that we are put on this earth by a random series of events, especially when some fundamental laws of nature don't appear very random.

The fundamental laws isn't random. The events isn't random. Evolution isn't random... Things does not have to be random without any God. But your life on earth isn't planned by a God either. Anders Behring Breiviks life was not planned by a supernatural good God, for example... A good God would not create ABB because he is all knowing. He would not create Hitler, Stalin (...) He would not create a world full of suffering, cause he is omnipotent and all-knowing, and could have created a wonderful paradise in the first place. He wouldn't have need for using evolution to create the human beings, cause he could have created them in a few days, as described in the bible, and so on.... I think that it is you that is limiting yourself believing in such a God.

 

I feel as Einstein said- that some atheists still feel the shackles and miss the wonderment by limiting themselves to only what we know and not exploring and imagining what we don't know.

Oh, do I limit myself because of the lack of belief in a old concept? I did not know. The possibilities are endeless. There are a lot of things that you can believe in. Not only a supernatural Godhead... For instance you could believe in reincarnation. You can believe in aliens... And a lot of things... (...) There are many things that we atheists (could) believe in... We simply do not believe in a supernatural all mighty creator god, because we are rational beings, that have the ability to reflect and be critical... Endret 5. juni 2013 av turbonello

[jjkoggan]

Oh, do I limit myself because of the lack of belief in a old concept? I did not know. The possibilities are endeless. There are a lot of things that you can believe in. Not only a supernatural Godhead... For instance you could believe in reincarnation. You can believe in aliens... And a lot of things... (...) There are many things that we atheists (could) believe in... We simply do not believe in a supernatural all mighty creator god, because we are rational beings, that have the ability to reflect and be critical...

None of your arguments support the notion that you would believe that aliens or reincarnation exists. You position yourselves as only accepting in that which is scientifically verifiable, never that which is possible but not verified yet. To me the possibility of aliens existing is not foolish or ignorant even though there is little or no good evidence for it but it due to the vastness of the universe it is plausible that they exist. So far your lines of reasoning suggest that belief in aliens would be the realm of the gullible, ignorant and foolish. Interesting that you suggest it.

[тurbonєℓℓo]

None of your arguments support the notion that you would believe that aliens or reincarnation exists.

Why not? Reincarnation and aliens can be explained without belief in supernatural beings, or gods.

Atheism isn't about "not believing in anything" ... It is simply not believing in a God or Gods.

 

You position yourselves as only accepting in that which is scientifically verifiable, never that which is possible but not verified yet.

No... I do not. I myself believe that it is life on other planets. I believe that this is not the only planet that has life on it... That would be irrational to believe, i think. And I also believe in rebirth after this life.. I think that this is how nature works... It isn't any scientific evidence for it yet, but it seems like it is a circle of life... So i believe that after death, we would return to life again after a period of total nothingness, that we do not experience at all... (...)

 

To me the possibility of aliens existing is not foolish or ignorant even though there is little or no good evidence for it but it due to the vastness of the universe it is plausible that they exist. So far your lines of reasoning suggest that belief in aliens would be the realm of the gullible, ignorant and foolish. Interesting that you suggest it.

It is more likely that aliens exist, than a supernatural God. If they exist, they could be explained by natural means. Evolution sure have made them too, on another planet...

[jjkoggan]

Why not? Reincarnation and aliens can be explained without belief in supernatural beings, or gods.

Atheism isn't about "not believing in anything" ... It is simply not believing in a God or Gods.

 

No... I do not. I myself believe that it is life on other planets. I believe that this is not the only planet that has life on it... That would be irrational to believe, i think. And I also believe in rebirth after this life.. I think that this is how nature works... It isn't any scientific evidence for it yet, but it seems like it is a circle of life... So i believe that after death, we would return to life again after a period of total nothingness, that we do not experience at all... (...)

 

It is more likely that aliens exist, than a supernatural God. If they exist, they could be explained by natural means. Evolution sure have made them too, on another planet...

 

And yet you have little or no evidence for these beliefs, seems a bit inconsistent to me, I guess you engage in foolish, ignorant, illogical thinking yourself!

[тurbonєℓℓo]

And yet you have little or no evidence for these beliefs,

No... But it isn't irrational...

 

seems a bit inconsistent to me

Why? Do you have to believe in everything that is not proven to be concistent? Or nothing? It is nothing between? I think that it is you that is having this narrow view, not me... For you, its All or nothing, nothing between. I believe that it would come a day after tomorrow too...

 

, I guess you engage in foolish, ignorant, illogical thinking yourself!

What is foolish, or ignorant, or illogical about that? Could you explain that, as i have been explaining why I think belief in a supernatural being is irrational? And when did I say that believing as you do, is foolish and ignorant?

 

It looks like you are angry, are you?

[jjkoggan]

No... But it isn't irrational...

 

Is it rational to believe in something that we regard as supernatural, like reincarnation that would require the breaking of laws of nature as we know it today? Could we not also conjure up unicorns and pixies or a supernatural god?

 

.

 

Why? Do you have to believe in everything that is not proven to be concistent? Or nothing? It is nothing between? I think that it is you that is having this narrow view, not me... For you, its All or nothing, nothing between. I believe that it would come a day after tomorrow too...

 

If you use as a primary argument that the a supernatural god cannot exist because you cannot prove or disprove it than believing in other supernatural beings and events is inconsistent. If on the other hand, you say that you don't think god exists but that the supernatural is theoretically possible, then you are consistent in your arguments. Your rationale, for example that a god could not have created the world is that it is "impossible if you look at the facts". You don't explain what is "impossible" but in principle a god who has supernatural powers that transcend time and space could do pretty much whatever he wants in whatever way he wants. I'm guessing the "facts" are related to today's scientific knowledge of the creation of our world that contradict the book of genesis.

 

The gravitational constant, if it were off by one part in a hundred million million we would not be here today. Did this only happen by chance or is it conceivable that a higher power designed it that way? Science will not lead you towards the unprovable or untestable, but it could explain it.

 

 

What is foolish, or ignorant, or illogical about that? Could you explain that, as i have been explaining why I think belief in a supernatural being is irrational? And when did I say that believing as you do, is foolish and ignorant?

I don't believe it to be foolish, ignorant or illogical. It makes sense to me much like the possiblilty of a supernatural force that influences laws of nature and life itself.

 

 

You, on the other hand believe that believing in the concept of Christianity is stupid, ignorant and irrational even though what Christians believe is wildly diverse and complex, with 35000 denominations alone in the USA.

Here were your statements:

But I think that what they believe is stupid, and irrational (this says it all). And that is a big difference. I myself have been a Christian, but I have been going through a critical analysis of what I used to believe. I have been studying the faith in depth. I do not think the most intelligent Christians have done, what I have done(most Christians are ignorant, they don't question their faith as you have)... And if they do, they will loose their faith(Your superior knowledge is so powerful and convincing all will lose faith)

 

Am I angry, no. Disappointed that people have to judge others without thorough understanding of each other and have absolutist positions, yes. That you can't conceive of thinking of Christianity anything other than stupid is sad. Most Norwegians I have met are quite ignorant of the great diversity of belief within the american christian community. I do not know if you are aware or not but if you visited some places that I know you might change your mind.

 

I am also reminded that the most notable atheist in america Madalyn Murray O Hair had a son who was steeped in her anti-religion rhetoric. With his vast knowledge of the evils of religion and upbringing he is now a Baptist minister. If anybody lacked knowledge of the evils of his profession, it is not him. Go figure!

[тurbonєℓℓo]

Is it rational to believe in something that we regard as supernatural, like reincarnation that would require the breaking of laws of nature as we know it today?

As long as it is supernatural, but I do not think that reincarnation is something supernatural if it exist. I look at it as a way the nature works. No, it is not breaking the laws of nature as we know it. I believe that the nature is one big cycle, and that all life returns back to life. It is just a matter of time. I believe that nature uses the same "ingredients" as before to "make" life over and over again. I believe that the stuff that have "made us" still would exist in nature after we die, and that nature will recycle it over and over again, and that the possibilities that we would be created once more (the nature has an infinite time to do so). Nothing supernatural about this belief.

 

Could we not also conjure up unicorns and pixies or a supernatural god?

On a PC screen, yes... In our heads, yes... (...)

 

If you use as a primary argument that the a supernatural god cannot exist because you cannot prove or disprove it than believing in other supernatural beings and events is inconsistent.

I do not deny belief in God because there is no evidence, but because I do not think that it is rational or logic to assume there is a such thing. That is not inconsistent... Reincarnation and aliens, isn't about magical supernatural figures. Aliens could be, of course, but not if the definition of aliens is "intelligent life on other planets" (...)

 

If on the other hand, you say that you don't think god exists but that the supernatural is theoretically possible, then you are consistent in your arguments.

I do not believe in anything supernatural. And in that case I am very consistent.

 

 

Your rationale, for example that a god could not have created the world is that it is "impossible if you look at the facts". You don't explain what is "impossible" but in principle a god who has supernatural powers that transcend time and space could do pretty much whatever he wants in whatever way he wants.

What fact am I referring to? The fact that nothing that have its being had/has any need for a creator God to exist? That fact? That evolution works perfectly without any need for a creator God?

 

I'm guessing the "facts" are related to today's scientific knowledge of the creation of our world that contradict the book of genesis.

Yes... That is something we can know for sure. Because we got evidence for it...

And the book of genesis is by its own nature pure mythical, also for most of the believers. There is almost nobody that believes that the book of genesis are to be taken literally... Not even most of the Christians themselves.

 

The gravitational constant, if it were off by one part in a hundred million million we would not be here today. Did this only happen by chance or is it conceivable that a higher power designed it that way? Science will not lead you towards the unprovable or untestable, but it could explain it.

It didn't happen by chance and not by a higher power... Is it just black and white in your world? Does it have to be "only by chance" if god doesn't exist? You do not see causal relationships? That one thing, leads to another thing? A chain of causalities?

 

I don't believe it to be foolish, ignorant or illogical. It makes sense to me much like the possiblilty of a supernatural force that influences laws of nature and life itself.

OK. I haven't said that it is foolish either, not ignorant (...) I think you should read my words more carefully, next time. =) I do not, on the other hand see that a supernatural force is likely to be true... And if there is, it would not be that stupid jerk in the Old Testament, nor the New Testament, or the retard in the Quran.

 

You, on the other hand believe that believing in the concept of Christianity is stupid, ignorant and irrational even though what Christians believe is wildly diverse and complex, with 35000 denominations alone in the USA.

Yes, the concept of Christianity is, as I see it, stupid... (I did not say that the ones that believe in it is stupid, but that what they believe in, is stupid). And I did not say that it is ignorant to believe in it, that is just when you in fact know better, or should know better. The belief is irrational, yes... I have asked you this again and again: What is rational about belief in the Christian God??? I haven't got any answer yet..

 

 

Here were your statements:

But I think that what they believe is stupid, and irrational (this says it all). And that is a big difference. I myself have been a Christian, but I have been going through a critical analysis of what I used to believe. I have been studying the faith in depth. I do not think the most intelligent Christians have done, what I have done(most Christians are ignorant, they don't question their faith as you have)... And if they do, they will loose their faith(Your superior knowledge is so powerful and convincing all will lose faith)

I didn't say that most Christians are ignorant, you makes that straw man... The ones that question their faith isn't ignorant as I see it. They are the reflective folks... The ones that does not question their own belief, are unreflective... (...) And no, I do not have any superior knowledge, as you say I believe I have, thats one more wrong. One more straw man...

 

Am I angry, no.

Why are you attacking me then? Why are you creating straw menn?

 

Disappointed that people have to judge others without thorough understanding of each other and have absolutist positions, yes.

Who judges who? Who got absolutist positions?

 

That you can't conceive of thinking of Christianity anything other than stupid is sad.

Another straw man.

 

Most Norwegians I have met are quite ignorant of the great diversity of belief within the american christian community.

That is a bolder statement than what I have said in this thread. I haven't said anything about americans. I did not say anything about that they are ignorants (...) But you certainly judges most Norwegians you have met... You do not want to understand their way of thinking (...)

 

I do not know if you are aware or not but if you visited some places that I know you might change your mind.

That is possible. But I do not know what you're talking about?

Change my mind about what?

 

I am also reminded that the most notable atheist in america Madalyn Murray O Hair had a son who was steeped in her anti-religion rhetoric. With his vast knowledge of the evils of religion and upbringing he is now a Baptist minister. If anybody lacked knowledge of the evils of his profession, it is not him. Go figure!

I haven't heard about him/(or her?). Why was he most notable? Endret 6. juni 2013 av turbonello

[jjkoggan]

 

As long as it is supernatural, but I do not think that reincarnation is something supernatural if it exist. I look at it as a way the nature works. No, it is not breaking the laws of nature as we know it. I believe that the nature is one big cycle, and that all life returns back to life. It is just a matter of time. I believe that nature uses the same "ingredients" as before to "make" life over and over again. I believe that the stuff that have "made us" still would exist in nature after we die, and that nature will recycle it over and over again, and that the possibilities that we would be ocreated once more (the nature has an infinite time to do so). Nothing supernatural about this belief.

You have your own special view of reincarnation though it is not clear whether you are saying that someone who is a mirror image of you in appearance and personality will reappear or that the organic material from your decomposed body will be nourishment for other creatures

I do not deny belief in God because there is no evidence, but because I do not think that it is rational or logic to assume there is a such thing. )

All things supernatural are irrational and illogical? Is that your reasoning or because there are decent scientific theories for portions of alternate explanations?

 

 

What fact am I referring to? The fact that nothing that have its being had/has any need for a creator God to exist? That fact? That evolution works perfectly without any need for a creator God?

Yes... That is something we can know for sure. Because we got evidence for it...

And the book of genesis is by its own nature pure mythical, also for most of the believers. There is almost nobody that believes that the book of genesis are to be taken literally... Not even most of the Christians themselves.

 

Most mainstream denominations use an allegorical approach to most of the bible and also an awareness that we can only achieve partial understanding of its meaning

 

It didn't happen by chance and not by a higher power... Is it just black and white in your world? Does it have to be "only by chance" if god doesn't exist? You do not see causal relationships? That one thing, leads to another thing? A chain of causalities?

It can happen by both chance and by design. Science has no design and many things happen by chance, such as our mere existence as humans. Yes there are reasons we evolved as we are but there were many other outcomes possible

 

OK. I haven't said that it is foolish either, not ignorant (...) I think you should read my words more carefully, next time. =) I do not, on the other hand see that a supernatural force is likely to be true... And if there is, it would not be that stupid jerk in the Old Testament, nor the New Testament, or the retard in the Quran.

 

Yes, the concept of Christianity is, as I see it, stupid... (I did not say that the ones that believe in it is stupid, but that what they believe in, is stupid). And I did not say that it is ignorant to believe in it, that is just when you in fact know better, or should know better. The belief is irrational, yes... I have asked you this again and again: What is rational about belief in the Christian God??? I haven't got any answer yet..

 

Stupid=foolish

If Christians thought critically as I have they would they would lose their faith = they are ignorant to the information I have,

 

The last statement implies there is only one rational outcome, that believing in a god after religious experiences for example is irrational. I disagree

 

And no, I do not have any superior knowledge, as you say I believe I have, thats one more wrong. One more straw man...

 

You wrote that those who would have gone through your critical thinking process would stop believing. This knowledge must be quite special to have only one outcome. So far I have not witnessed total agreement on the meaning of just about any piece of any information. This likely not what you meant to say but that is how it came out and came across as arrogant

 

 

 

 

That is a bolder statement than what I have said in this thread. I haven't said anything about americans. I did not say anything about that they are ignorants (...) But you certainly judges most Norwegians you have met... You do not want to understand their way of thinking (...)

This is the limited data I have and these are friends that I've known and adored for years for the most part. I'm not making any grand statements from it to extend it to anyone else. I am very interested in the Norwegian way of thinking. Why else participate in a Norwegian debate forum?

 

 

 

I haven't heard about him/(or her?). Why was he most notable?

 

She was the president of American atheist society and fought in the Supreme Court to forbid school prayer. She was the most famous American atheist

[тurbonєℓℓo]

You have your own special view of reincarnation though it is not clear whether you are saying that someone who is a mirror image of you in appearance and personality will reappear or that the organic material from your decomposed body will be nourishment for other creatures

The decomposed body would after a period of time, I believe, become something else..

and so on, and so forth... What if, i say, what if the same ingredients that created me, becomes sperm in a man after my death, and that sperm goes into a womans vagina, and the same process that have made me in this life, once again occur, then I am to be born once again (reborn/reincarnated/ (...))

 

Water, Snow, ice and steam. They are all the samme: Water, in different states, and water allways becomes water again, and the same thing could be said about the different forms of it... The living body is in one state, and the dead is in another state. (State of matter)...

And so on. And nothing, disappear... It stays in the nature for later use...

 

The nature can't, as i see it, always produce something new that haven't existed before inn all eternity...

 

That is for me, irrational to believe...

 

There isn't a infinite matter in that space we live in. Just as it isn't that much water in the world, that the big flood described in genesis, could be real either. The same water are being used over and over again. We humans consists, of over 80% water, by the way....

 

 

All I am saying is that this belief is more rational, because it can be explained by natural means. There is no hokus pokus or need for any supernatural force to believe in it. I think that this could be how nature works.

 

All things supernatural are irrational and illogical?

It depends on what you mean by supernatural.

But yes... Supernatural forces are pure irrational and illogical.

But it isn't all Christians that view God as a supernatural being. They think God is natural, because if God exist, then it is nothing supernatureal about God, but God is infact a natural force in the universe or outside of (...) But God is not any answer, it is by its own nature a question that raises many questions.

It is not any thing that indicates that a God have to exist. There aren't any good reasons to believe in God. Not a single good reason.

 

Is that your reasoning or because there are decent scientific theories for portions of alternate explanations?

My own reasoning, and the fact that I find support for my reasoning in the scientific theories.

 

Most mainstream denominations use an allegorical approach to most of the bible and also an awareness that we can only achieve partial understanding of its meaning

Yes, to survive they have to evolve to.... If you believe in a book that is is full of irrationalities and stupidity, then you have to think about it as allegorical stuff that we do not fully understand... Of course you have too; Thats the only way that a stupid religion can pass from one generation to the next, without dieing out...

 

We got another kind of Christendom to day than for 2000 years ago....

 

It can happen by both chance and by design.

Nope... It cannot. Evolution explains everything about how we was created, and what things that did make us look like we do... The explanation is that good that, if you understand it fully, you'll not come to that conclusion that a God did it... There is no need for God here... It is simple to understand if you read the theory carefully.

 

And it did not happen only by chance... And it did not happen because of a god...

Evolution isn't about chance, it is about natural selection, that is the opposite of "by chance" as you say.

 

 

OK. The short explanation about evolution:

The life that has the qualities needed to pass their genes to the next generation, and who manage to survive long enough to do so, will survive on earth,. Everything else dies out pretty quickly. The process have been extremely brutal and painful.. The "God of love", "The almighty God" as most of the religious describes their god: wouldn't have need for this brutal and extreme painful creation... Did he? I do not believe so... I think that this is far from the rational way of thinking.

 

And in nature, there is the "survival of the fittest" (link) that rules the world...

It doesn't care about the weak or the poor...

 

I do not think that a good loving and all mighty God has created this evil ruthless nature...

 

A loving omnipotent God would have created a paradise for all in the first place, and created us perfect with no evil impulses. and such things... But that is not true.... It is the opposite that is true. All the evil in the world, and all the brutality of the nature, is because there is no God... If it is, then it surely got to be a evil god. But I do not like to think about it... But IF there is a God, this God is evil, and I do not worship evil gods...

 

 

Science has no design and many things happen by chance, such as our mere existence as humans. Yes there are reasons we evolved as we are but there were many other outcomes possible

Yes, but most of the realistic outcomes, surely have been living here on earth...

 

But all the others could not compete with us...

There are thousands of reasons that they do not live to this day, but that we do. We are the best in our kind to survive until this day. The other was not. And that explains also that our look is pretty nice, and that we almost see us selves as a result of "Design"...

IT HAD to be that way. Would you like to fuck a human ape? And get a ape as baby? Or would you choose a partner that had a descent look? Or maybe a beautiful lady? .... Natural selection. Not by chance. Of course, some of that to, but in the bigger picture, there isn't anything that just happen by pure chance. There is a chain of causalities.

 

 

Stupid=foolish

To believe in something stupid, doesn't make you stupid.

Most Christians aren't stupid, they haven't studied their belief, and gone through it being skeptical. If they have done so, they does not need to be stupid either... But I believe they haven't been confronted with the real troubling issues about the faith...

 

But... They are irrational believing in something irrational. But why care about that?

People should believe in what ever they want. And we should... I do not see it as a obligatory thing to always be rational that everyone have to be. I want freedom of religion, and that means both freedom from, and freedom to religious belief.

 

 

If Christians thought critically as I have they would they would lose their faith = they are ignorant to the information I have,

Straw man. I didn't say that. That is your words...

 

The last statement implies there is only one rational outcome, that believing in a god after religious experiences for example is irrational. I disagree

OK. You are free to disagree. Like I am.

 

You wrote that those who would have gone through your critical thinking process would stop believing. This knowledge must be quite special to have only one outcome. So far I have not witnessed total agreement on the meaning of just about any piece of any information. This likely not what you meant to say but that is how it came out and came across as arrogant

yeye. I believe so, not all of course, but most of the reflective folks.

 

 

This is the limited data I have and these are friends that I've known and adored for years for the most part. I'm not making any grand statements from it to extend it to anyone else. I am very interested in the Norwegian way of thinking. Why else participate in a Norwegian debate forum?

I am having a good time discussing with you, thats for sure

And it is a good way of getting better skills, writing in english. =)

 

 

She was the president of American atheist society and fought in the Supreme Court to forbid school prayer. She was the most famous American atheist

OK. = ) Endret 8. juni 2013 av turbonello

[SonicDragon]

det er veldig wannabe å snakke engelsk bare for å tøffe seg

[Mazzazz]

det er veldig wannabe å snakke engelsk bare for å tøffe seg

 

Nå skal det nevnes at du både har engelsk navn og signatur.

[тurbonєℓℓo]

det er veldig wannabe å snakke engelsk bare for å tøffe seg

Jeg skriver engelsk som respons på det han sier, fordi det faller meg naturlig inn å besvare engelsk med engelsk. Og fordi jeg føler at det går veldig greit, og at jeg forbedrer ferdighetene mine. Du burde selv prøve det ut. Er det noe du ikke forstår, så kan du spørre. =)

[jjkoggan]

det er veldig wannabe å snakke engelsk bare for å tøffe seg

 

Wannabe står i norsk ordboka vel?

[Imlekk]

@jjkoggan: I suspect you are arguing for a deistic god, rather than a, say, a Christian god. Would that be accurate?

 

As a more general statement, I would note that the anthropological principle applies to the life on this planet. Whether it applies to the universe is... well, I don't think we know enough to know whether the parameters for the universe is a matter of statistics, or whether we are all a part of a multiverse.

 

http://www.jstor.org...=21102282694491

 

The best predictor of a scientist's religious perspective was upbringing, according to the study. It appears that religious beliefs were not a result of education as you suggest, but their relationship with religion before they became educated was more influential. One can also infer that those with little religious upbringing are attracted to science, not so much that science and education altered their view of religion

 

Actually... I read the article. Very fascinating stuff, and I highly recommend it to everyone.

 

So I feel obliged to point out that this article in no way disproves a causal relationship between education and a lack of religious beliefs. Nor does it claim to do so. Not to mention that it references (old) studies that indicate such a causal relationship. It merely points out that some of the difference between scientists and the general population is most likely due to pre-selection. In other words, that non-believers are more likely to go into the sciences. It does in no way claim that this is the only reason. It also mentions the possibility that strongly religious people might be more likely to drop out of scientific programs.

 

For that claim, it would have had to compare the changes in religious belief to that of the general population.

 

The main point of the study is perhaps that there is not an obvious statistically significant difference between the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of natural and social scientists.

 

Another interesting point would be to consider the level of fundamentalism or literal interpretation of scripture. For instance, somebody studying biology would obviously have trouble accepting the literal reading of Noah's Ark, while, say, a political scientist might not suffer the same problems.

[jjkoggan]

@jjkoggan: I suspect you are arguing for a deistic god, rather than a, say, a Christian god. Would that be accurate?

 

As a more general statement, I would note that the anthropological principle applies to the life on this planet. Whether it applies to the universe is... well, I don't think we know enough to know whether the parameters for the universe is a matter of statistics, or whether we are all a part of a multiverse.

 

 

 

Actually... I read the article. Very fascinating stuff, and I highly recommend it to everyone.

 

So I feel obliged to point out that this article in no way disproves a causal relationship between education and a lack of religious beliefs. Nor does it claim to do so. Not to mention that it references (old) studies that indicate such a causal relationship. It merely points out that some of the difference between scientists and the general population is most likely due to pre-selection. In other words, that non-believers are more likely to go into the sciences. It does in no way claim that this is the only reason. It also mentions the possibility that strongly religious people might be more likely to drop out of scientific programs.

 

For that claim, it would have had to compare the changes in religious belief to that of the general population.

 

The main point of the study is perhaps that there is not an obvious statistically significant difference between the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of natural and social scientists.

 

Another interesting point would be to consider the level of fundamentalism or literal interpretation of scripture. For instance, somebody studying biology would obviously have trouble accepting the literal reading of Noah's Ark, while, say, a political scientist might not suffer the same problems.

 

You are correct. Finding causal links in human behavior is quite a difficult task. Still, this indicates, but does not prove that religious beliefs don't change very much as a result of education, those that were very religious tended to stay very religious and vice versa. At a minimum, it indicates the causal link between education and religion to be quite weak. The common atheist belief that education leads to less religion is misleading.

[Imlekk]

You are correct. Finding causal links in human behavior is quite a difficult task. Still, this indicates, but does not prove that religious beliefs don't change very much as a result of education, those that were very religious tended to stay very religious and vice versa. At a minimum, it indicates the causal link between education and religion to be quite weak. The common atheist belief that education leads to less religion is misleading.

 

I disagree. It only implicates that education cannot be the only causal factor leading to the differences between scientists and the general population.

 

Actually... I just checked it. If you have it available, consider Table 4. In the case of scientists, 13 % had no affiliation to religion as a child. However, at the time of the study, 52 % had no affiliation to religion. Compared to non-scientists, 8 % had no affiliation as children, and 14 % had no affiliation at the current time.

 

Which actually does imply that there is a causal relationship between the level of education and religiosity.

 

The study merely states that the level of education isn't the only reason that more scientists than non-scientists are atheists.

[SonicDragon]

Nå skal det nevnes at du både har engelsk navn og signatur.

 

det er noe helt annet. det har med smak (brukernavn). og sitatet er engelsk fordi jeg vil at alle skal forstå det siden jeg mener den er viktig. men det å snakke engelsk uten noen grunn bare for å vise seg fram eller noe slikt er noe annet. Det får meg forvirra, og det gjør at jeg ikke gidder å lese gjennom samtalen for å finne ut av hva dere snakker om her. (btw du også har engelsk sitat)

 

Jeg har en sjette sans som forteller meg at vi.....eller dere, her snakker om hva som er rasjonelt? Om det er helsprøtt å være religiøs eller ikke? Så noen steder ender dere opp med å hakke ned på hverandre tenker jeg. Logisk, typisk og realistisk. Men om det virkelig er det dere snakker om eller ikke, så ser jeg ikke meningen med å krangle om det og prøve å overbevise hverandre om hva som er korrekt. Hva er verdigheten i det?

For å slippe flere religiøse drap? For å sleppe irriterende forkynnere på gaten?

osv

Endret 8. juni 2013 av Epic Score