phlebas

I forget who shared this line with us. (Krieger?)

"Not believing in God is a religion? Is not collecting stamps a hobby?"

luvluv

Koy and Typhon you have said in a very long winded way what I believe I said in my original post, that both religon and science are RAW MATEIRALS that can be used for good or bad. They are not good things in themselves.

I will further say that population explosions, as such, could never on their own ruin the environment. Famine and the lack of resources would just "correct" the population explosion and the world would go on turning as it always has. If population was our only problem then the ENVIRONMENT as such would not be in any real danger. The primary threats to our planets survival are ecological: global warming, the depletion of the ozone layer, and the atomic bomb. Unlike overpopulation, these are threats to the existence of life on this planet PERIOD. All of these things are the results of applied science, and that by a SIGNIFICANT MINORITY of the planet's population.

Science is nothing more than knowledge, and knowledge can be used either destructively or constructively depending on the user. The last I heard, the Communists were officially atheists, yet they managed to develop one or two nuclear bombs.

(Koy, I'm going to save you a lot of time right now. If you are insulting in your posts, I don't read them. I haven't for months now with anybody on this board. So anybody wondering why I have not responded to your questions, there you go. With the first few insults, I generally just skip to the next poster. I am just saying this in compassion because you seem to have spent a lot of time with your response.)

Ty:

"Nonsense. Materialism IS people over ideas."

I'd like to see this supported. In materialism people are just the accidental by products of the determined processes of physics. People have no intrinsic value at all in materialism. Value, actually, does not exist but is merely an intellectual construct and is entirely subjective.

"No, sorry, but you're wrong here again. For example, I'm an atheist. I have NO BELIFE in god or gods."

To lack a belief in God is to believe in materialism, and materialism has a belief system. There are varieties of materialism, just as there are varieties of religion, but it is nonetheless a belief system united by certain beliefs and values (i.e. the universe is all that exists, all phenomena in the universe is reducible to the laws of physics, etc. These are beliefs because they are convictions held in excess of evidence. Extrapolations that large are simply beliefs).

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

And all I'm saying, luvluv is that the mentality that created and maintains the dogma--the tenets--of the christian cult for centuries was and is the primary malevolent users of that applied science.

The mentality that created the cult created the atomic bomb and, worse, used it.

If you'll recall, the majority of the scientists who worked on creating the original bomb when told all of the pieces of the puzzle and how it was going to be used petitioned against such unnecessary destruction; the mentality that it is "in God's hands," however, I contend, allowed us to use it, justify it and sleep like babies at night because of it.

All of us, except of course for the pilot and crew that dropped it. He eventually committed suicide and most of the crew were in and out of mental institutions their entire lives.

The myths of christianity are lies. There is no God to have hands for everything to be "ok" or justified within, so there is no separation of God and dogma. Without the dogma--without the lies of the mythology--there is no "God" character, so to say something sophomoric like "they are both tools" while technically true, is ultimately false, because one of those tools is a deliberate lie designed to control the human mind; to force it to be a puppet either for "the good" or for "the bad," but ultimately it is still a control mechanism designed to turn a free individual mind into that "good/bad" puppet.

Science, however, destroys such a constraint and while it too is trivially a tool that can be used for "bad" or "good," it is benign and has no inherent detrimental side effect, because, ultimately, is not a lie used to control the human mind.

Do you see the distinction now?

Religion is inherently and ultimately detrimental, whereas Science is neither.

Both can be used for the "good," but ultimately, whatever temporary good religion may be used for will automatically be outweighed by the inherent, ultimately detrimental side effect.

So, we have two tools, both of which can be used for unimaginable bad, but only one of which can be used for ultimate good.

False for the ten billionth time.

Only true on a trivial and therefore irrelevant level. A materialist bases his or her "belief" on the facts in evidence, contrary to the theist who bases his or her beliefs on whim, in spite of the evidence.

Clearly, anyone who has no basis for his or her beliefs beyond personal whim does not deserve to be taken seriously beyond quaint curiosity (unless, of course, such beliefs are detrimental to society, which is the absolute case with christian beliefs as has been demonstrated to be true for centuries).

(edited for lysdexia - Koy)

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Goliath

Luvluv,

I do not believe that any god exists, and I am not a materialist. You are therefore (once again) demonstrably wrong.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Automaton

It's not a matter of actual existence, it's a matter of demonstrated existence. If you can suggest a better way for demonstrating existence other than perception, please inform us of it luvluv. Naturalism is believing all that has been demonstrated to exist. It is reasonable, even though there probably are things which we do not perceive or infer to exist and actually do exist. So... Go ahead, try demonstrating your God. We dare ya.

Clutch

No takers on the Cognitive Closure version of the challenge?

luvluv

Golliath can you define materialism and why you disagree with it?

Perhaps a better word for me to use would have been Naturalism.

luvluv

Koy:

"The myths of christianity are lies. There is no God to have hands for everything to be "ok" or justified within, so there is no separation of God and dogma. Without the dogma--without the lies of the mythology--there is no "God" character, so to say something sophomoric like "they are both tools" while technically true, is ultimately false, because one of those tools is a deliberate lie designed to control the human mind; to force it to be a puppet either for "the good" or for "the bad," but ultimately it is still a control mechanism designed to turn a free individual mind into that "good/bad" puppet."

All of this is your opinion, yet you draw a conclusion from it as if it were a fact.

Can I ask you if you have any experience in organized religion?

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Goliath

Luvluv,

Materialism, as far as I'm aware, is the assertion that nothing supernatural exists.

I do not disagree with materialism. However, I do not agree with it, either. Are you intentionally putting words in my mouth, or do you have very poor reading comprehension skills?

You would have been equally incorrect. Here is a complete and total list of things that I believe regarding the supernatural:

Nothing.


Sincerely,

Goliath

luvluv

Then you aren't an atheist you are an agnostic? In that case you would not be implicated in the original statement I made.