The world would be a much better place without religion.

The world would be a much better place without religion.

 

 

Society likely wouldnt exist without religion. Think twice before you say that now.

The world would be a much better place without religion.

 

 

Society likely wouldnt exist without religion. Think twice before you say that now.

 

He didn't even say whether he meant, right at this moment, or from the beginning. As written, his statement is quite ambiguous, and that's without even getting into the substantive virtues of it.

 

IMO, the world would be a better place if more people gathered the knowledge which is the typical spring board for thinking people toward atheism - AKA science, philosophy, etc. If that could happen, I'd be far less concerned about people's ultimate religious choice if they at least had some background in the hard sciences, philosophy, and intelligent discussion.

The world would be a much better place without religion.

 

 

Society likely wouldnt exist without religion. Think twice before you say that now.

IMO, the world would be a better place if more people gathered the knowledge which is the typical spring board for thinking people toward atheism - AKA science, philosophy, etc. If that could happen, I'd be far less concerned about people's ultimate religious choice if they at least had some background in the hard sciences, philosophy, and intelligent discussion.

 

You're acting like science, philosophy and discussion have a singular answer to everything. People treat science like a religion. People who propose alternate views to things unproven (but generally accepted) are - ironically - shunned and chastised.

 

If religion would just disappear off the face of the earth, we'd just find something else to blindly follow. Ask someone who firmly believes in global warming why they believe in it. They'll most likely give you an answer that they can see (or others who report can see) with their eyes like 'the ice caps are melting' or 'temperatures are rising' and avoid the actual science in the formulation of the theory. They'll most likely just repeat what some 'authority' says. People are quick to believe the popular belief rather than question what's established; they also make it a point to laugh at and shun those who who question. What does that remind you of?

The world would be a much better place without religion.

 

 

Society likely wouldnt exist without religion. Think twice before you say that now.

IMO, the world would be a better place if more people gathered the knowledge which is the typical spring board for thinking people toward atheism - AKA science, philosophy, etc. If that could happen, I'd be far less concerned about people's ultimate religious choice if they at least had some background in the hard sciences, philosophy, and intelligent discussion.

 

You're acting like science, philosophy and discussion have a singular answer to everything. People treat science like a religion. People who propose alternate views to things unproven (but generally accepted) are - ironically - shunned and chastised.

 

If religion would just disappear off the face of the earth, we'd just find something else to blindly follow. Ask someone who firmly believes in global warming why they believe in it. They'll most likely give you an answer that they can see (or others who report can see) with their eyes like 'the ice caps are melting' or 'temperatures are rising' and avoid the actual science in the formulation of the theory. They'll most likely just repeat what some 'authority' says. People are quick to believe the popular belief rather than question what's established; they also make it a point to laugh at and shun those who who question. What does that remind you of?

 

 

I never said the world would be perfect. But I think it would likely be better. The point of learning science, philosophy, etc. is that they open people's minds and spawn intelligent discussion, like I said. Many people grow up in communities averse to thought and discussion. I am of the opinion that, were this not the case, people would certainly still come to many divergent opinions; however, their path to arriving at those opinions, views, etc., would foster the kinds of thought that make this world a better place. Again, not philosophical thought, per se, but just getting some experience actually using your brain in the kind of ways that those areas encourage. Intelligent thought and discussion;logical thought; embracing the necessary task of pushing your beliefs to their limits, testing the implications, and modifying your beliefs accordingly, etc.

 

And true "science" is the exact opposite of blind following. Anyone really dedicated to science is always looking for data to confirm or deny theories and suppositions. Sure, some get sucked up into the emotion or whatever behind some issue, i.e. global warming. But that's not the fault of science as an academic discipline.

 

You do not appear to have comprehend my post in the least. In your self-asserted desire to put biased people in their place, you are just looking for something to be contentious about. My post did the exact opposite of claiming that anything has exact answers. Instead, I want people to learn how to think for themselves.

The world would be a much better place without religion.

 

 

Society likely wouldnt exist without religion. Think twice before you say that now.

IMO, the world would be a better place if more people gathered the knowledge which is the typical spring board for thinking people toward atheism - AKA science, philosophy, etc. If that could happen, I'd be far less concerned about people's ultimate religious choice if they at least had some background in the hard sciences, philosophy, and intelligent discussion.

 

You're acting like science, philosophy and discussion have a singular answer to everything. People treat science like a religion. People who propose alternate views to things unproven (but generally accepted) are - ironically - shunned and chastised.

 

If religion would just disappear off the face of the earth, we'd just find something else to blindly follow. Ask someone who firmly believes in global warming why they believe in it. They'll most likely give you an answer that they can see (or others who report can see) with their eyes like 'the ice caps are melting' or 'temperatures are rising' and avoid the actual science in the formulation of the theory. They'll most likely just repeat what some 'authority' says. People are quick to believe the popular belief rather than question what's established; they also make it a point to laugh at and shun those who who question. What does that remind you of?

 

 

I never said the world would be perfect. But I think it would likely be better. The point of learning science, philosophy, etc. is that they open people's minds and spawn intelligent discussion, like I said. Many people grow up in communities averse to thought and discussion. I am of the opinion that, were this not the case, people would certainly still come to many divergent opinions; however, their path to arriving at those opinions, views, etc., would foster the kinds of thought that make this world a better place. Again, not philosophical thought, per se, but just getting some experience actually using your brain in the kind of ways that those areas encourage. Intelligent thought and discussion;logical thought; embracing the necessary task of pushing your beliefs to their limits, testing the implications, and modifying your beliefs accordingly, etc.

 

And true "science" is the exact opposite of blind following. Anyone really dedicated to science is always looking for data to confirm or deny theories and suppositions. Sure, some get sucked up into the emotion or whatever behind some issue, i.e. global warming. But that's not the fault of science as an academic discipline.

 

You do not appear to have comprehend my post in the least. In your self-asserted desire to put biased people in their place, you are just looking for something to be contentious about. My post did the exact opposite of claiming that anything has exact answers. Instead, I want people to learn how to think for themselves.

 

Again, it's like ignoring the racism and hatred that religion sometimes spawns just because a 'true' religious person would be forgiving and accepting. If Christians are supposed to mold their life in Jesus's image, then I'd say most of them are failing miserably. You aren't going to overlook what is for what should be - and that's what science to the general public is.

 

Nothing brings forth intelligent discussion if you shut out other alternatives and you'd be very hard-pressed to find anyone who unbiasedly looks at all the alternatives without any prejudice. It's called being human. We grow attached to ideas that make us feel safe, be it religious, scientific or otherwise, and we defend them with a warped rationale.

 

In essence, I'd say true intellectual thought would lead one towards the existence of a deity, and not atheism like you say. Science and philosophy can only go so far before you're forced to answer why instead of how. It's as if you've completely disregarded (or forgotten) the fact that religion serves as an example of the philosophical thought you so highly speak of. I can't say I've read the Bible fully, but I've read enough of the Torah to conclude that religion was based on thought and morals arrived at through intelligent discussion - but of course, with little scientific thought.

 

It's quite obvious that someone like Jebediah Jenkins from the Southwest Montana Ministry of God didn't sit down and think/write the words in the Bible, yet through the digestion of words and thoughts by others, Jebediah Jenkins HAS been molded by the Bible and it's supposed teachings. Incorrectly or not is another story. The point is that our intellectual discussions tend to arise not from the direct source, but other (simpler) outlets because no one has enough time to sit down and study everything. Hell, even then Bible I read has been translated 3424324324 times, to the point that some phrases just sound silly.

 

You say true scientific thought is the exact opposite of blind following? That may be true, but then how many people would you say go the way of true science? Certainly not the general population, which is what we're discussing here. They'll stick to blindly following what they read in that article, which is what some reporter saw (or at times wanted to see) when he read the journal written by a scientist, who at his position of power may or may not have made a mistake or been slightly partial when reporting. That first article will put that thought in the back of their mind, but it's the second or third article that makes it true. I don't think there's any way of fully engaging in a true intellectual discussion without having arrived at a conclusion yourself. There's a lack of actual technical knowledge that can't be avoided. Unless you've studied science for decades and have deeply thought about it, any intellectual discussion about it is chewed and digested.

 

It's as to say that as soon as someone talks about 'facts,' they aren't having a true intellectual discussion any more unless they've arrived at the fact themselves - because most facts have a few people who argue against it and ignoring their opinions would no longer make the discussion truly intellectual because you've inserted a bias into the thinking. Personally, I believe the only thing we can truly know (if we don't study a discipline for all our lives) are morals and ethics - things that we arrive at within ourselves. While outside influences do dictate a lot of our ethics and morals, their absence doesn't make it impossible to think about, because there's no factual base to begin with.

 

Think about political elections. Some vote Republican because of their economic theories and others vote Democrat for that same reason. Their theories usually contradict each others' and we're responsible for deciding which ones we side with. How the hell are we supposed to truly decide that? Most of us don't have economics degrees nor do we understand why one theory is inferior to the other past what we're told by politicians, the news, or by friends. I'm currently studying economics and I can tell you that I know less now than when I started the degree program. For every economic theory (barring the bare basics,) there's a counter theory that we're forced to choose from. How can you let us decide which one makes more sense if we haven't begun to understand why they make sense? You can give me a cookie-cutter response as to why it makes sense but the fact of the matter is I won't be 100% positive of the truth behind it unless I arrive at it myself. That's why in political elections, I vote on social and moral issues, for the most part. People say in economics there are right and wrong answers, but in morals there are just opinions. I think it's the other way around, really. The only real answers we can arrive at are those in morality and ethics, and everything we (the general population) has to say about economics is about as good as opinion.

 

That's why I think what you're saying is false. While true intellectual discussion and critical thinking would free us from blind following, it's so hard to have all the tools to engage in it that arguing its existence to the general population is senseless. In most political, scientific and even religious discussion, the thinking is done for us and our discussions involve spitting out handpicked and rehearsed lines molded by prejudices and prior beliefs. So in that sense, science isn't very different from religion and using it as a basis for anything wouldn't solve a thing in my opinion. I understand that you're talking about true scientific and philosophical thought, but I won't go into it because (as I've said before) it just can't exist in the general population.

 

And it's not a self asserted desire to put biased people in their place, it's a self asserted desire to put the enlightened intellectuals who think they live by pure thought and reasoning in their place. We all know much less than we think and THAT is the reason why our world is how it is. We think we know when we really don't and what we truly can know, we let others decide for us.

The world would be a much better place without religion.

 

 

 

Because modern-day Europe has turned out so well, hasn't it? Especially the economic situation throughout the continent.

Uh.

 

So atheism is to blame for the current economic climate in Europe?

Religion is to blame for the economic climate in America.

Religion is to blame for the economic climate in America.

 

Joking?

I'm...

 

so glad I'm not a part of this argument.

 

(but my one sentence totally did start all of it)

Religion is to blame for the economic climate in America.

 

Joking?

Well, I was.... but after I said it I realized it's an argument that COULD be made, but I'm totally not the person who wants to make that argument.

IMO, the world would be a better place if more people gathered the knowledge which is the typical spring board for thinking people toward atheism - AKA science, philosophy, etc. If that could happen, I'd be far less concerned about people's ultimate religious choice if they at least had some background in the hard sciences, philosophy, and intelligent discussion.

 

 

You're acting like science, philosophy and discussion have a singular answer to everything. People treat science like a religion. People who propose alternate views to things unproven (but generally accepted) are - ironically - shunned and chastised.

 

If religion would just disappear off the face of the earth, we'd just find something else to blindly follow. Ask someone who firmly believes in global warming why they believe in it. They'll most likely give you an answer that they can see (or others who report can see) with their eyes like 'the ice caps are melting' or 'temperatures are rising' and avoid the actual science in the formulation of the theory. They'll most likely just repeat what some 'authority' says. People are quick to believe the popular belief rather than question what's established; they also make it a point to laugh at and shun those who who question. What does that remind you of?

 

 

I never said the world would be perfect. But I think it would likely be better. The point of learning science, philosophy, etc. is that they open people's minds and spawn intelligent discussion, like I said. Many people grow up in communities averse to thought and discussion. I am of the opinion that, were this not the case, people would certainly still come to many divergent opinions; however, their path to arriving at those opinions, views, etc., would foster the kinds of thought that make this world a better place. Again, not philosophical thought, per se, but just getting some experience actually using your brain in the kind of ways that those areas encourage. Intelligent thought and discussion;logical thought; embracing the necessary task of pushing your beliefs to their limits, testing the implications, and modifying your beliefs accordingly, etc.

 

And true "science" is the exact opposite of blind following. Anyone really dedicated to science is always looking for data to confirm or deny theories and suppositions. Sure, some get sucked up into the emotion or whatever behind some issue, i.e. global warming. But that's not the fault of science as an academic discipline.

 

You do not appear to have comprehend my post in the least. In your self-asserted desire to put biased people in their place, you are just looking for something to be contentious about. My post did the exact opposite of claiming that anything has exact answers. Instead, I want people to learn how to think for themselves.

 

Again, it's like ignoring the racism and hatred that religion sometimes spawns just because a 'true' religious person would be forgiving and accepting. If Christians are supposed to mold their life in Jesus's image, then I'd say most of them are failing miserably. You aren't going to overlook what is for what should be - and that's what science to the general public is.

 

Nothing brings forth intelligent discussion if you shut out other alternatives and you'd be very hard-pressed to find anyone who unbiasedly looks at all the alternatives without any prejudice. It's called being human. We grow attached to ideas that make us feel safe, be it religious, scientific or otherwise, and we defend them with a warped rationale.

 

In essence, I'd say true intellectual thought would lead one towards the existence of a deity, and not atheism like you say. Science and philosophy can only go so far before you're forced to answer why instead of how. It's as if you've completely disregarded (or forgotten) the fact that religion serves as an example of the philosophical thought you so highly speak of. I can't say I've read the Bible fully, but I've read enough of the Torah to conclude that religion was based on thought and morals arrived at through intelligent discussion - but of course, with little scientific thought.

 

It's quite obvious that someone like Jebediah Jenkins from the Southwest Montana Ministry of God didn't sit down and think/write the words in the Bible, yet through the digestion of words and thoughts by others, Jebediah Jenkins HAS been molded by the Bible and it's supposed teachings. Incorrectly or not is another story. The point is that our intellectual discussions tend to arise not from the direct source, but other (simpler) outlets because no one has enough time to sit down and study everything. Hell, even then Bible I read has been translated 3424324324 times, to the point that some phrases just sound silly.

 

You say true scientific thought is the exact opposite of blind following? That may be true, but then how many people would you say go the way of true science? Certainly not the general population, which is what we're discussing here. They'll stick to blindly following what they read in that article, which is what some reporter saw (or at times wanted to see) when he read the journal written by a scientist, who at his position of power may or may not have made a mistake or been slightly partial when reporting. That first article will put that thought in the back of their mind, but it's the second or third article that makes it true. I don't think there's any way of fully engaging in a true intellectual discussion without having arrived at a conclusion yourself. There's a lack of actual technical knowledge that can't be avoided. Unless you've studied science for decades and have deeply thought about it, any intellectual discussion about it is chewed and digested.

 

It's as to say that as soon as someone talks about 'facts,' they aren't having a true intellectual discussion any more unless they've arrived at the fact themselves - because most facts have a few people who argue against it and ignoring their opinions would no longer make the discussion truly intellectual because you've inserted a bias into the thinking. Personally, I believe the only thing we can truly know (if we don't study a discipline for all our lives) are morals and ethics - things that we arrive at within ourselves. While outside influences do dictate a lot of our ethics and morals, their absence doesn't make it impossible to think about, because there's no factual base to begin with.

 

Think about political elections. Some vote Republican because of their economic theories and others vote Democrat for that same reason. Their theories usually contradict each others' and we're responsible for deciding which ones we side with. How the hell are we supposed to truly decide that? Most of us don't have economics degrees nor do we understand why one theory is inferior to the other past what we're told by politicians, the news, or by friends. I'm currently studying economics and I can tell you that I know less now than when I started the degree program. For every economic theory (barring the bare basics,) there's a counter theory that we're forced to choose from. How can you let us decide which one makes more sense if we haven't begun to understand why they make sense? You can give me a cookie-cutter response as to why it makes sense but the fact of the matter is I won't be 100% positive of the truth behind it unless I arrive at it myself. That's why in political elections, I vote on social and moral issues, for the most part. People say in economics there are right and wrong answers, but in morals there are just opinions. I think it's the other way around, really. The only real answers we can arrive at are those in morality and ethics, and everything we (the general population) has to say about economics is about as good as opinion.

 

That's why I think what you're saying is false. While true intellectual discussion and critical thinking would free us from blind following, it's so hard to have all the tools to engage in it that arguing its existence to the general population is senseless. In most political, scientific and even religious discussion, the thinking is done for us and our discussions involve spitting out handpicked and rehearsed lines molded by prejudices and prior beliefs. So in that sense, science isn't very different from religion and using it as a basis for anything wouldn't solve a thing in my opinion. I understand that you're talking about true scientific and philosophical thought, but I won't go into it because (as I've said before) it just can't exist in the general population.

 

And it's not a self asserted desire to put biased people in their place, it's a self asserted desire to put the enlightened intellectuals who think they live by pure thought and reasoning in their place. We all know much less than we think and THAT is the reason why our world is how it is. We think we know when we really don't and what we truly can know, we let others decide for us.

 

Let me start by clarifying something: "IMO, the world would be a better place if more people gathered the knowledge which is the typical spring board for thinking people toward atheism."

I'm not sure how exactly you interpreted this, but I see how it can be ambiguous. What I meant is the knowledge which is the typical springboard for those who move from being more religious to being more atheist/agnostic. I don't mean to imply that people are necessarily or automatically more likely to become atheist or agnostic upon merely studying things like science and philosophy.

 

I certainly don't disagree that some people approach science with blind faith, and this is more typical in some areas than others. I don't think that those people have really engaged in intelligent discussion, though; while, if one must be indoctrinated, I prefer it to be with science over religion, neither one is the type of activity I'm advocating.

 

"I don't think there's any way of fully engaging in a true intellectual discussion without having arrived at a conclusion yourself. There's a lack of actual technical knowledge that can't be avoided. Unless you've studied science for decades and have deeply thought about it, any intellectual discussion about it is chewed and digested."

 

This is necessarily true, but it doesn't mean that science is not a fruitful area to discuss, read about, and ponder. My ultimate goal would be to have people able to think for themselves, to attempt to evaluate evidence, and come to reasonable and logical conclusions. It is absolutely true that there are biased studies and articles out there. And it sucks when people use these things as their starting points and assumptions. But at least they are going through the motions of trying to elucidate mechanisms, think logically, etc. That's the result I'm hoping for here.

 

I don't care as much about the ultimate conclusions that people draw. Through their thoughts, readings, discussions, etc. they could think that abortion is right/wrong, that the death penalty is right/wrong, that God does/doesn't exist, etc. I'm NOT in search of ultimate truth. I was attempting to imply that in advocating philosophy as a beneficial field of study. Many parts of philosophy may be forever debatable and never have concrete answers. But I anticipate that the mental processes that go into considering these fields of study will have positive results.

 

It's not to say that studying religious documents can't have the same result. But I find the difference to be that most religions assume that they already have the right answer, and it was divined many years ago, in a very different time and society. Obviously scientists and philosophers argue vehemently for their positions, but the overwhelming trend is to attempt to find truths via logic and empiricism. Given that dichotomy, I find most religious settings to be not as conducive to the kinds of thinking I "desire" as I find science and philosophy to be. Religion is certainly possible of being self-reflective, but I don't find that to be too common. It's important to attempt to view things from the outside, stepping as far away as you can from preconceived notions and spoon-fed opinions. However people get there is fine by me.

 

Lastly, I'm guessing you would have put "enlightened intellectuals" in quotes there, if I understand your meaning (incredulity, skepticism, something like that?). As for that, all we can do is try our best. I can't speak for everyone, but that's what I do. I frequently attempt to refine my views. No one's thought are pure and logic infallible, but that doesn't mean I won't keep trying to get to that point. If not being there at this moment makes me some sort of sham, then so be it.

I'm...

 

so glad I'm not a part of this argument.

 

(but my one sentence totally did start all of it)

 

 

Credit hog :lol

Religion is to blame for the economic climate in America.

 

Joking?

Well, I was.... but after I said it I realized it's an argument that COULD be made, but I'm totally not the person who wants to make that argument.

 

I'll give it a shot:

 

1) Rab's parents are religious.

2) Rab's parents' religion encouraged procreation.

3) These encouragements lead them to conceive Rab.

4) Rab is to blame for the economic climate in America.

5) Therefore, religion is to blame for the economic climate in America.

 

COMMY! ANARCHIST! KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY MEDICARE!

The world would be a much better place without religion.

 

 

Society likely wouldn't exist without religion. Think twice before you say that now.

So if aliens never came to the planet thousands of years ago to be mistaken for gods by primitive ancient people society wouldn't exist? And humans have been around longer than religion. More people have died in the name of religion than for anything else(or so I've heard).

The world would be a much better place without religion.

 

 

Society likely wouldn't exist without religion. Think twice before you say that now.

So if aliens never came to the planet thousands of years ago to be mistaken for gods by primitive ancient people society wouldn't exist? And humans have been around longer than religion. More people have died in the name of religion than for anything else(or so I've heard).

 

I have no idea what the first sentence means. The second sentence is true. The 3rd sentence is false (think Marx, Karl).

Uh.

 

So atheism is to blame for the current economic climate in Europe?

 

 

 

Yes and no. One can make the argument that there are causes for an increase in atheism, so one could say it is technically those aspects that are at fault. In the end though, Europe wouldn't be in nearly as much of an economic disaster as they are in now if non-religiousness wasn't as high as it is over there. It's simply a pattern that America looks like it will be soon to follow.

 

1. As religion decreases, morality decreases.

2. As morality decreases, entitlement programs increase.

3. As entitlement programs increase, the economy decreases.

 

The United States is the only "religious" developed nation left, and they also happen to be the developed nation with the least amount of economic entitlements. Just think of the united States as being a few decades behind Europe, which makes it easy to predict the future.

So if aliens never came to the planet thousands of years ago to be mistaken for gods by primitive ancient people society wouldn't exist? And humans have been around longer than religion. More people have died in the name of religion than for anything else(or so I've heard).

 

 

You believe what you'd like to believe in terms of religion. If that's how you think, fine. Although society (note, I never said humanity) is completely founded upon religion. Go back to the earliest of civilizations. The Mesopotamians. Religion existed in the earliest of civilizations, as opposed to nomadic (and essentially savage) wanderers.

 

Religion gave the basis of society. What comes with religion? Law. What does it say in the Bible? Obey your governing body, or something along those lines. Religion gave people a reason to be civilized. Religion is no longer needed to this date due to the fact that our knowledge is so great, but I guarantee you we would never have come this far without it.

Yes and no. One can make the argument that there are causes for an increase in atheism, so one could say it is technically those aspects that are at fault. In the end though, Europe wouldn't be in nearly as much of an economic disaster as they are in now if non-religiousness wasn't as high as it is over there. It's simply a pattern that America looks like it will be soon to follow.

 

1. As religion decreases, morality decreases.

2. As morality decreases, entitlement programs increase.

3. As entitlement programs increase, the economy decreases.

 

The United States is the only "religious" developed nation left, and they also happen to be the developed nation with the least amount of economic entitlements. Just think of the united States as being a few decades behind Europe, which makes it easy to predict the future.

 

 

Those connections are specious at best. I don't see the cause and effect that that you are saying is a given, with the exception of your third point. Your other two require gigantic illogical leaps to accept.

 

Germany has the strongest economy in Europe at this point, and 34% of Germans ascribe to no religion. Only 45% say they believe in God.

 

Like, I don't want to be mean, but unless you want to back this up a little further, it strikes me as utterly ridiculous.

Let me start by clarifying something: "IMO, the world would be a better place if more people gathered the knowledge which is the typical spring board for thinking people toward atheism."

I'm not sure how exactly you interpreted this, but I see how it can be ambiguous. What I meant is the knowledge which is the typical springboard for those who move from being more religious to being more atheist/agnostic. I don't mean to imply that people are necessarily or automatically more likely to become atheist or agnostic upon merely studying things like science and philosophy.

 

Oh, OK. I thought you had meant what you said in your last sentence.

 

I certainly don't disagree that some people approach science with blind faith, and this is more typical in some areas than others. I don't think that those people have really engaged in intelligent discussion, though; while, if one must be indoctrinated, I prefer it to be with science over religion, neither one is the type of activity I'm advocating.

 

 

Why one over the other? Both are equally dangerous when blindly followed. One could make the argument that science is more dangerous than religion in that sense because it claims to prove with fact rather than faith. Distorted scientific facts are both dangerous to those who stop short of questioning God's existence and those who question God. Blind following in general is terrible, but a part of humanity nonetheless. Personally, I don't see much difference in blind following of science and religion, so I'll disagree with you there.

 

"I don't think there's any way of fully engaging in a true intellectual discussion without having arrived at a conclusion yourself. There's a lack of actual technical knowledge that can't be avoided. Unless you've studied science for decades and have deeply thought about it, any intellectual discussion about it is chewed and digested."

 

This is necessarily true, but it doesn't mean that science is not a fruitful area to discuss, read about, and ponder. My ultimate goal would be to have people able to think for themselves, to attempt to evaluate evidence, and come to reasonable and logical conclusions. It is absolutely true that there are biased studies and articles out there. And it sucks when people use these things as their starting points and assumptions. But at least they are going through the motions of trying to elucidate mechanisms, think logically, etc. That's the result I'm hoping for here.

 

 

It might be fruitful to discuss, but stops incredibly short of a true intellectual discussion. Your goal of having people think for themselves is impossible to reach because of the sheer volume of digested and 'dummied down' information we discuss. In this case it isn't even about blind following due to bias and lack of sensibility. If someone blinfolds you for your whole life and tells you the sky is purple, you won't know what the sky is, what purple is, but it's what you've been told. So when someone asks you what color the sky is, you'll say purple without really understanding what you've just said (never mind the validity of the whole thing.) This is how discussions among the general population go. We don't know of what we speak of because we haven't arrived at the conclusions ourselves. The only actual judgments and choices we can make are between conflicting ideas through an evaluation of the amount of people believing each. If 1000 people tell you the sky is purple and 1 tells you the sky is blue, you'll think that one guy is wrong simply because it isn't accepted by the majority. As we've seen throughout history, though, believing in the majority doesn't bring us any closer to actual truth because they've been wrong countless times - but that''s simply the only true factor we have to base our judgments are (if we aren't true experts in the field.)

I don't care as much about the ultimate conclusions that people draw. Through their thoughts, readings, discussions, etc. they could think that abortion is right/wrong, that the death penalty is right/wrong, that God does/doesn't exist, etc. I'm NOT in search of ultimate truth. I was attempting to imply that in advocating philosophy as a beneficial field of study. Many parts of philosophy may be forever debatable and never have concrete answers. But I anticipate that the mental processes that go into considering these fields of study will have positive results.

 

Definitely, but that's not what we were originally discussing. We were discussing religion vs. science as the ultimate source of following. Like I said before, ethics and morality arrived at through one's own thought should be the ultimate source of following, but we let politics, religion and even science decide that for us - when they themselves are disciplines and fields that are imperfect. Anything beyond morality and ethics will be information we've received through others that we simply cannot trust entirely.

 

It's not to say that studying religious documents can't have the same result. But I find the difference to be that most religions assume that they already have the right answer, and it was divined many years ago, in a very different time and society. Obviously scientists and philosophers argue vehemently for their positions, but the overwhelming trend is to attempt to find truths via logic and empiricism. Given that dichotomy, I find most religious settings to be not as conducive to the kinds of thinking I "desire" as I find science and philosophy to be. Religion is certainly possible of being self-reflective, but I don't find that to be too common. It's important to attempt to view things from the outside, stepping as far away as you can from preconceived notions and spoon-fed opinions. However people get there is fine by me.

 

But what you're seeing is religion used by the general population, not as a field of study or reflection. If that's the case, then you need to view science the same way - and it's the same deal. I've already discussed how before.

 

Perhaps science, in its pure sense, is more efficient in determining truths through logic - but science and religion are two very different things attempting to view life in very different ways. Religion, as a field of study, is supposed to define greater truths beyond the worldly sense of the word - the why in all of this, while science is left to determine the how. Religion isn't updated regularly so it falls behind science in everything in which time plays a role, but there are discussions that are timeless. Sadly, those who oppose religion don't treat it as such and sometimes go against it as a whole because they (ironically) take everything in a literal sense. Religious scholars in general aren't as inflexibile.

 

Lastly, I'm guessing you would have put "enlightened intellectuals" in quotes there, if I understand your meaning (incredulity, skepticism, something like that?). As for that, all we can do is try our best. I can't speak for everyone, but that's what I do. I frequently attempt to refine my views. No one's thought are pure and logic infallible, but that doesn't mean I won't keep trying to get to that point. If not being there at this moment makes me some sort of sham, then so be it.

 

But our best will never be good enough. We'll always have to rely on others for vital pieces of the information we judge (again, on anything besides our innate sense of morality and ethics), which leads to blind following not in the sense that one chooses to discard opposing views, but in the sense that truth will forever be truly unknown. We may have opposing views is scientific study but unless we arrive at it ourselves, any judgment we pass on it will be useless. It's beyond our control and I personally believe you, or anyone else that tries to reach intellectual purity, will fail at reaching that point.

I'd be surprised if this lasted more than a few seconds in court before being thrown out.

 

I would disagree, there is certainly a case to be made if it is indeed public land. That's the primary issue here. If the land was private there isn't a case. But because it's taxpayer funded, it's a different story

 

Do I think this deserves its day in court? No. There are more important cases currently waiting to be heard than this.

Religion is to blame for the economic climate in America.

 

This is correct in a way, if by 'religion' you mean people blindly putting their faith in laissez-faire capitalism. Because whether we acknowledge it or not, it's practically a religion here.

Religion is to blame for the economic climate in America.

 

Joking?

Well, I was.... but after I said it I realized it's an argument that COULD be made, but I'm totally not the person who wants to make that argument.

 

I'll give it a shot:

 

1) Rab's parents are religious.

2) Rab's parents' religion encouraged procreation.

3) These encouragements lead them to conceive Rab.

4) Rab is to blame for the economic climate in America.

5) Therefore, religion is to blame for the economic climate in America.

 

COMMY! ANARCHIST! KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY MEDICARE!

Oh man, I missed this and it's so awesome.