Ridiculing Religion or Religion of Ridicule
Mutaal Mooquin October 28, 2008
#97 Posted by shoaib_daniyal on October 31, 2008 11:17:49 pm
//Science cannot provide answer to big questions of life. And it is not the reasons for the validity of religious experience. These are two different areas of human endeavours and pitting one against the other has also not been able to make any real headway.
For now ...//
When you say “Science cannot provide answer to big questions of life� I am assuming that you are saying religion can.
We again come back to the genesis-of-religion thing, my man.
Would you rather swallow some made up sugar-coated answer or be brave enough to face the truth of a bitter answer or no answer at all?
Let take a rather common “big question�: the after life.
Would you rathert accept a version that tells you a lovely little tale about heaven with assorted paraphernelia like angels and the like—a version which has NO PROOF—or would you rather accept the disconcerting possibility that there is no afterlife?
I do of course do have the answer to at least one “big question� and the answer is 42.
Cheers,
Shoaib.
For now ...//
When you say “Science cannot provide answer to big questions of life� I am assuming that you are saying religion can.
We again come back to the genesis-of-religion thing, my man.
Would you rather swallow some made up sugar-coated answer or be brave enough to face the truth of a bitter answer or no answer at all?
Let take a rather common “big question�: the after life.
Would you rathert accept a version that tells you a lovely little tale about heaven with assorted paraphernelia like angels and the like—a version which has NO PROOF—or would you rather accept the disconcerting possibility that there is no afterlife?
I do of course do have the answer to at least one “big question� and the answer is 42.
Cheers,
Shoaib.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#96 Posted by Goldfinger on October 31, 2008 11:04:32 pm
Re: # 86 "what happens after death? .... nothing - you simply cease to exist ....."
hamidm2, while I know that religions mostly are a bunch of fairy tales in which people continuously and uselessly are trying to explore higher meanings, yet these days scientists are seriously looking into the near death (or slightly after death) experiences that many people have undergone who have been clinically dead and have been revived. There is a possibility that the body and consciousness could be separate, like a computer and internet, or TV and its signals. If this is so then we must wonder as to where we get our consciousness from?
hamidm2, while I know that religions mostly are a bunch of fairy tales in which people continuously and uselessly are trying to explore higher meanings, yet these days scientists are seriously looking into the near death (or slightly after death) experiences that many people have undergone who have been clinically dead and have been revived. There is a possibility that the body and consciousness could be separate, like a computer and internet, or TV and its signals. If this is so then we must wonder as to where we get our consciousness from?
#95 Posted by Hyde on October 31, 2008 10:57:36 pm
Atheists have a right to their non-belief, just as religious people have a right to their religious belief. Only misguided idiots try and feed others with their beliefs. I call it the blind leading the blind. That is why not judging others is liberating because by so doing one acknowledges his/her limitations. In so doing, one is inquisitive about life in general and acknowledges a desire to learn, learn and learn as an ongoing process of life. It is kind of a safety net that allows one's mistakes to be mistakes, because nothing is worse than an expert's mistake, it is called negligence.
Atheists, just like religious people should also get real with their lives and stop trying to spoon feed others with their drivel. Keep your beliefs to yourself, keep your sexuality to yourself, keep your promiscuity to yourself, keep your celibacy to yourself, keep your deity to yourself and keep your miseries to yourselves because the world just wants to get on with its life!
The Marxist Ideology doesn't seem to me to be about stripping away a belief system. This is the same sort of tosh that Dawkins peddles with his counter position of 'rationalism' and religion. Not only does he labor under a very rarified and normative notion of what rationality might be, but the implication of his (and Hitchen's etc) view is that those who believe are irrational (and probably need to be bombed back to rationality, or at least not be allowed to vote). The Marxist critique doesn't take this position at all -- it seeks to understand how religion manifests itself as a human response in certain historical conditions.
In practice and in this real world people have a right to believe what they want to believe. Theoretically, one might try to make a rationale analysis as to why these rights may or may not be. The only time people will stop having a right is when we clone people or implant them with the same brain. The problems with these rights arise when deluded people believe that their rights give them expert knowledge in that particular area which results in the relativism.
Atheists, just like religious people should also get real with their lives and stop trying to spoon feed others with their drivel. Keep your beliefs to yourself, keep your sexuality to yourself, keep your promiscuity to yourself, keep your celibacy to yourself, keep your deity to yourself and keep your miseries to yourselves because the world just wants to get on with its life!
The Marxist Ideology doesn't seem to me to be about stripping away a belief system. This is the same sort of tosh that Dawkins peddles with his counter position of 'rationalism' and religion. Not only does he labor under a very rarified and normative notion of what rationality might be, but the implication of his (and Hitchen's etc) view is that those who believe are irrational (and probably need to be bombed back to rationality, or at least not be allowed to vote). The Marxist critique doesn't take this position at all -- it seeks to understand how religion manifests itself as a human response in certain historical conditions.
In practice and in this real world people have a right to believe what they want to believe. Theoretically, one might try to make a rationale analysis as to why these rights may or may not be. The only time people will stop having a right is when we clone people or implant them with the same brain. The problems with these rights arise when deluded people believe that their rights give them expert knowledge in that particular area which results in the relativism.
#94 Posted by shoaib_daniyal on October 31, 2008 10:42:49 pm
#84 quinn
I do actually agree with you, there.
But frustration does sometimes get the better of even the best of us, does it not?
Quite frankly I'm sick and tired of this tirade of "my religion is getting attacked the most". Whether in my country you'll have the Hindu right wing trying to paint secularism as something anti-Hindu or the author of this piece trying to paint Atheism as something which specially picks on Islam, its all quite irritating, really.
"However, in the last quarter when Religulous focuses on Islam, the theme of doom becomes disproportionately intense"
, is the line from the article wghich I find rather galling.
This persecuation complex cuts across almost all religions, unfotunately.
All I'll say to the author of the piece is to get a more mature perpective on life, that's all.
I do actually agree with you, there.
But frustration does sometimes get the better of even the best of us, does it not?
Quite frankly I'm sick and tired of this tirade of "my religion is getting attacked the most". Whether in my country you'll have the Hindu right wing trying to paint secularism as something anti-Hindu or the author of this piece trying to paint Atheism as something which specially picks on Islam, its all quite irritating, really.
"However, in the last quarter when Religulous focuses on Islam, the theme of doom becomes disproportionately intense"
, is the line from the article wghich I find rather galling.
This persecuation complex cuts across almost all religions, unfotunately.
All I'll say to the author of the piece is to get a more mature perpective on life, that's all.
#93 Posted by shoaib_daniyal on October 31, 2008 10:31:48 pm
#82 @Masadi
//So if the media presents someone or something as "real" it becomes real? What an absurd way to define reality. So you say others have seen him, but how can they share their experience with you, even if the remote possibility exists that you have met those people, other than through "trust". Please explain this and as you start doing so you will realize just how "real" God is...//
Why is this getting so convoluted?
Surely enough proof exists to prove that Beckham is real! I don't have to depened on texts that are thousands of years old to prove it, now do I? :P
If you can give me the same level of proof that a God exists as the level of evidence that Beckam exists, trust me I'll have no qualms in believing it.
//So if the media presents someone or something as "real" it becomes real? What an absurd way to define reality. So you say others have seen him, but how can they share their experience with you, even if the remote possibility exists that you have met those people, other than through "trust". Please explain this and as you start doing so you will realize just how "real" God is...//
Why is this getting so convoluted?
Surely enough proof exists to prove that Beckham is real! I don't have to depened on texts that are thousands of years old to prove it, now do I? :P
If you can give me the same level of proof that a God exists as the level of evidence that Beckam exists, trust me I'll have no qualms in believing it.
#92 Posted by Hyde on October 31, 2008 10:25:16 pm
#87 Posted by masadi
“Here is the "big" question: Prove to me how with a probability of near zero for "chance" to have created life let alone conscious life, how will you use science to disprove teleology�
This is not really a big question. Has been around for a long time and I think William Paley asked it in the 19th century. William Paley, Natural Theology, 12th ed. London: J. Faulder, 1809.
Science is making progress. It has been answering questions so at some point in time it will answer the above question too. But in reality, it is unimportant to debate the whole thing and I am glad scientists are not wasting their precious time answering ridiculous questions.
You can read a debate here http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=86201
Here is a good post to start with.
You can try this link too. http://www.ecotao.com/holism/gem_kant.htm
“The fundamental premise upon which science is based is that the natural universe is a closed system, whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior.
The hypothesis that gods exist does not clash with science. Since the hypothesis stipulates specifically that they exist in a supernatural universe which is outside the boundaries of the natural universe, that hypothesis cannot be tested by science, which deals only with the natural universe. So we cannot disprove the mere existence of gods.
However, religion doesn't stop there. It hypothesizes that those gods meddle capriciously and illogically with the behavior of the natural universe. Now this hypothesis contradicts not only science, but science's basic premise, because by definition external forces cannot affect a closed system.
The complete set of beliefs about gods that characterize all religions attack and deny science, by claiming to have falsified its fundamental principle. After all, if a god can step off of his celestial front porch in a fit of pique and turn people into salt, raise sea level by several thousand feet in only forty days, or reanimate a corpse, then we can never rely on our empirically-based theories to predict the future behavior of the universe. Science would be virtually useless.
We cannot disprove the existence of gods. But we can test the hypothesis that the natural universe is a closed system, i.e., we can test the important part of the god thesis by establishing whether or not gods meddle with our universe. In fact we've been doing that for about 500 years, since the start of the Enlightenment. Every time the scientific method is used successfully to help us understand a natural condition or phenomenon. it's one more piece of evidence supporting that hypothesis.
Since no rigorous, respectable evidence has ever been found to cast doubt on the scientific method, the hypothesis that the natural universe is a closed system has achieved the status of a canonical theory. Of course we cannot be 100% certain that such a piece of evidence might not be discovered one day, we have not proved that the natural universe is a closed system. We have not proved that gods will never wake up from their slumber and start perturbing our universe. But after being tested by thousands of scientists every day for hundreds of years and never failing, we can say that the foundation of science is true beyond a reasonable doubt.
To assert that science is wrong, that the natural universe is not a closed system, that gods stand ready to part seas, rain locusts on us and resurrect dead heroes, becomes an extraordinary assertion. The Rule of Laplace now kicks in: Extraordinary assertions must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence before we are required to treat them with respect.
In other words, we've done our homework and we are not required to prove that gods don't tamper with the workings of our universe, whether or not they exist. We have all the evidence we need to assume that gods don't exist, i.e., a natural universe that has behaved as a closed system for centuries.
The burden of proof is on the theists to provide evidence that gods not only exist, but tamper with the workings of our universe. Until such evidence is presented, we have every right to treat religion with disrespect.
So go out and enjoy yourselves.�
“Here is the "big" question: Prove to me how with a probability of near zero for "chance" to have created life let alone conscious life, how will you use science to disprove teleology�
This is not really a big question. Has been around for a long time and I think William Paley asked it in the 19th century. William Paley, Natural Theology, 12th ed. London: J. Faulder, 1809.
Science is making progress. It has been answering questions so at some point in time it will answer the above question too. But in reality, it is unimportant to debate the whole thing and I am glad scientists are not wasting their precious time answering ridiculous questions.
You can read a debate here http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=86201
Here is a good post to start with.
You can try this link too. http://www.ecotao.com/holism/gem_kant.htm
“The fundamental premise upon which science is based is that the natural universe is a closed system, whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior.
The hypothesis that gods exist does not clash with science. Since the hypothesis stipulates specifically that they exist in a supernatural universe which is outside the boundaries of the natural universe, that hypothesis cannot be tested by science, which deals only with the natural universe. So we cannot disprove the mere existence of gods.
However, religion doesn't stop there. It hypothesizes that those gods meddle capriciously and illogically with the behavior of the natural universe. Now this hypothesis contradicts not only science, but science's basic premise, because by definition external forces cannot affect a closed system.
The complete set of beliefs about gods that characterize all religions attack and deny science, by claiming to have falsified its fundamental principle. After all, if a god can step off of his celestial front porch in a fit of pique and turn people into salt, raise sea level by several thousand feet in only forty days, or reanimate a corpse, then we can never rely on our empirically-based theories to predict the future behavior of the universe. Science would be virtually useless.
We cannot disprove the existence of gods. But we can test the hypothesis that the natural universe is a closed system, i.e., we can test the important part of the god thesis by establishing whether or not gods meddle with our universe. In fact we've been doing that for about 500 years, since the start of the Enlightenment. Every time the scientific method is used successfully to help us understand a natural condition or phenomenon. it's one more piece of evidence supporting that hypothesis.
Since no rigorous, respectable evidence has ever been found to cast doubt on the scientific method, the hypothesis that the natural universe is a closed system has achieved the status of a canonical theory. Of course we cannot be 100% certain that such a piece of evidence might not be discovered one day, we have not proved that the natural universe is a closed system. We have not proved that gods will never wake up from their slumber and start perturbing our universe. But after being tested by thousands of scientists every day for hundreds of years and never failing, we can say that the foundation of science is true beyond a reasonable doubt.
To assert that science is wrong, that the natural universe is not a closed system, that gods stand ready to part seas, rain locusts on us and resurrect dead heroes, becomes an extraordinary assertion. The Rule of Laplace now kicks in: Extraordinary assertions must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence before we are required to treat them with respect.
In other words, we've done our homework and we are not required to prove that gods don't tamper with the workings of our universe, whether or not they exist. We have all the evidence we need to assume that gods don't exist, i.e., a natural universe that has behaved as a closed system for centuries.
The burden of proof is on the theists to provide evidence that gods not only exist, but tamper with the workings of our universe. Until such evidence is presented, we have every right to treat religion with disrespect.
So go out and enjoy yourselves.�
#91 Posted by anil on October 31, 2008 8:55:46 pm
Re: # 87
Masadi sahib:
"...how will you use science to disprove teleology
Why are you your own worst enemy? Scientific methods only prove and not disprove. No wonder you are so confused and not realize, because you keep yourself disproving to yourself.
Masadi sahib:
"...how will you use science to disprove teleology
Why are you your own worst enemy? Scientific methods only prove and not disprove. No wonder you are so confused and not realize, because you keep yourself disproving to yourself.
#90 Posted by masadi on October 31, 2008 7:23:41 pm
and get a life before you inquire about its purpose...
another Asadi sahib masterpiece!
another Asadi sahib masterpiece!
#89 Posted by masadi on October 31, 2008 7:23:10 pm
have a nice day and take it easy.....and get a life before you inquire about its purpose....
TNI Masadi
TNI Masadi
#88 Posted by masadi on October 31, 2008 7:20:11 pm
Hamid writes "what is the purpose of life?"
In #87, stated in Black and White: for God to discover himself and his creation through conscious beings and for man to discover God as a result. That is the prime purpose of the teleology behind creation....
The mullahs and religious folk throughout history have been mislead by their BS, but there it is in black and white, discovered through science and logic, and confirmed by the Quran.
In #87, stated in Black and White: for God to discover himself and his creation through conscious beings and for man to discover God as a result. That is the prime purpose of the teleology behind creation....
The mullahs and religious folk throughout history have been mislead by their BS, but there it is in black and white, discovered through science and logic, and confirmed by the Quran.
#87 Posted by masadi on October 31, 2008 7:16:55 pm
Here is the "big" question: Prove to me how with a probability of near zero for "chance" to have created life let alone conscious life, how will you use science to disprove teleology
That is the BIGG question that no scientist worth the name has been able to answer other than by abandoning science~ now abandoning science doesn't have to be in the "God" direction, it can be a godless direction as well, one that says "everything happens" taken to the infinity~ only in absurdity can the godless find the straws they need to grab onto~ and don't rejoice you multiple god people, teleology and the structure of the universe reveals ONE, yes just ONE God.
Have a nice day and take it easy
TNI Masadi
That is the BIGG question that no scientist worth the name has been able to answer other than by abandoning science~ now abandoning science doesn't have to be in the "God" direction, it can be a godless direction as well, one that says "everything happens" taken to the infinity~ only in absurdity can the godless find the straws they need to grab onto~ and don't rejoice you multiple god people, teleology and the structure of the universe reveals ONE, yes just ONE God.
Have a nice day and take it easy
TNI Masadi
#86 Posted by hamidm2 on October 31, 2008 5:23:07 pm
Re: # 85
quinn mian,
"Science cannot provide answer to big questions of life" .... stop whining .... ask me a question and i will give you an answer! ..... what are the big questions ? ... let me see .... what happens after death? .... nothing - you simply cease to exist ..... what is the purpose of life? ... to enjoy a medium rare porterhouse steak and have wild sex with a nymphomaniac? ....... any other questions ?
quinn mian,
"Science cannot provide answer to big questions of life" .... stop whining .... ask me a question and i will give you an answer! ..... what are the big questions ? ... let me see .... what happens after death? .... nothing - you simply cease to exist ..... what is the purpose of life? ... to enjoy a medium rare porterhouse steak and have wild sex with a nymphomaniac? ....... any other questions ?
#85 Posted by quin on October 31, 2008 4:47:47 pm
Re: # 60 shoib_danyal,
Science cannot provide answer to big questions of life. And it is not the reasons for the validity of religious experience. These are two different areas of human endeavours and pitting one against the other has also not been able to make any real headway.
For now ...
Science cannot provide answer to big questions of life. And it is not the reasons for the validity of religious experience. These are two different areas of human endeavours and pitting one against the other has also not been able to make any real headway.
For now ...
#84 Posted by quin on October 31, 2008 4:25:58 pm
Re: # 13 shoib_danyal, in this interact, you sir, are providing a good example of how to lift up a phrase (not even a sentence), quote it out of context, and give it a spin to your liking. A good exercise in producing comedy, but let's remember that good humour does not have to defile the truth for comic effect.
#83 Posted by quin on October 31, 2008 4:16:31 pm
Re: # 11 bulleya
nice write up, good info and refreshing thoughts, partucularly the end is inspiring ;-)
nice write up, good info and refreshing thoughts, partucularly the end is inspiring ;-)
#82 Posted by masadi on October 31, 2008 3:33:10 pm
shoaib writes "But isn't that a brilliant thing? At least Beckham is real. Not a figment of someones imagination."
So if the media presents someone or something as "real" it becomes real? What an absurd way to define reality. So you say others have seen him, but how can they share their experience with you, even if the remote possibility exists that you have met those people, other than through "trust". Please explain this and as you start doing so you will realize just how "real" God is...
Have a nice day and keep it real
TNI Masadi
So if the media presents someone or something as "real" it becomes real? What an absurd way to define reality. So you say others have seen him, but how can they share their experience with you, even if the remote possibility exists that you have met those people, other than through "trust". Please explain this and as you start doing so you will realize just how "real" God is...
Have a nice day and keep it real
TNI Masadi
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- Goldfinger: Re: # 21 harish...you will... The Jehadi Frankenstein
- SPY: Re: # 16 Goldfinger... The Jehadi Frankenstein
- raziasq: excellent comment.... Crowning of a Crony
- majumdar: Harishbhai, ....However, please take enough... The Jehadi Frankenstein
- harish_hyd: ...install a friendly government... The Jehadi Frankenstein
- harish_hyd: #19 by Goldfinger harish...indeed the... The Jehadi Frankenstein
- jayp: Adnan, There can be no... Morality of Lawyers' Movement
- harish_hyd: Karzai is a crony... Crowning of a Crony
