Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-11-2016, 01:18 PM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(18-11-2016 05:56 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(18-11-2016 05:38 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  There is a difference between "believing" in science and accepting the facts that science has provided humanity.

We can all accept that science has explained many facets of reality to us that we either didn't know or didn't fully understand. Take the theory of gravity, you don't just "believe" it, you accept it as a fact of life. Gravity always existed, we just didn't have a full understanding of it but the laws of gravity have been proven to be accurate over and over again so it's just a fact now, it's not a "belief".

If we were to present the law of universal gravity to a theist and state that it explains why the moon revolves around the Earth and they say "Nope! The moon revolves around the Earth because God put it there to control the tides and he controls it's movements!" They are using a faith "belief" to assert their claim, there is nothing factual about it but yes my claim that it's gravity makes a whole lot more sense and has been scientifically proven over and over.

Whenever a theist has ever asked me why I "believe" in science I always tell them I trust in the scientific method of hypothesis, study, testing, observation, modification of hypothesis, theory and peer review. Since this system is built upon a very solid and reality based foundation it's much easier to trust and "believe" than a theistic view that a magic spirit being is having a war with another spirit being over our souls that may or may not be subject to eternal torture or whatever the fuck they believe, literally anyone can create a religion based on any imaginary being and call it facts but it's not actually a fact, it's just a belief based on literally nothing but someone's thoughts and feelings, that's not the same as a scientific evidence based conclusion based on years of study and experimentation.

I hope you can see now how ridiculous it sounds to equate a scientific belief system to a religious belief especially since the truth is true no matter who believes it but religion only matters because some people got together and believed it.

I dare say that many religious people postulate the same thing about their own beliefs. 'well its different than believing in...' they probably assure themselves.

You are under the disposition that your belief without proof is somehow more excusable or logical than a theists' belief.

You justify it by saying 'well the scientific method is based on empirical evidence'. Do you not think that theists' have a very similar approach to how they justify their beliefs?

Were you ever a theist Sita? If you were, can you recall how you justified your beliefs then?

(18-11-2016 05:44 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The question has been answered over and over and over again. You refuse to hear the answer. Goodbye.

I didn't know that I could refuse something someone else wasn't telling me in the first place.

I answered your silly leading question (by the way, have you stopped beating your wife?) several days ago in another thread, and numerous people have answered it, in that thread and this one, since then. You continue to ask the same question that we have already answered over and over. That is extremely annoying. Stop whining about us not answering the question. We did answer it. If you don't like the answer, tough. Now goodbye, Heywood.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
19-11-2016, 05:24 PM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(18-11-2016 06:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(18-11-2016 06:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And your totally wrong. People don't "believe" in science.
Science is a method. It works, bitch.
It requires no "belief".
If you doubt that, try praying for a new heart valve and see how far that gets you.

Religious belief is an abandonment of reason. That may or may not be justified. So far, we've heard no reason to abandon reason. IN FACT, most religionists today try to explain how their beliefs are in allignment with what is known from science.

if you're saying science requires no belief, are you saying that it runs on... FAITH!?

Big Grin

I'm not asking you to abandon your reason, but all this did start because I want others to treat believers with reason. To not mock or ridicule them. Because I know that the scientific method is probably one of the greatest things ever devised by mankind. But at the end of the day for us common folk, it all boils down to belief without proof, so I don't think we should mocking and ridiculing the religious for something that we ourselves do.

(18-11-2016 06:20 PM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  All this silliness reminds me of this scene.




To be fair I did concede that faith probably wasn't the choicest of words I could have used.

Don't give me that "common folk" crap. No it does NOT boil down to "belief without proof", you ignoramus. Education is available to anyone who wants to get one, regardless of your fake *class* bullshit hiding point.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2016, 06:59 PM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(19-11-2016 12:26 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  It's pretty clear that by "a history of questioning", he is referring to fundamentalism and scriptural literalism versus a genuinely scholarly approach to scriptural studies. He says so right in the clip.

Then he doesn't know much about Arab Philosophers and his ignorance (and bigotry) in the matter is showing. I am not so sure if I can blame him for that though, not many people go outside their own cultural history to learn about other cultures. Even I myself have a only a modest understanding of Arabic culture and history, and most of what I have learned is only in regards to the early caliphates.

One of the well most known philosophers to the west being Averroes

Quote:Religious fundamentalism in Christianity is mostly limited to the United States, especially the Deep South, and Dawkins comes from Anglicanism, which is one of the most liberal of the Christian sects. He speaks from that perspective. But he doesn't mis-state the case: he speaks in comparative terms. It is quite true that it's hard to question whether the Qur'an is 100% literal and God-dictated in the Islamic communities, while in fundamentalists are much more rare in Christianity outside of the aforementioned subgroup/regions.

[quote]In those videos, Dawkins specifically states that violence is coming from members of that faith-group, based largely on their cultural understanding of that religion. To deny that simple fact is madness. When Christians and Hindus start strapping bombs to themselves and walking into crowded shopping centers, schools, and nightclubs with machineguns while shouting "God is Great!", then I will say that Dawkins is being too harsh in saying that the religion seems to be disproportionately producing ideology-driven monsters.

Quote:I don't see anywhere he says or even implies that most Muslims are violent or dangerous people, only that Islam produces most of the problems with which we're dealing today (putting aside, I'd personally say, the "religion" of unfettered Capitalism), and that it's naive to say otherwise, or deny that religion is a major driving factor in the way those terrorists are driven to violence by the way they see the world through their scriptures and use them to justify their actions.

Let me put to you in this way, this regional battle has been waged since the time of the Achaemenid empire. Between the Greeks and the Persians, the Romans and the Persians, the Romans(byzantine) and the Arabs, The Crusaders against the Arabs, the Colonial Empires and the Ottoman Empire. Capitalism against Communism. Its been happening for a long long time. Because there is a lot of money to be had in the region.

The only difference between then and now is that now nations need to convince the people they have a valid casus belli. So hire a few mercenaries (ISIS) slap religion on them and voila.

Here's a little perspective from the middle east on 'ISIS'





Quote:And I beg to differ about "fringe nut jobs". At least in the USA, it's all too common to meet people who are perfectly content to base their worldview so heavily on a literalist interpretation of the Bible that they advocate for theocratic laws and/or the erosion of the secular/neutral state, try to stop evolution from being taught in schools, and a host of other warped-perspective outlooks. My own parents are an example of this. My folks are both PhDs, my mom a college professor and my dad a senior process engineer at a chemical plant, and yet they both refuse to accept evolution as reality (for just one example) because of the way the scriptures have warped their perceptions. They both happily support "conversion therapy" and laws that discriminate against homosexuals. And so on. They are neither fringe nor nuts, but are just normal people-- highly intelligent ones. Simply miseducated by their upbringing on scriptural literalism.

Oh come on they're not THAT bad, not even in rural Wyoming.

Quote:Calling out religion for the harm that it does, in strident terms that match how alarmed you are about it, does not make you hateful.

Saying that it is evil and its followers are going to murder you, that IS hateful.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2016, 07:14 PM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(18-11-2016 06:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  if you're saying science requires no belief, are you saying that it runs on... FAITH!?

NO dumbass.
It runs on EVIDENCE. Replicable evidence. Scientrists are very very competitive. The physician scientists I know hate each other's fucking guts. They would give anything to prove their professional rivals wrong. That's why science works. They PROVE themselves right, with EVIDENCE that can be repeated in experiments, that others can't debunk.

Faith has NO PART at all in any of it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
19-11-2016, 08:37 PM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(19-11-2016 07:14 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(18-11-2016 06:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  if you're saying science requires no belief, are you saying that it runs on... FAITH!?

NO dumbass.
It runs on EVIDENCE. Replicable evidence. Scientrists are very very competitive. The physician scientists I know hate each other's fucking guts. They would give anything to prove their professional rivals wrong. That's why science works. They PROVE themselves right, with EVIDENCE that can be repeated in experiments, that others can't debunk.

Faith has NO PART at all in any of it.

[Image: 53054429.jpg]

Seriously though, we moved past this part of the conversation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2016, 09:20 PM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(19-11-2016 06:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Then he doesn't know much about Arab Philosophers and his ignorance (and bigotry) in the matter is showing. I am not so sure if I can blame him for that though, not many people go outside their own cultural history to learn about other cultures. Even I myself have a only a modest understanding of Arabic culture and history, and most of what I have learned is only in regards to the early caliphates.

One of the well most known philosophers to the west being Averroes

You're brighter than this. He's not talking about the history of Islam throughout time. The fact that much of modern science is based in roots that flourished in the Islamic world while Christendom was languishing in the Dark Ages is well known to scientists, and Dawkins as well as a number of prominent science popularizers have spoken and/or written on the subject, usually lamenting the way that the rise of fundamentalist thought in that world (in reaction to the Crusades, mostly) killed what could have become the Renaissance almost five hundred years before the Christian world managed it.

He is speaking about the present culture of Islamic fundamentalism which, even in its non-radical forms, is one that does not really allow for overt questioning of the divine, literal nature of the Qur'an. That's not to say that it doesn't exist, only that it's not common in that world.

You are the one who keeps trying to defend Islam by referring to its entire history, while ignoring the present issues. Dawkins is talking only about the latter. The history of the culture is irrelevant in that discussion, except as a cautionary tale if we allow Christian fundamentalism to erode the progress of scientific thought the way it did in the Muslim world.

(19-11-2016 06:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Let me put to you in this way, this regional battle has been waged since the time of the Achaemenid empire. Between the Greeks and the Persians, the Romans and the Persians, the Romans(byzantine) and the Arabs, The Crusaders against the Arabs, the Colonial Empires and the Ottoman Empire. Capitalism against Communism. Its been happening for a long long time. Because there is a lot of money to be had in the region.

The only difference between then and now is that now nations need to convince the people they have a valid casus belli. So hire a few mercenaries (ISIS) slap religion on them and voila.

Here's a little perspective from the middle east on 'ISIS'

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand your point is?

Again, the history is useful to provide context, but it's not really relevant to your point attempting to claim that Dawkins is a bigot toward Muslims.

Show me another religion whose members are routinely strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up people, slicing the heads off people who don't agree with them (including their fellow Muslims, most commonly), and in general thinking that they have a free ticket from God Almighty to kill anyone who isn't like them.



(19-11-2016 06:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Oh come on they're not THAT bad, not even in rural Wyoming.

Did you miss the part where I said I was talking about my parents? And most of the rest of my family. My own siblings have cut me off from even speaking to me-- it has literally been a decade since they did more than say "hello" on the phone, barely even acknowledging one another at family holiday gatherings-- because I am someone who rejected their religion. Far from being uncommon, this is quite normal in large swaths of the United States, in the places where fundamentalist thought dominates.

(19-11-2016 06:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
Quote:Calling out religion for the harm that it does, in strident terms that match how alarmed you are about it, does not make you hateful.

Saying that it is evil and its followers are going to murder you, that IS hateful.

Can you show me where he said that? I've seen where he said that the fundamentalist doctrines which convince people to murder in the name of God are evil... and I'd agree with that. I'm a little shocked that you don't.

I suggest you spend some time perusing the list, below, and explain to me why Dawkins isn't allowed to call out the religion that is convincing these people to do the things they are doing in the name of God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Is...st_attacks

Before you would reply, I would like to emphasize that, for the purpose of analyzing Dawkins' comments on the subject, it is completely fucking irrelevant that most of its members are normal, peaceful people, or what sort of history the Islamic world had before the 20th century. Dawkins is addressing the current climate of Islamist terrorism, killing in the name of Allah.

I have drawn a lot of fire on this board and on others for defending Muslims (I live in an apartment complex that's roughly half Muslim, and they're fantastic neighbors and good people, by and large) against generalizations, paranoid calls to export them all or prohibit their immigration "just in case" they "might" be a threat, and so on.

But you have got to be off your fucking rocker to pretend that there's no connection between Islamic fundamentalism and the current violence.

Now I happen to concur with you that the root of the issue is economics, in that the European powers attempted to manipulate the region in order to attain its resources in competition with the Fascist and then the Communist blocs, enabling the rise of the radical/fundamentalist/Islamist fringe to a position of social dominance. (People and nations often pull hard to the "right" in reaction to an external and/or existential threat.) But regardless of the cause, and regardless of the history, it is the way things are right now, and Dawkins would be remiss if he did not address it. He also addresses the problems with the Christian fundamentalists in our culture, as do I.

It does not make him a bigot. If I am incorrect, feel free to show me.

And I'll just leave this here:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg (Nobel Prize winner in Physics, 1979)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
19-11-2016, 09:34 PM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
Another good quote from Dr. Weinberg,

"I have a friend — or had a friend, now dead — Abdus Salam, a very devout Muslim, who was trying to bring science into the universities in the Gulf states and he told me that he had a terrible time because, although they were very receptive to technology, they felt that science would be a corrosive to religious belief, and they were worried about it... and damn it, I think they were right. It is corrosive of religious belief, and it's a good thing too."

(Abdus Salam was his colleague and co-recipient of the Nobel Prize.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
20-11-2016, 05:29 AM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(19-11-2016 09:20 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(19-11-2016 06:59 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Then he doesn't know much about Arab Philosophers and his ignorance (and bigotry) in the matter is showing. I am not so sure if I can blame him for that though, not many people go outside their own cultural history to learn about other cultures. Even I myself have a only a modest understanding of Arabic culture and history, and most of what I have learned is only in regards to the early caliphates.

One of the well most known philosophers to the west being Averroes

You're brighter than this. He's not talking about the history of Islam throughout time. The fact that much of modern science is based in roots that flourished in the Islamic world while Christendom was languishing in the Dark Ages is well known to scientists, and Dawkins as well as a number of prominent science popularizers have spoken and/or written on the subject, usually lamenting the way that the rise of fundamentalist thought in that world (in reaction to the Crusades, mostly) killed what could have become the Renaissance almost five hundred years before the Christian world managed it.

He is speaking about the present culture of Islamic fundamentalism which, even in its non-radical forms, is one that does not really allow for overt questioning of the divine, literal nature of the Qur'an. That's not to say that it doesn't exist, only that it's not common in that world.

You are the one who keeps trying to defend Islam by referring to its entire history, while ignoring the present issues. Dawkins is talking only about the latter. The history of the culture is irrelevant in that discussion, except as a cautionary tale if we allow Christian fundamentalism to erode the progress of scientific thought the way it did in the Muslim world.

Lots of African countries aren't so great on the science either.

Quote:Again, the history is useful to provide context, but it's not really relevant to your point attempting to claim that Dawkins is a bigot toward Muslims.

Show me another religion whose members are routinely strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up people, slicing the heads off people who don't agree with them (including their fellow Muslims, most commonly), and in general thinking that they have a free ticket from God Almighty to kill anyone who isn't like them.

There's a logical fallacy in this somewhere. Straw man?

Quote:Did you miss the part where I said I was talking about my parents? And most of the rest of my family. My own siblings have cut me off from even speaking to me-- it has literally been a decade since they did more than say "hello" on the phone, barely even acknowledging one another at family holiday gatherings-- because I am someone who rejected their religion. Far from being uncommon, this is quite normal in large swaths of the United States, in the places where fundamentalist thought dominates.

I'm sorry for the problems that arose in your family, but there is nothing I can do about that.

Quote:Can you show me where he said that? I've seen where he said that the fundamentalist doctrines which convince people to murder in the name of God are evil... and I'd agree with that. I'm a little shocked that you don't.

He says it right at the beginning of the documentary

Quote:I suggest you spend some time perusing the list, below, and explain to me why Dawkins isn't allowed to call out the religion that is convincing these people to do the things they are doing in the name of God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Is...st_attacks

Before you would reply, I would like to emphasize that, for the purpose of analyzing Dawkins' comments on the subject, it is completely fucking irrelevant that most of its members are normal, peaceful people, or what sort of history the Islamic world had before the 20th century. Dawkins is addressing the current climate of Islamist terrorism, killing in the name of Allah.

I think that is pretty relevant for a man trying to convince me that religion is the root of all evil. And before you say he didn't choose the name, that might be true, but went along with it, which makes him an accomplice.

If one man murders another man, are all humans murderers?

Quote:I have drawn a lot of fire on this board and on others for defending Muslims (I live in an apartment complex that's roughly half Muslim, and they're fantastic neighbors and good people, by and large) against generalizations, paranoid calls to export them all or prohibit their immigration "just in case" they "might" be a threat, and so on.

Only Muslims I've ever meant were shy people, but we don't normally get a lot of them around here. There's a lot of racism where I live, so perhaps that is why they were so shy.

Quote:But you have got to be off your fucking rocker to pretend that there's no connection between Islamic fundamentalism and the current violence.

it plays a factor but it is not the instigator.

You seem to forget one very small thing, someone has to be supplying Isis with arms and munitions and someone also has to be buying their oil because people do not fight on faith alone, they fight for wealth. Once the mine runs dry you're going to see a lot of people jumping ship.

Furthermore Isis has a large number of tanks, beaten back two national militaries, is putting up a concerted effort against the Iranian military, Meaning they aren't just a bunch of rag tag rebels. Someone trained them in the art of military strategy, as well as how to operate tanks.

These things are not in the realm of theory they are the reality of logistics. Isis is the symptom of a disease, and that disease is not religion.

Quote:Now I happen to concur with you that the root of the issue is economics, in that the European powers attempted to manipulate the region in order to attain its resources in competition with the Fascist and then the Communist blocs, enabling the rise of the radical/fundamentalist/Islamist fringe to a position of social dominance. (People and nations often pull hard to the "right" in reaction to an external and/or existential threat.) But regardless of the cause, and regardless of the history, it is the way things are right now, and Dawkins would be remiss if he did not address it. He also addresses the problems with the Christian fundamentalists in our culture, as do I.

So you believe that their attempts existed only in the past but not the present? Is there any less reason that the western powers shouldn't be attempting to do so today especially now that there's less to stop them?

Quote:It does not make him a bigot. If I am incorrect, feel free to show me.

How about these?

Quote:And I'll just leave this here:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg (Nobel Prize winner in Physics, 1979)

If it takes religion for good people to do evil things, then the reverse must also be true, that it takes religion for evil people to do good things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2016, 07:57 AM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(20-11-2016 05:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  There's a logical fallacy in this somewhere. Straw man?

No, there isn't. There is a pushback by the Muslim world's most extreme members, who form a sizable minority of their population, who take the Qur'an as absolutely, 100% literally true and given directly by Gabriel from God to the Prophet Muhammad. As such, they feel that humanist values and liberties, as expressed by Western (post-Enlightenment) culture, are such a threat that they wish to conquer or otherwise repress it. Oh, it started out as "keep out of our society", but it has become expansionist and aggressive because we refused to do so.

It's really simple: do you deny that Islamists strap bombs to themselves, attack people with machineguns, and otherwise murder people because they think Allah commands them to do so? If you do not deny this, then how can you not call such an ideology inherently evil?

(20-11-2016 05:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I'm sorry for the problems that arose in your family, but there is nothing I can do about that.

Wasn't asking you to solve it. Was pointing out that your "it's not that bad" is not true for a great many of us. Spend some time perusing the Introductions forum, reading the stories of people who come here seeking community after being ejected from their old one after expressing doubt.

(20-11-2016 05:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  He says it right at the beginning of the documentary

And then he goes on to clarify exactly what he means by that: the literalist, unquestionable ideology that suppresses free thought and free people. It is against everything for which any post-Enlightenment thinker stands, especially one who knows the benefits of the Scientific Method of thought.

As I said before, if you can name one other ideology that is producing more deliberate evil than that of Islam, I'd like to know what it is.

(20-11-2016 05:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I think that is pretty relevant for a man trying to convince me that religion is the root of all evil. And before you say he didn't choose the name, that might be true, but went along with it, which makes him an accomplice.

If one man murders another man, are all humans murderers?

Now that's a strawman.

Of course the actions of one man don't reflect on another man. However, an ideology which drives some members to do horrible things, and yet is accepted by others (even if they do not commit the same acts) makes them accomplices in the murder. An easy example is White Supremacy. Not every member of the Klan wants to kill black people... and very few do. But they stand by an ideology that says the races must be kept separate, by force if necessary, and when a few of them take that to the extreme and actually use that force, I am able to say that it is an evil ideology.

(20-11-2016 05:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Only Muslims I've ever meant were shy people, but we don't normally get a lot of them around here. There's a lot of racism where I live, so perhaps that is why they were so shy.

I'm in one of the most racist towns I've ever inhabited, which says a lot seeing as I'm from the deep South. The reason my particular complex is full of Muslims is that they have sort of banded together for safety, so to speak. As far as I'm aware, they're the only ones in town. There's not even a mosque for two hours in any direction, until you come to the metropolitan areas of St. Louis and Memphis.

(20-11-2016 05:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  it plays a factor but it is not the instigator.

Video: The Islamic State hurls accused gays off rooftops to screams of “Allahu akbar!”
MARCH 30, 2016 8:19 AM BY RAYMOND IBRAHIM

In the following video clip, Islamic State members are seen hurling four people, one by one, to their deaths — all to triumphant shouts of “Allahu akbar!” The video was likely made last summer in Mosul according to local sources. Throwing people off rooftops is an Islamic punishment often reserved for homosexuals.


https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/03/video...lahu-akbar

Nah. Not evil at all.

(20-11-2016 05:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  You seem to forget one very small thing, someone has to be supplying Isis with arms and munitions and someone also has to be buying their oil because people do not fight on faith alone, they fight for wealth. Once the mine runs dry you're going to see a lot of people jumping ship.

Furthermore Isis has a large number of tanks, beaten back two national militaries, is putting up a concerted effort against the Iranian military, Meaning they aren't just a bunch of rag tag rebels. Someone trained them in the art of military strategy, as well as how to operate tanks.

These things are not in the realm of theory they are the reality of logistics. Isis is the symptom of a disease, and that disease is not religion.

They have plenty of knowledge along that line, from ex Syrian Army soldiers, Hezbollah fighters, ex Iraqi Army soldiers, and any of the number of militants who have been fighting for decades. Their tanks were captured from the Iraqi army.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_e...g_vehicles

And we know who's buying their oil. Syria (a bit gets to Turkey).

http://nypost.com/2015/12/10/us-official...-isis-oil/

(20-11-2016 05:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  So you believe that their attempts existed only in the past but not the present? Is there any less reason that the western powers shouldn't be attempting to do so today especially now that there's less to stop them?

Oh, not at all. I think we (the USA) has picked up where the British oil industry left off, after WW2. I wrote a paper in college about how WW2 was largely about the control of the world oil reserves by British and Dutch industry, and attempts by the other empires to wrest it from them. In the aftermath, the USA became the de facto controller of most of it, and the purchase of oil went from Pounds Sterling to the "Petro-Dollar", as it's often called.

It's why the radicalization of that culture has increased radically. Heh.


(20-11-2016 05:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  How about these?

That was a lot of reading to come to one basic conclusion: if you speak of a religion with contempt, then you hate the members of that religion. That's utter bullshit.

I particularly liked in the first one, where Owen Jones uses Dawkins' comment that he's entitled to make comments about Islam despite not having read the Qur'an just as he's entitled to make comments about Nazism despite not having read Mein Kampf as evidence that Dawkins is comparing the Qur'an to Mein Kampf.

It's utterly false. He's saying that his opinion and criticism is directed at Islam, not on the book that generates people's belief in Islam, because he sees the behaviors and attitudes of people who practice Islam... in the same way that we know the behaviors and attitudes of people who read Mein Kampf. It does not mean that he is equating one and the other. Posting disingenuous stuff like that is not going to endear me to your argument.

But it gets worse! When Dawkins gripes about a demand by a Muslim speaker to have the room gender-segregated during a debate between that Muslim and Lawrence Krauss, a demand which the college (UCL) capitulated, Dawkins directed his ire at the ridiculousness of giving in to such a demand in our free society. The dishonest author tries to say, "What if he had said Jew instead of Muslim!?!"

Well, if the Jews tried to impose gender segregation on a university before they'd speak there, I suppose he would have said Jew. Or whatever other group pulled such a ludicrous move.

The second article, when it isn't rehashing the arguments in the first, basically points out that a snooty, upper class British person is imperialist and snooty in his outlook and often condescending in his tone.

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you! Rolleyes

(20-11-2016 05:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  If it takes religion for good people to do evil things, then the reverse must also be true, that it takes religion for evil people to do good things.

That or other forms of social conformity pressure, such that the repercussions for disobedience to civil norms are too great for the evil person to risk. Religion, I believe, evolved out of that concept of tribal control and group identity. But I do get your point.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
20-11-2016, 08:02 AM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(18-11-2016 06:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(18-11-2016 06:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And your totally wrong. People don't "believe" in science.
Science is a method. It works, bitch.
It requires no "belief".
If you doubt that, try praying for a new heart valve and see how far that gets you.

Religious belief is an abandonment of reason. That may or may not be justified. So far, we've heard no reason to abandon reason. IN FACT, most religionists today try to explain how their beliefs are in allignment with what is known from science.

if you're saying science requires no belief, are you saying that it runs on... FAITH!?

Big Grin

What's the difference between faith and belief?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: