Why would an omnipotent being ever get angry?

[Timsup2nothin]

Huh?!? The act of judging is religious? And having values is religious too? How so?

Others said that before me, but I wanted to point out that religion does not have exclusivity on asserting values and assessing things or behaviors accordingly.



Even if "judging values" were some form of religious mentality creeping in - the denial of this premise already cripples your argument here - I don't see how exercising this, and coming to the conclusion that science does a better job, is something challenged by your argument. You never confronted the conclusion of this judgment of value, just identified - wrongly, imho - that it is a subjective (and somehow religious) act, and stopped there.

The issue isn't that subjective judgements are religious, it is that they are individual. The judgement as to what best informs about "the universe and one's place in it" is not something a religious person can do for you, but it isn't something that you can do for the religious person either.

Well, my wife always tell me that I do need to travel more.

Nevertheless, the widest disparities in behavior are much more easily found online these days.



Really? You had the chance to accuse "extreme" atheists of anything, and the worst you could come up with is "they say things that annoy me"?

Actually I said "they are annoying", which for me is not only a different thing, but pretty unusual. I normally do take the responsibility for my response, recognizing that annoyance is my reaction, not a reflection that the other is inherently annoying. But the extreme believer in science, with their constant drumbeat of "my knowledge of trivia makes me a better human than you" is exceptional.

And at the same time, you toned down religious extremists quite a lot. I agree that their attempts to control behavior is rather evil, and perhaps it is meta in the sense that their concrete actions are, in the end, attempts at controlling behavior; nevertheless, between beheadings, buildings fallen, children indoctrination and meddling with politics and legislation, you painted a very tamed version of the religious extremist.

I feel that you made my argument of "false equivalency" even stronger.

I toned down the science extremist quite a bit too. In truth I am far less concerned about someone who says "you must act like this" than I am someone who says "you must think this way." One is admittedly dangerous, but the other I find completely disgusting.

New argument here. Ok, I'll bite.

I suppose that, as we are all humans, we all have many of the same frailties. And I suppose that those of us who are more vocal, thus annoy you, could be the ones falling for this urge. But before pinning this on atheism, you'd have to look at how they behave on other debates, to see if atheism is a special case, or if they act this way in general.

And before you say that different personalities abound in all camps, do remember that proselytizing is reputed a virtuous behaviors, and encouraged, by many, if not all, religions. There is, again, no atheist equivalent.

If those proselytizing don't usually refer to non converts as stupid, they have their own cool terms; immoral, hellbound, arrogant, blind, infidel, all come to mind. Imagine how annoyed you'd be.

I'd also like to point out that, in debates, trying to convince the other part is kinda inevitable. So if you are basing this on debates you had, chances are your perception is quite colored.

Proselytizing is indeed a part of many faiths. The practitioners of those faiths see it as a sharing of a reward. When you turn it down they are sad for you. Those infested with righteousness may become demanding about it, leading to the problems you describe.

Proselytizing for science is an entirely different affair. There is not the least shred of sharing about it; it is pure righteousness right from the gate. And when you turn it down there is an immediate determination of cause: something wrong with you. If you don't embrace science as a way of life you are clearly just stupid, or at the very least not as smart as the glorious me.

There is some truth in your argument here, but it is distorted.

There is a yearning that scientific knowledge gets embraced. Because the division between the abstraction of science and the utilities we get from it is false. I mean, we have GPS today because Einstein daydreamed about how would it look like to ride a beam of light.

The attitude of contemplation is vital to the scientific effort, and it would be enhanced and improved if the world as a whole took part. I weep thinking of how much brainpower was wasted in silly things such as "the mystery of the trinity" or "how many angels could fit in a pinhead", that are hard just because they are incomprehensible nonsense.

Your very quote here, that you support science only when relegated to the "workplaces where it is useful", is a clear signal of what is wrong. First, because it is inconsistent to expect the utilities without the abstraction, second, because it is incoherent to use one and reject the other; but most important, because we would get better and faster science if everybody was doing it.

We would get better and faster religion if everyone were doing it as well. If everyone genuinely embraced a Christ like life the world would be a great place to live. If everyone put aside their determined pursuit of misery and accepted enlightenment the wheel would stop, or so the Buddhists will tell you.

My comment was an off the cuff response to a similarly constructed statement on religion. Your judgement that it is "a clear signal of what is wrong" is subjective...and illustrative.

To create a toaster we could use, we needed to:

Invent math;
Invent writing;
Invent the wheel - and later, cogs;
Invent levers;
Invent metallurgy - and later plastic;
Invent engineering;
Uncover the electromagnetic force;
Invent power lines

We also needed to invent bread and butter, elaborate economy and create systems of distribution of goods, like roads. I'll spare the many steps to all those things; you get the point. It took MANY scientists, some of them among the most brilliant minds the world have ever seen, so we can have these little boxes in our homes, helping to fill our bellies.

Thanks for sparing in your sharing of knowledge. We could say that I now know more about toasters than ever. It is unlikely that I will make better toast as a result. Had you fully elaborated on the creative process of toasters It would have been really annoying, and still not improved the toast.

That we consider toasters mundane, instead an amazing thing that would blow the mind of 99% of the humans who ever lived, is a testament to the transformative power of science and of understanding, and shows how empowering it is to get results for ourselves, instead of trusting providence.

My issue, in the end, is that I truly would like to see the whatever that will make toasters obsolete. I look to labs, not to churches, to that end.

Why? Do you find toast to be inadequate somehow? Personally I find toast to be extremely satisfying. So much so that in the absence of a toaster I have been known to make it in a pan.

I've been accused of having an anecdote for every argument, and I will now fulfill expectations.

I had this friend, who fell for this girl that we knew. Because we were sort of a group before he fell for her the three of us would often be together during those moments when really the two of them should have been alone, to spare him the added embarrassment of me seeing him fail miserably at courting the girl. It also might have worked better had I not been there to serve as his foil...badly.

The main component of his approach was basically the caveman competition based on ability to provide, updated to the scientific age. In short, he showed her how smart he was. Constantly. Using me as the 'benchmark' that he was smarter than.

We could walk past a patch of flowers, and he would ask me what kind one or another of them were. When I shrugged off the question she and I would get a botany lesson neither of us were interested in. Similar lessons were available, prompted by almost anything the environment had to offer. Frequently I would be tested to see if I recalled previous lessons, which I never seemed to do.

He'd have been far better off keeping the science of classifying the flowers in a lab, and just smelling the flowers.

Regards .

To you as well.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's funny because I can't think of a book with more different and often contradictory versions of it around than the bible.

Get a series of anthropology texts. Or paleontology. Pretty much any of the "historical sciences". It is a sure thing that the subject matter of these sciences has not changed since it occurred, and yet the prevailing theory changes regularly, often without any introduction of new evidence.

 

[Leoreth]

Get a series of anthropology texts. Or paleontology. Pretty much any of the "historical sciences". It is a sure thing that the subject matter of these sciences has not changed since it occurred, and yet the prevailing theory changes regularly, often without any introduction of new evidence.

What's your point?

The fact that prevailing theories and scientific consensus can change over time is an inherent part of the scientific method, and in many ways what makes the scientific method so effective.

CH on the other hand was suggesting that Christian religious views are superior because they are consistent and absolute, which is ridiculous because even its source (at least according to his own sola scriptura views) has many different versions, and that's not even mentioning different interpretations.

Applying the standards of one complex to the other is not only indicative of projection, but also intellectually dishonest.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What's your point?

The fact that prevailing theories and scientific consensus can change over time is an inherent part of the scientific method, and in many ways what makes the scientific method so effective.

CH on the other hand was suggesting that Christian religious views are superior because they are consistent and absolute, which is ridiculous because even its source (at least according to his own sola scriptura views) has many different versions, and that's not even mentioning different interpretations.

Applying the standards of one complex to the other is not only indicative of projection, but also intellectually dishonest.

The only point I was making was to suggest an answer to your question about other books with as much inconsistency as the bible. The fact that your response is taking the form "well, inconsistency is inherent in those because science, so when I said the bible is the most inconsistent I assumed those were eliminated because science" amuses me no end.

I specifically suggested historical sciences for a reason, and even mentioned that oftentimes changing theory there involves no new evidence, and it never involves any change in the actual material. So the changes of prevailing theory are often nothing more than the result of exercises in persuasiveness, abetted by a realization that if a generation passes without a new theory the science may be deemed just as dead as the subject matter...which I don't recall actually being a core element of the scientific method at all.

As to your argument with CH...carry on. I am more inclined to agree with you than him.

 

[El_Machinae]

About 93% of humans who ever lived are currently alive today. So, toasters would probably only blow the minds of about 80% of humans who ever lived

 

[Timsup2nothin]

About 93% of humans who ever lived are currently alive today. So, toasters would probably only blow the minds of about 80% of humans who ever lived

I would guess that the majority of people who have never seen a toaster probably wouldn't have electricity, so to them it would just be a metal box that doesn't open with a strange hand grip on top...probably not mind blowing at all.

That's a mind blowing statistic, by the way.

 

[Borachio]

I can't see why toasters would blow anyone's mind. Practically no one who uses them understands how they work, so why would someone previously unacquainted with the technology be unduly perplexed? Small children don't seem to have much of a problem.

All you need to know about toasters is that they toast sliced bread when you push the handle down and the more or less blackened bread randomly pops up again, or burns the house down. What's not to like about them?

Someone without prior knowledge of electricity might be a bit mystified about the glowing wires and how "flames" had apparently been trapped therein, but I don't see even that "blowing anyone's mind". It's still just the application of heat to do some cooking, however you look at it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I can't see why toasters would blow anyone's mind. Practically no one who uses them understands how they work, so why would they?

All you need to know about toasters is that they toast sliced bread when you push the handle down and the more or less blackened bread randomly pops up again, or burns the house down. What's not to like about them?

Someone without prior knowledge of electricity might be a bit mystified about the glowing wires and how "flames" had apparently been trapped therein, but I don't see even that "blowing anyone's mind". It's still just the application of heat to do some cooking, however you look at it.

When the bread pops out, if they stick their hand in to see if they can figure out how that happened it will be quite the experience. Not "mind blowing" perhaps, but certainly memorable.

 

[El_Machinae]

I got the statistic backwards. 7% of all people are currently alive, not the other way around

 

[FredLC]

The issue isn't that subjective judgements are religious, it is that they are individual. The judgement as to what best informs about "the universe and one's place in it" is not something a religious person can do for you, but it isn't something that you can do for the religious person either.

Or, in short, that everyone has his own opinion.

Which I never denied, but still fail to negate that, when comparing disparate opinions, it's quite possible to find one of them lacking. Or none. Or both.

Not all ideas are born the same, and metaphysical ones are, very consistently, in the lacking side.

Actually I said "they are annoying", which for me is not only a different thing, but pretty unusual. I normally do take the responsibility for my response, recognizing that annoyance is my reaction, not a reflection that the other is inherently annoying. But the extreme believer in science, with their constant drumbeat of "my knowledge of trivia makes me a better human than you" is exceptional.

This is a very strange judgement. Seems to me you have a problem with anally-retentive pedantic people, and when they happen to be scientifically inclined, snd their speech reflects that fact, it somehow qualifies them as extremists.

I'm was not seeing what this have to do with extremism, but now I am not seeing what it has to do with atheism as well. Are you trying to paint an stereotype of behavior?

I toned down the science extremist quite a bit too. In truth I am far less concerned about someone who says "you must act like this" than I am someone who says "you must think this way." One is admittedly dangerous, but the other I find completely disgusting.

So please stop the toning down. Do describe the vilest, most repulsive thing you see someone do in order to satisfy his/hers atheistic tendencies. Let's see if it merits the labels "extremist", or even "disgusting".

Proselytizing is indeed a part of many faiths. The practitioners of those faiths see it as a sharing of a reward. When you turn it down they are sad for you. Those infested with righteousness may become demanding about it, leading to the problems you describe.

Proselytizing for science is an entirely different affair. There is not the least shred of sharing about it; it is pure righteousness right from the gate. And when you turn it down there is an immediate determination of cause: something wrong with you. If you don't embrace science as a way of life you are clearly just stupid, or at the very least not as smart as the glorious me.

Well, I think, again, you are showing a colored opinion. I am a person VERY interested in science, and I'll speak about modern physics, history, philosophy and sociology with whoever will listen. And in all my conversations my goals are two: teaching what I know and learning what the other person has to teach. Whatever is the prevalent aspect will depend on who knows more of a given subject.

It's hard to debate personal anecdotes, as I did not took part on the conversations that formed your opinion, but that isn't my experience at all. Perhaps you have had a greatly unfortunate placement in the curve that describes the personalities of skeptics or perhaps, due to being more metaphysically inclined than I, you have had more confrontational contacts with them.

I have to point out that even if that is the case, I still do not see anything that merits the use of such loaded term as "extremist" to describe those people.

We would get better and faster religion if everyone were doing it as well. If everyone genuinely embraced a Christ like life the world would be a great place to live. If everyone put aside their determined pursuit of misery and accepted enlightenment the wheel would stop, or so the Buddhists will tell you.

My comment was an off the cuff response to a similarly constructed statement on religion. Your judgement that it is "a clear signal of what is wrong" is subjective...and illustrative.

Whatever people do in masses will get a boost, obviously. This invites the more interesting question of "what deserves to be boosted?", but this line of inquiry would derail the conversation.

That said, I now don't know if you are minimizing your response, and do not want to see science "restricted to workplaces" because it was just hyperbole (My comment was an off the cuff response), or if you stand by it (We would get better and faster religion if everyone were doing it as well). I am finding it difficult to see what is your point.

What exactly does my subject opinion illustrates? Care to elaborate?

FWIW, I also think that religion is hopeless in seeking consensus, for lack of material grounds to judge different ideas, so the proposition of unity allowing for a truly coherent effort is an "a priori" impossibility.

But, more to the point, I want to ask you if you also think that religion should be kept in the churches, where it is "pertinent" (quotation marks deliberated)?

Thanks for sparing in your sharing of knowledge. We could say that I now know more about toasters than ever. It is unlikely that I will make better toast as a result. Had you fully elaborated on the creative process of toasters It would have been really annoying, and still not improved the toast.

You did ask. Your exact words were: "How many scientists does it take to make toasters?". Is it annoying when people do answer the challenges you propose? Is it why you think scientifically inclined people are annoying in general, as a function if their sets of interests? Do tell.

You, and I, may be unable to improve toasts with this, but somewhere out there there is someone who can. In my utopia, that person will have the opportunity.

Why? Do you find toast to be inadequate somehow? Personally I find toast to be extremely satisfying. So much so that in the absence of a toaster I have been known to make it in a pan.

Out of respect, I'll assume you didn't mean to defend stagnation or complacency.

That said, many times we don't know what we are missing until we see it. When toast 2.0 does come up from adventurous minds that wanted to know why they were nice in the first place, I think there will be a pretty decent chance you'll be on board.

I've been accused of having an anecdote for every argument, and I will now fulfill expectations.

I had this friend, who fell for this girl that we knew. Because we were sort of a group before he fell for her the three of us would often be together during those moments when really the two of them should have been alone, to spare him the added embarrassment of me seeing him fail miserably at courting the girl. It also might have worked better had I not been there to serve as his foil...badly.

The main component of his approach was basically the caveman competition based on ability to provide, updated to the scientific age. In short, he showed her how smart he was. Constantly. Using me as the 'benchmark' that he was smarter than.

We could walk past a patch of flowers, and he would ask me what kind one or another of them were. When I shrugged off the question she and I would get a botany lesson neither of us were interested in. Similar lessons were available, prompted by almost anything the environment had to offer. Frequently I would be tested to see if I recalled previous lessons, which I never seemed to do.

He'd have been far better off keeping the science of classifying the flowers in a lab, and just smelling the flowers.

So, your friend is, well, silly. I don't see how this made him "extreme", nor how is he a benchmark to either atheism or scientific inclination.

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

I can't see why toasters would blow anyone's mind. Practically no one who uses them understands how they work, so why would someone previously unacquainted with the technology be unduly perplexed? Small children don't seem to have much of a problem.

All you need to know about toasters is that they toast sliced bread when you push the handle down and the more or less blackened bread randomly pops up again, or burns the house down. What's not to like about them?

Someone without prior knowledge of electricity might be a bit mystified about the glowing wires and how "flames" had The apparently been trapped therein, but I don't see even that "blowing anyone's mind". It's still just the application of heat to do some cooking, however you look at it.

Easily available food, alone, would take care of awing a great many of the early human generations.

Heat without fire and lights blipping, would awe many generations more.

Crafting smooth surfaces of lightweight metals (or metal analogues) would dazzle even others.

Weird, unknown materials, such as plastic, even many more. Native peoples used to barter a wealthy of raw materials, and even people, for shiny beads, after all.

Thanks for illustrating how easily we take our modern conveniences for granted.

Anyway, they would be perplexed exactly because they don't know the ins and outs of the machine. Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic, unless we are introduced to how it works.

Regards .

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So, your friend is, well, silly. I don't see how this made him "extreme", nor how is he a benchmark to either atheism or scientific inclination.

I have found that his "silly" behavior is fairly typical. Similar to taking a rhetorical question like "how many scientists does it take to make a toaster?" as a request for a lecture on the interrelatedness of invention. That's what makes him an effective benchmark.

That ties things back together nicely I think. We can go back to multi threading the debate if you like, but I'd rather just go with this in mass.

The religious people can keep their religion in their churches, the science fans can keep their science in their labs (and god out if they are atheists), and I'm fine with both. When the religious people poke their heads out and say "our god says you can't do that" I will dispute it. When the atheists poke their head out and say "you are stupid to not believe that there is no god" I will ask them to prove that there isn't. When the science types poke their head out and say "this is right, so you are stupid not to agree, though we may discover that we're wrong later" I will tell them that they might be wrong now and they just are too stupid not to admit it.

By and large I'm just a counterpuncher.

Regards

 

[FredLC]

Well, yeah, you are missing the haymaker.

The punch at me was quite obvious, and making these "if you answer this you are dumb" statements are but a dodge to the larger issue that the mystical attitude you are defending isn't equivalent to a scientific one, and isn't harmless either.

To each their own, I suppose. Nothing will be done to deprive you pious people of whatever utility your metaphysics does not block us from getting.

Science, like gravity, works even to those who fail to acknowledge it.

Regards .

 

[Akka]

I stand by my first comment :

*shrug*
Be contrarian for the sake of it if you want. It's pretty pointless but if it amuses you...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, yeah, you are missing the haymaker.

The punch at me was quite obvious, and making these "if you answer this you are dumb" statements are but a dodge to the larger issue that the mystical attitude you are defending isn't equivalent to a scientific one, and isn't harmless either.

To each their own, I suppose. Nothing will be done to deprive you pious people of whatever utility your metaphysics does not block us from getting.

Science, like gravity, works even to those who fail to acknowledge it.

Regards .

It wasn't intended as "if you answer this you are dumb"...it was a simple demonstration that whatever number it takes, it isn't seven billion. So the "we must convert the world" or we won't get the next toaster theory is unsupportable. Your choice to answer it with a dazzling display of knowledge was yours, not mine.

As for my "pious mystical metaphysics" not being harmless...I'm not trying to impose it on anyone (I actually haven't noticed it even being imposed on myself). I'm also not trying to impose my level of education in the sciences on anyone (which is self imposed). I actually live by "to each their own," rather than grudgingly accepting it.

Cheers.

 

[FredLC]

It wasn't intended as "if you answer this you are dumb"...it was a simple demonstration that whatever number it takes, it isn't seven billion.

It was an involuntary dodge that you decide to take advantage from, than?

Look, you are doing quite the strawman here. I am not asking for mandatory lab service or forced classes on superstring physics at gunpoint. I am pointing out though that there is a serious problem of cognitive dissonance in a population that lives ass deep in the fruits of the scientific endeavor and at the same time is hostile to the core principles that even allow these fruits to exist.

Apparently you think that wasting this potential isn't harmful, because a pace, some pace, is kept. I think it is harmful even so, for slowing down is tolerating suffering that need not be. I think we could have much better toasters now if we weren't wasting our time with nonsense. And this externality affects everybody, every potential beneficiary of this collective endeavor of minds that should be, but isn't.

Silly me to be eager for a better world.

So the "we must convert the world" or we won't get the next toaster theory is unsupportable. Your choice to answer it with a dazzling display of knowledge was yours, not mine.

"A dazzling display of knowledge"; meh! This is one of the sneakiest attempts at a strawman attack I have ever seen. Congratulations, I guess?

"Look at the arrogant extremist atheist/science man, daring to answers questions posed. He used almost 30 words, the true sign of smug intellectual vanity; and it is a problem of all his kin, my botanist presumably virgin friend does it too.

If you are dazzled with what little happened here, than I expect you to be dazzled at toasters, even today. Perhaps you are, and that's why you don't think they could improve.

Or you can drop the act, and perhaps finally answer what is the act of rationalists and atheists that merits the label of "extremist".

Btw, we just need the wrong happenstance for a full blown 100 years delay on human progress. Einstein was not born in an Amish farm, but he could have been. Who knows, maybe someone who would have solved the unified field problem was wasted that way already, and we will never know about it.

As for my "pious mystical metaphysics" not being harmless...I'm not trying to impose it on anyone (I actually haven't noticed it even being imposed on myself).

Irrelevant. The very attitude is a problem. It gives credence and shelter to rather bad ideas. You are doing it in this very thread.

Everybody have the right of their opinion, no matter how wrong. But they don't exist in a vacuum.

I'm also not trying to impose my level of education in the sciences on anyone (which is self imposed). I actually live by "to each their own," rather than grudgingly accepting it.

Who is speaking of imposing anything to anyone? I want to convince people that rational thought is the way to go; I may be unsuccessful, I may even be incompetent at that, but I don't want to compensate either forcefully.

The mantra "to each their own" is right, but is incomplete. Maybe the day we all decide to become eremites. Until than, what we do reverberates in the lives of other people, and it's a moral responsibility to acknowledge that. Freedom and responsibility should balance out each other.

Cheers.

Regards .

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It was an involuntary dodge that you decide to take advantage from, than?

Look, you are doing quite the strawman here. I am not asking for mandatory lab service or forced classes on superstring physics at gunpoint. I am pointing out though that there is a serious problem of cognitive dissonance in a population that lives ass deep in the fruits of the scientific endeavor and at the same time is hostile to the core principles that even allow these fruits to exist.

Apparently you think that wasting this potential isn't harmful, because a pace, some pace, is kept. I think it is harmful even so, for slowing down is tolerating suffering that need not be. I think we could have much better toasters now if we weren't wasting our time with nonsense. And this externality affects everybody, every potential beneficiary of this collective endeavor of minds that should be, but isn't.

Silly me to be eager for a better world.

How do you define a better world? Why is your definition the last word? My pious metaphysical mysticism, as you choose to call it, has, in my opinion, made me a much better person than my studies of the sciences did. While my opinion may not be reliable on that, I am definitely much better liked by family, friends, and for the most part strangers. It has had far more effect on far more people than my studies of the sciences did, though perhaps had I continued my career in the technical field I started out in by now I'd have made some great breakthrough towards a better toaster that no one is going to die for lack of.

"A dazzling display of knowledge"; meh! This is one of the sneakiest attempts at a strawman attack I have ever seen. Congratulations, I guess?

"Look at the arrogant extremist atheist/science man, daring to answers questions posed. He used almost 30 words, the true sign of smug intellectual vanity; and it is a problem of all his kin, my botanist presumably virgin friend does it too.

If you are dazzled with what little happened here, than I expect you to be dazzled at toasters, even today. Perhaps you are, and that's why you don't think they could improve.

Or you can drop the act, and perhaps finally answer what is the act of rationalists and atheists that merits the label of "extremist".

As demonstrated, this automatic to the point of unconsciousness insistence that all other pursuits are unworthy and detrimental to humanity.

Btw, we just need the wrong happenstance for a full blown 100 years delay on human progress. Einstein was not born in an Amish farm, but he could have been. Who knows, maybe someone who would have solved the unified field problem was wasted that way already, and we will never know about it.

Irrelevant. The very attitude is a problem. It gives credence and shelter to rather bad ideas. You are doing it in this very thread.

"Bad ideas" that might "delay human progress"? Is there some race going on? Is there some alien civilization that is going to beat us to the next toaster? And that is setting aside that you are again demonstrating that you consider "human" progress to be measured strictly in scientific progress.

Everybody have the right of their opinion, no matter how wrong. But they don't exist in a vacuum.

Correct. You don't.

Who is speaking of imposing anything to anyone? I want to convince people that rational thought is the way to go; I may be unsuccessful, I may even be incompetent at that, but I don't want to compensate either forcefully.

Well, I will point out that "if you don't agree with me you are an obstacle to humanity" is not terribly compelling. But it isn't something that makes me want to break out arms and defend myself, so there's that.

The mantra "to each their own" is right, but is incomplete. Maybe the day we all decide to become eremites. Until than, what we do reverberates in the lives of other people, and it's a moral responsibility to acknowledge that. Freedom and responsibility should balance out each other.

Indeed. My own life has reverberated with many influences. Those you would most likely disparage without even a cursory examination are the ones I cherish the most, for the most part. So they are the ones I generally focus my efforts to pass on.

Regards .

To you as well.

 

[bhavv]

Toasters are completely unnecessary though because the bread can still be eaten without being toasted.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Really? You had the chance to accuse "extreme" atheists of anything, and the worst you could come up with is "they say things that annoy me"?

I've been accused of being "extreme." I'm really not. There are some extreme atheists that scare me, with how nasty they can be and the violence they advocate.

Do I have strong opinions? Yes. Do I want to go around destroying places of worship and burning/destroying holy texts? No. Absolutely not. For better or worse, these things are part of human culture, and merit preservation. Some of it's good, and the parts that are bad... well, my hope is that future humans can learn from those and decide to eliminate the bad stuff from their society.

And before you say that different personalities abound in all camps, do remember that proselytizing is reputed a virtuous behaviors, and encouraged, by many, if not all, religions. There is, again, no atheist equivalent.

If those proselytizing don't usually refer to non converts as stupid, they have their own cool terms; immoral, hellbound, arrogant, blind, infidel, all come to mind. Imagine how annoyed you'd be.

Indeed. I can't imagine going doorknocking on Saturday morning with a copy of Cosmos or some other Carl Sagan book in my hand and bothering people. It's just such a bizarre thing to do. That's not to say I won't get into a conversation, or keep silent when some holier-than-thou Christian gets her nose in the air and preachy at me when we had been up to that time having a quiet conversation waiting for the bus in front of the college and she's just found out that my major is anthropology and starts ranting about humans coming from monkeys and that I'd better "rethink" my decision to major in anthropology. I don't appreciate even passive threats like that

That we consider toasters mundane, instead an amazing thing that would blow the mind of 99% of the humans who ever lived, is a testament to the transformative power of science and of understanding, and shows how empowering it is to get results for ourselves, instead of trusting providence.

I am reminded of a Downton Abbey episode in which Mrs Hughes acquires this newfangled thing called a "toaster" and when she tries to learn how to use it, Carson the butler thinks something has caught fire in the servants' hall and grabs a bucket of sand, ready to put it out. Toasters were not readily embraced in that household!

You might want to consider that you are incorrect by believing science and religion are completely separated.

Institutionally, sciences and religion are closely linked. Many universities in the West have religious objectives in their statutes and in fact, the very first modern universities were founded to further the objectives of Islam or Catholicism. Monastaries often were places of scientific discovery.

I might be wrong to think sciences and religion are closely linked, though it should be noted that I am not interested in defending religion from the claims by science.

No. I have been accused over and over on this forum of being a science "worshiper" - having science as my "religion." Science is not a religion. I don't hold "science services." I don't have a statue of Carl Sagan that I genuflect to every Sunday.

I will concede one thing common to both science and religion: Music. There are songs written about science, particularly about the space program. "Hope Eyrie" is one I've mentioned before on CFC:


Link to video.

There are others, one sung by Chris Hadfield aboard the International Space Station, and a filk I first heard many years ago about Valentina Tereshkova, the first woman in space. It's unfortunate that the composer never recorded it, because it's a really beautiful song that honors the first female astronaut.


I am quite aware that monasteries were centers of learning and literacy. I know that religion played a huge part in the founding of the world's major universities. But that does not mean that science = religion.

But the extreme believer in science, with their constant drumbeat of "my knowledge of trivia makes me a better human than you" is exceptional.

What, in science, do you consider "trivial"?

I toned down the science extremist quite a bit too. In truth I am far less concerned about someone who says "you must act like this" than I am someone who says "you must think this way." One is admittedly dangerous, but the other I find completely disgusting.

One of the problems I have with religion is that all too often I see that what the followers say they believe is not congruent with how they act. Someone who preaches at me to follow a religion that tells people not to be judgmental - and then turns around and judges me for what I believe, say, or do that is not in the least bit harmful to anyone else - is a liar and a hypocrite, as far as I'm concerned. And isn't there stuff in the New Testament that says lying and hypocrisy are bad?

Proselytizing is indeed a part of many faiths. The practitioners of those faiths see it as a sharing of a reward. When you turn it down they are sad for you. Those infested with righteousness may become demanding about it, leading to the problems you describe.

Proselytizing for science is an entirely different affair. There is not the least shred of sharing about it; it is pure righteousness right from the gate. And when you turn it down there is an immediate determination of cause: something wrong with you. If you don't embrace science as a way of life you are clearly just stupid, or at the very least not as smart as the glorious me.

How do you define "science as a way of life"? To be alive, you can't get away from science. Even dead people can't get away from science, because of entropy.

We would get better and faster religion if everyone were doing it as well. If everyone genuinely embraced a Christ like life the world would be a great place to live. If everyone put aside their determined pursuit of misery and accepted enlightenment the wheel would stop, or so the Buddhists will tell you.

How does everyone "doing" religion make it better and faster? It might make it more popular, depending on whether its universal practice were voluntary or coerced, but I don't understand your reasoning here.

Get a series of anthropology texts. Or paleontology. Pretty much any of the "historical sciences". It is a sure thing that the subject matter of these sciences has not changed since it occurred, and yet the prevailing theory changes regularly, often without any introduction of new evidence.

And of course religion never has different people saying "hey, wait a minute, it just occurred to me that we might be wrong about such-and-such..."

The difference is that science is actually willing to own up to what is shown to be wrong, and go with what is more accurate.

 

[Borachio]

Toasters are completely unnecessary though because the bread can still be eaten without being toasted.

True. I very frequently eat raw toast.

What I don't get about the toast you get served with in hotels, restaurants and cafes, though, is: it's always cold. And sometimes even, bizarrely, leathery. Especially in hospitals. Is there a special training school caterers get sent to so they can always serve cold toast?