Yegods there are some ignorant arrogant Islamophobic people here – albiet mostly earlier in this thread.

Frankly, I pity the Sheik for his apparent mental illness .. & can only really note what a mountain has been raised from this molehill.

As has been noted before, a good quote which sums everything up superbly in this context comes from Galileo which went something like (in Italian though naturally .. or maybe Latin, a-n-y-w-a-y) :

“Science tells us how the heavens go, not how to go to heaven.”

In finest distillate :

Want an ethical code on how to live your life well?

Well then, in that case, the Bible’s or Qu’rans fine but a geology/biology/astronomy text is totally inapplicable & unhelpful.

Want to know the facts about the age of the Earth or how Humans came to be?

Well then, in that case, a geology/biology/astronomy text is fine but the Bible or Qu’ran is totally inapplicable & unhelpful.

Seems simple & clear enough if you look at things that way doesn’t it?

Can’t both religion & science get along with that?

As for atheism not being a religion, well strictly speaking neither
is Buddhism either. Perhaps both more broadly belong under the
philosophy not religion classification however both areforms of belief about religion. Buddhists are passionate believers in Buddha’s path to
enlightenment, atheists are passionately & sometimes stridently convinced that : “There is no God but NO God!”

… & then agnostics like me shrug our shoulders and say well .. heck .. we’re not sure & like Socrates we know what we don’t know .. and thus keep open minds.

———————–

To end on a lighter note, here’s an old joke or two :

What do you get if you cross a Mormon with an atheist?

Answer : Someone who knocks on your door for nothing!

What do you get if you cross a Jehovah’s Witness with a Hells Angel?

Answer : Someone who knocks on your door & tells you to @*^%%^^% off!

& finally :

Moses comes down from the Mountain & lays it all out to Aaron . Aaron is seems pretty shocked & gets him to repeat it again and again .. finally he syas : Okay my brother, let me get this down right one last time – so the Arabs get all the oil & we hafta cut the ends off our … WHAT!

Why don’t you underline this fact!? We also think that this muslim is wrong abpute photos on the earth. The erath is flat we believe! Am I exaggerate something ironically? No, I just don’t dare to confront Gore.

There are two points I’d like to make.

1.) There is a group of atheists to which I belong who do not seek the elimination of religion. This could be represented by strategy B in my previous post. There is another group of atheists (Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Meyers, and several posters on this blog) who do seek the elimination of religion and seem to promote conflict between religion and atheism at every turn. This could be represented by strategy A in my previous post. In my opinion strategy B is much better than strategy A for a variety of practical and philosophical reasons.

2.) In regards to science versus religion I support Gould’s concept of NOMA (NonOverlapping MAgisteria). Thus, when Abd Al-Baset Sayyid makes claims about infinite energy coming from Mecca and says Neil Armstrong said things that he didn’t, I have absolutely no objection to scientists shooting down his concepts. What has happened is that religion in this case has stepped out of its magisterium and is commenting in the science magisterium. It is legitimate to rein it in.

“Let’s be clear here, no scientist is petitioning to have evolution taught in churches, and no senators are floating around an “outlaw faith” bill.”

Let’s for the sake of argument assume that science was pushing for evolution to be taught in Sunday School and for religious faith to be outlawed. That would constitute a meddling of science in the other magisterium and it would be just as legimate to rein in science. So almost like the checks and balances in the United States federal government among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches the religious magisterium and the science magisterium serve to check each other’s power. When one side gets too powerful the other is there to curb its excesses.

That, in a nutshell, is what I am arguing.

>>”Since every observed phenomenon so far (from stars forming to
>>feathers falling) has been governed by unchanging physical laws,
>>there is no “logical” reason to support a God hypothesis”

>Fallacy of Accident (dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid)

If this is a Fallacy of Accident, then so is the Law of Gravity, since it fails to take into account the “unobserved” times when gravity stopped working or changed strength/direction. Of course, then, all science is a fallacy of accident, since they fail to take into account the “exceptions” which have not been observed.

I’m curious as to exactly what your argument/point is, though. You are a self-proclaimed atheist, but believe those deluded by religion are not to be disagreed with? Does this hold true for Ahmadinejad who has called for the (nuclear) destruction of Israel to bring about the second coming (12th Imam)? Sects who force 14-year olds into sexual relations with 50-year olds? etc…
(Yes, of course “athiests” do bad things too, my point is, in what way are we “wrong” for disagreeing with (or even disparaging) those who use one ancient text as “evidence” to disregard all science has discovered, and to justify their (sometimes heinous) actions?)

Let’s be clear here, no scientist is petitioning to have evolution taught in churches, and no senators are floating around an “outlaw faith” bill. So is your problem merely the “tone” of atheist arguments? (Pity is also a logical fallacy, but we’ve beaten the fallacy horse to death)

As a community based on reason (badastronomy.com) do we not have the obligation to refute statements about “infinite” radiation from Mecca, the “end of times” as a positive event, criminalization of contraceptives, giant magical floods… or any other such magic-based “reasoning”?

“Religion does not demonstrably make one a better artist, so the connection between religion and art is irrelevant.”
Non Sequitor (False Cause) – The causality between religion not making one a better artist and the irrelevancy of religion and art is asserted with no evidence

“The most fundamentalist believers among the big three are actually the only TRUE believers and faithful adherents of their religions.”
Inversion of the No True Scotsman fallacy

“Since every observed phenomenon so far (from stars forming to feathers falling) has been governed by unchanging physical laws, there is no “logical” reason to support a God hypothesis”
Fallacy of Accident (dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid)

Fair enough. Let’s run with that.”

That’s the point that’s in dispute. Why should we trust science to probe a hypothetical supernatural entity when science has been designed specifically to interrogate the natural world? What other subjects “beyond nature” has science successfully investigated?

Now, you might respond by saying there is nothing beyond nature, but can science itself tell you that? I think not. It can only be assumed as a postulate of empirical philosophy. This goes back to what Barton Levenson and I had to say about empiricism which is – you cannot use empirical evidence itself to validate the assumptions lying behind empiricism.

And on a more practical note. Let’s say you are right – there is no God. But you are one of only 5 percent of the population who know the truth about this. The other 95 percent of the population are suffering from delusions and believe in such a God. They are so attached to their incorrect belief that they might even react with violence if you attempt to persuade them differently. Given these facts, which of the following strategies makes sense for you as a rational thinker to pursue and which strategy will preserve your bodily health:

Strategy A (P.Z. Meyers strategy):
Say to the believers something like this: You’re all a bunch of morons for believing in God. I spit on your God and your pathetic deluded beliefs. I hope you all fly away into the stratosphere on balloons never to be heard from again.

Strategy B:
Say to the believers something like this: I disagree with your beliefs concerning God but I would like to work with you on issues which are vital to the survival of us all (e.g., global warming, nuclear war, etc.). We can agree to disagree on the theological issues but we can work together to make a better planet for all of us.

@Tom Marking
“In any case, Dawkins disagrees with you:”
Argumentum ad verecundiam, appeal to authority. Appealing to the opinion of Dawkins, or Gould, or anyone else, has no effect on the truth of the matter, and only demonstrates a lack of logical arguments.

“Other non-religious institutions also use morality as a way to control people.”
Tu quoque. “you’ve done it too!” is not a reasonable justification.

@ Kryoclasmon
“I had no idea it was about bigoted people slandering and belittling the belief systems of over %50 of the people on Earth” (this same argument of “lots of people are religious” has appeared 3 or so times in this thread
Argumentum ad numerum, Argumentum ad populum, sorry, but appealing to popular opinion as evidence is not and never will be a logical argument.

@Chris B
“the world needs the thousands and thousands of people who are acting in the name of the church to help people”
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, people being religious and doing good deeds does NOT mean good deeds are a RESULT of people being religious. WITH does not mean THEREFORE. This also refutes the “Bach” and artist argumentation. Religion does not demonstrably make one a better artist, so the connection between religion and art is irrelevant. (Of course, my earlier point about religious icons refutes this as well).

Logic 101 for the win!
Cheers!

Fair enough. Let’s run with that. You can put all the evidence for the existence of God right on the next line:

Done. Now, what does the scientific method say about an hypothesis for which there is no evidence?

It’s incredibly easy to overcome that hurdle. One need only provide evidence. And yet, for thousands of years, nobody has been able to provide such evidence. Nobody. The scientific method suggest that it is possible, however unlikely, that is merely a coincidence. That’s as strong as the argument for God can get without evidence.

Translation: Other non-religious institutions also use morality as a way to control people.

I wouldn’t disagree with that, but it is irrelevant. You can devise your own moral code to control your own behaviour without religion or an institution. You can bet, however, that when someone imposes a moral code on you, they are trying to control you.

Whether or not that control is a good thing for the individual or for humans as a whole is another thing.

“Logic and reason as defined by whom? The religionists think that their beliefs are entirely logical and reasonable by their own definitions.”

I believe in this case I prefer “logic” and “reason” as defined by the English language, as in “a decision based on demonstration,” rather than any other definitions which would have to include “a decision based on an invented story with no demonstrable or observable implications on matter or energy.”
Since every observed phenomenon so far (from stars forming to feathers falling) has been governed by unchanging physical laws, there is no “logical” reason to support a God hypothesis, since said God has yet to move, effect, or change anything in this universe… I wonder what he IS doing with his time?

In any event, if a hypothesis includes a being in an undetectable dimension which has never once effected THIS dimension, then it is logically and reasonably irrelevant. In fact, there are INFINITE “entities” if the definition includes being undetectable and having no effect on physical laws or properties.

Logic and reason as defined by whom? The religionists think that their beliefs are entirely logical and reasonable by their own definitions. Scientific method but not science? Not following you there. In any case, Dawkins disagrees with you:

The God Delusion, p 72
“I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other”

“I don’t think that agendum…”
Oh Jeez, don’t go all Latin on me like that. Who do you think you are, Vox Dei? In any case, it may be Dawkins’ agendum or your agendum but it was not Gould’s agendum and it is not my agendum.

“The promulgation of morals is one of the tools religion uses to control people, but you need not have religion to behave in a moral way.”
Translation: Other non-religious institutions also use morality as a way to control people.

Did he say that there is an equilibrium at the equator? Is he just making this stuff up as he goes along? Or is he quoting a book authored by someone just making it all up? A short wave-length beam emmanting from the kabaa? Is this beam maybe communicating with Allah or something? I think he said that when Neil Armstrong was on Mars that he saw that the beam went farther out into space. Thin air must have alot of mass because he sure is pulling a truck load of crap out of it.

I wouldn’t go that far, but I would say that PZ is a blogger who posts material specifically designed to be inflammatory and to piss off the opposition. In that area he and Vox Day both excel. Thankfully I see relatively little of that coming from BA.

“As for China, they are not persecuting them because they are xians but because they are unauthorised and are seen as threat to their power base.”

You can rationalize away the burnings at the stake performed by the Christians in much the same way. It had nothing to do with belief. It had to do with publicly proclaimed heresy which undermined the authority of the Church. Thus, folks like Giordano Bruno had to be eliminated since they were a threat to the power base of the Catholic Church. So you can rationalize away murder anyway you want. It’s still murder as are the numerous murders done by the People’s Republic of China against Christians.

“It is these folks with whom the rest of us unbelievers will be forever in opposition, and with whom we will be eternally at war, until one or the other of us is eliminated. That is the single, fundamental truth about these religions.”

So it’s a war to death then, is it? And exactly how do you expect this war to end given that 90+ percent of the United States population are theists and only a paltry percentage are atheists? This is dangerous nonsense you’re spouting and if carried to its logical conclusion it’s liable to get us atheists killed in large numbers. We want peaceful coexistence between atheism and religion, not some religious war that we can’t win.

NO. That is absolutely incorrect.

It is saying that logic and reason are the arbiters of truth, and that fantasy and fiction will not stand the test of evidence. That is the scientific method, but is not “science” in the sense that most people refer to science.

Of course, the hidden agenda of such atheists and scientists is that they don’t believe religion can hold up to such scrutiny so the final result would be the elimination of religion.

I don’t think that agendum (daily pedantry: one item is an agendum, many on a list are agenda) is hidden at all.

I don’t agree with Gould. Religion has to do with population control. The promulgation of morals is one of the tools religion uses to control people, but you need not have religion to behave in a moral way.

As for China, they are not persecuting them because they are xians but because they are unauthorised and are seen as threat to their power base. I suppose I better say out loud that I don’t agree with it in any way, whatever their reason, before you accuse me of wanting the murder of xians. But the Chinese treat all potential perceived threats, whether buddhist, xian, muslin, atheist or even other Chinese communists, the same way. Much the same way that the Stalin et al in Russia did, i.e. not because they were xians but because they were perceived as a potential threat because of the perceived organisational abilities of the church. If China doesn’t see you as threat, whatever your beliefs or lack of, they leave you alone, i.e. it is not belief that is the perceived possible problem but a possible political threat. And again, in case you take an explanation for what is really happening as my supporting the Chinese, I don’t.

By the way, what is the difference between a heretic and an atheist when at the end of the day, anything that disagreed with church doctrine was considered effectiveley heretical. I.e. I doubt the church in those days would have treated me any differently if I had told them that I was an ex-xian atheist rather than someone who disagreed with the churches exact interpretation of doctrine

This reminds me of statements by true believers whether it be in the area of politics or religion. The viewpoint seems to be that my political party can do no wrong, my religion can do no wrong, etc., etc. Sadly, it has now spread to atheism.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,45271,00.html

“China Accused of Torture, Killings in Crackdown on Unregistered Christians Monday, February 11, 2002

BEIJING — Chinese authorities have killed 129 people and arrested nearly 24,000 in a crackdown on Christian churches that operate outside government control, a group of Chinese religious activists said Monday.

In a report released in New York, the Committee for Investigation on Persecution of Religion in China published what it said were official documents outlining a campaign that includes torture to stamp out independent worship.

The report accused senior Chinese leaders of approving the violence.”

As recently as 2002 more than a hundred Christians were killed by the People’s Republic of China. If you are going to claim that it was not for the crime of having belief, then the shoe can always fit on the other foot — Not one atheist has ever been killed by a religion for the crime of being an atheist – not Giordano Bruno, not any of the others burnt at the stake. Their crime was heresy, not atheism specifically.

If the religious just got on with their life and kept their belief as a personal thing, fine, we would just let them enjoy their delusion. However, it is because the religious, especially the fundies, are trying to interfere in the lives of all, claiming their beliefs as justification, that we can no longer ignore it. That is true whether it is fundie xians or muslims.

The difference between us and the fundies is that however deluded we think they are we don’t want to stop them having their belief nor do we atheists shoot abortion doctors, bomb abortion clinics or fly planes into buildings in the name of atheism. They, however do want to force their rules on us as can be seen in both the West and the East.

As to those talking about the ‘goodness’ of the catholic church, not only are the church preaching against contraception in countries like Africa, which increases the problems vis a vis birth rate. They are actually telling lies about condoms stating openly that the AIDS virus can pass through a condom so there is no point using them. Sorry, but whatever ‘goodness’ the catholic church might have been responsible for, and that is debatable however you look at it, it is more than balanced out by this act that I can only consider evil.

As to great art coming from artists associated with the church. This is a moot point as at the time the church was one of the main organisations with the money to commission artists. The average artist, then and now, will work for the person or organisation with the money to commission their work. Thus the main reason so much of the art was religious in nature was that it was largely directly or indirectly commissioned by the church. Not that debases the beauty of the art, but it does put its religious nature into context.

As to the poster who mentioned that so many people believe, since when has popularity had anything to do with truth and when has criticism of belief without evidence constituted bigotry or persecution, however many times the religious try to claim it is.

It is important to note that not all atheists and not all scientists subscribe to this viewpoint. This is essentially saying that science is the sole arbiter of truth in matters of religion, which is the viewpoint espoused by Richard Dawkins in “The God Delusion”. Of course, the hidden agenda of such atheists and scientists is that they don’t believe religion can hold up to such scrutiny so the final result would be the elimination of religion.

The late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould espoused a different vision in one of the last books he wrote before he died: Rocks of Ages – Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life (published in 1999).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocks_of_Ages_(book)

In this alternative viewpoint science and religion constitute separate magisteria or NOMA (NonOverlapping MAgisteria). Science deals with natural phenomena and Religion deals with morals.

I’m an atheist and in my opinion Gould was right and Dawkins is wrong. Science should do its thing and religion should do its thing, and never the twain shall meet. Once you have religion intruding into science (i.e., creationism, ID) all sorts of problems ensue. But the opposite is equally true. Once science starts intruding into religion no good can come of it. Keep the magisteria separate like they should be.