Society/Culture Why I blame Islam for the fact it's raining today.... part 2

[Chief]

Reminder:

This isn't the Israel/Hamas thread.

Go to the Israel/Hamas thread if you want to talk about that.

Mid East - Israel declare war after Hamas attack II

Part I: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/israel-declare-war-after-hamas-attack.1371828/page-47#post-81443295 Thread Rules: Alright. I recognise that this is a fraught topic for any number of you posting here. Some of you will have family in Israel or Palestine. Some of you will have...

www.bigfooty.com

Thanks.

 

[Gralin]

Your evasion gives you away. Old chap

Nah I'm not the one that brought this topic into the discussion

 

[Number37]

Islam, like other forms of theism, requires faith. The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorn have as much objective evidence for their existence as Allah.

If adults want to believe in fairytales, that is and should be their right. I'm not going to infantilise theists by saying their religion is peaceful or good. It's a coping mechanism, pure and simple.

You know that feeling you get when a new mum tells you her ugly looking baby is beautiful - that's how I feel about faith. It's ugly.

That's an intolerant view, but not irrational.

You said to be 'scared of the irrational' was rational.
It's not.

Having faith is different to believing in the spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn or Allah.
Perhaps you don't understand the distinction.

I would have thought that someone, like you, who is anti-religion, would understand that because your primary argument against religion is that it is a con.
If religion never existed, people would still have faith.

Even atheists have faith.
Their faith is in things like science and objective truths, but it is still faith.
Scientific knowledge changes everyday. Everyday we learn new things.
If you 'believe', or have faith, in science, what are you believing in? Just the objective truths we know today? Or the objective truths we are still to learn?

If it's the former, how is that different to religion?
If it's the latter, how is that different to religion?

The answer is, the difference is the subject matter of the faith, not faith itself.
Other than that is it not any different.
It's no different to faith in the spaghetti monster, unicorns or Allah.

 

[Gethelred]

So exempt from the faith doubters. Thought so. Why is that? Are primitive superstitions different somehow? Be honest.

I said this a while ago, to the very person you're conversing with:

Superstition is how we originally chronicled history, Evolved. As much as we now might want to dismiss it, as much as we might wish certain parts of it had gone the way of the dodo, we need to remember at least some of it. It's a window into precivilised times, a song and a dance away from something we cannot know with evidence.

One of the things that sets us apart from animals is language. The earliest forms of language were epic histories and stories. I don't know if I want to forget that, even if the resonants from them leave a bit to be desired.

So much time and devotion has been dedicated to religion, DRU. So much history and culture and wisdom and intellect; so much observational science coupled with primitive hysteria. It's all terribly and wonderfully human.

I don't believe in the Rainbow Serpent any more than I believe in Allah, Yahweh or Jesus. Where I draw the line is in the desire to eradicate all that effort, all that time and art and history; to render it all to the dustbin, meaningless, useless.

Ever heard of songlines, DRU? A songline is a quasi-religious first nations chant, designed to map out the land; where to eat, where an ancestor died, where to avoid, where to make camp or which areas were mens or womens. First nations have the earliest confirmed tracking of the stars and constellations, all bound up in myth and story.

That you're willing to consign all of this to meaninglessness simply to win an argument is... mindblowing to me. You have no respect for history, or for culture, or for if not faith then the devotion and the offering of the most valuable thing any of us have towards an end, time.

If your point was to make me out as hypocritical, you've not only failed but you've failed as utterly as any person on this forum can fail. I've been to St Peter's, seen churches and artefacts of historical merit; I have seen art and architecture inspired overwhelmingly by religion. I've been to Eid ceremonies, and when I was a much younger human I attended church every Sunday until footy got in the way. I've eaten a Passover feast. I've eaten rice at a Buddhist temple, and spoken to them about the nature of faith and prayer.

I can wax eloquent about almost any religion you care to mention.

There is so much of worth in religion, even if it's only historical. We humans create meaning from nothing; that you're willing to dismiss that richness of experience and the depth of effort is appalling.

 

[Gralin]

You said to be 'scared of the irrational' was rational.
It's not.

Having faith is different to believing in the spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn or Allah.
Perhaps you don't understand the distinction.

I would have thought that someone, like you, who is anti-religion, would understand that because your primary argument against religion is that it is a con.
If religion never existed, people would still have faith.

Even atheists have faith.
Their faith is in things like science and objective truths, but it is still faith.
Scientific knowledge changes everyday. Everyday we learn new things.
If you 'believe', or have faith, in science, what are you believing in? Just the objective truths we know today? Or the objective truths we are still to learn?

If it's the former, how is that different to religion?
If it's the latter, how is that different to religion?

The answer is, the difference is the subject matter of the faith.
Other than that is it not any different.
It's no different to faith in the spaghetti monster, unicorns or Allah.

Atheists have faith that they are correct about no higher power existing
And they can be just as rabid about it as a religious person

 

[Number37]

Lol wasn't referring to that but you just want to extrapolate to make another personal attack which seems to be the way you like to operate.

You said they have Islam in their name, as yet another negative thing.
I was merely pointing out to you that, in substance, religion is fundamental to our entire system of govt.
Just because we don't have religion in our name doesn't mean that religion plays no part.
It can't be any more fundamental than the person who has the power to say yay or nay to laws deriving their power to say yay or nay from God.

 

[Jazny]

If you 'believe', or have faith, in science, what are you believing in? Just the objective truths we know today? Or the objective truths we are still to learn?

They would say they have belief in the scientific process itself. I don't know if they would call it faith though, just that it's the best process that is known today for uncovering truth about the physical world. If there was a better one they would switch to that. I don't like the comparison of atheists having faith in the same sense as religious people. The faith they have, if you call it that, is kind of fickle, which is the opposite of how I understand the word.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

They would say they have belief in the scientific process itself. I don't know if they would call it faith though, just that it's the best process that is known today for uncovering truth about the physical world. If there was a better one they would switch to that. I don't like the comparison of atheists having faith in the same sense as religious people. The faith they have, if you call it that, is kind of fickle, which is the opposite of how I understand the word.

If you consider science is a "belief" it means that you don't understand the principles of science and you need to "believe" those who do.

I'm open to the results of any well formulated experiment that proves the existence of god. Of course those sneaky old gods purposely hide themselves from the results of such experiments.

 

[Gralin]

If you consider science is a "belief" it means that you don't understand the principles of science and you need to "believe" those who do.

I'm open to the results of any well formulated experiment that proves the existence of god. Of course those sneaky old gods purposely hide themselves from the results of such experiments.

pick any topic, anything at all and you will have people with a range of knowledge, experience and expertise in that topic ranging from none to a lot

if a physicist tells you something about sub atomic particles, unless you are also a physicist you have to at a certain level choose to either believe them or not as an "expert" on that topic

its why antivaxxer role out their own doctors while telling everyone to distrust mainstream medicine

our doctor has the truth everyone else is lying

you cannot be educated on everything and at some point you have to get your information from somewhere else, whether it be a book or person

 

[Gethelred]

They would say they have belief in the scientific process itself. I don't know if they would call it faith though, just that it's the best process that is known today for uncovering truth about the physical world. If there was a better one they would switch to that. I don't like the comparison of atheists having faith in the same sense as religious people. The faith they have, if you call it that, is kind of fickle, which is the opposite of how I understand the word.

 

[Gethelred]

pick any topic, anything at all and you will have people with a range of knowledge, experience and expertise in that topic ranging from none to a lot

if a physicist tells you something about sub atomic particles, unless you are also a physicist you have to at a certain level choose to either believe them or not as an "expert" on that topic

its why antivaxxer role out their own doctors while telling everyone to distrust mainstream medicine

our doctor has the truth everyone else is lying

you cannot be educated on everything and at some point you have to get your information from somewhere else, whether it be a book or person

There is a difference in source verification levels, though. It's not so much faith as a process which has provided results most of the time to this point, and has a reasonable underpinning and basis to do so in future.

 

[Roylion]

Their faith is in things like science and objective truths, but it is still faith.

No it is not 'faith'.

By its very definition, faith is the belief in something, despite insufficient knowledge and evidence to be certain of its veracity.

Faith is based upon a hope or trust that something is true despite a lack of supporting evidence or proof.

Bertrand Russell, who labelled himself an agnostic by saying God is unknowable, but lived as an atheist (in other words, lived as if there is no God) said...

"Where there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith'. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

 

[Gralin]

There is a difference in source verification levels, though. It's not so much faith as a process which has provided results most of the time to this point, and has a reasonable underpinning and basis to do so in future.

no doubt
I am talking about the idea that your average person on the street has arrived at every position they hold via critical thinking and rigorous methods

or that changing those positions happens that way all the time

I have a level of understanding of climate change, I also have a level of trust in the scientists that are experts in that area telling me that we're in trouble

people will say i believe climate change is real or I have faith in xxx

its not exactly the same meaning as when talking about religion but it is the same words being used often

 

[SaintsSeptember]

pick any topic, anything at all and you will have people with a range of knowledge, experience and expertise in that topic ranging from none to a lot

if a physicist tells you something about sub atomic particles, unless you are also a physicist you have to at a certain level choose to either believe them or not as an "expert" on that topic

its why antivaxxer role out their own doctors while telling everyone to distrust mainstream medicine

our doctor has the truth everyone else is lying

you cannot be educated on everything and at some point you have to get your information from somewhere else, whether it be a book or person

You can have enough of a scientific grounding to understand the principles.

People invest in "scientific" projects to make a car run on water.
They are operating on faith, since the "smart inventor" didn't happen to share the scientific principles involved...those are secret.
Those who look for such scientific principles don't invest.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Gods don't like leaving evidence.
If they leave such evidence , making their presence obvious, then their adherents will have less Faith.

L Ron Hubbard calmly and purposely invented deities out of the blue. People believed in them.

 

[Number37]

No it is not 'faith'.

By its very definition, faith is the belief in something, despite insufficient knowledge and evidence to be certain of its veracity.

Faith is based upon a hope or trust that something is true despite a lack of supporting evidence or proof.

Bertrand Russell, who labelled himself an agnostic by saying God is unknowable, but lived as an atheist (in other words, lived as if there is no God) said...

"Where there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith'. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

LOL.

No 'hope' or 'trust' in the science. Just evidence?
You don't 'trust' the evidence.
You don't have 'hope' in the evidence.
You just somehow magically believe the evidence is true.
No emotion involved. Just evidence.

Nobody bloody well thinks or behaves like that. Nobody.
Emotion is a part of everything that humans do.
To suggest that we put emotion aside is fanciful nonsense.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

LOL.

No 'hope' or 'trust' in the science. Just evidence?
You don't 'trust' the evidence.
You don't have 'hope' in the evidence.
You just somehow magically believe the evidence is true.
No emotion involved. Just evidence.

Nobody bloody well thinks or behaves like that. Nobody.
Emotion is a part of everything that humans do.
To suggest that we put emotion aside is fanciful nonsense.

You must break down and cry every time you turn the light on.
Or praise god.

 

[Number37]

There is a difference in source verification levels, though. It's not so much faith as a process which has provided results most of the time to this point, and has a reasonable underpinning and basis to do so in future.

What is it that causes people to believe/trust/have faith in science or scientists?
It's not nothing. As Eddie Murphy's dad would say 'nothin from nothin gives nothin'.

 

[Number37]

You must break down and cry every time you turn the light on.
Or praise god.

No. I understand why the light turns on. It's not a mystery.

Anyone got an answer to how the universe started from nothing?
Nope.
One minute there's nothing. Nek minnit there's something.
Please explain.

 

[Roylion]

LOL.

No 'hope' or 'trust' in the science. Just evidence?

Just the evidence. For example 'evolution' is a scientific fact. A scientific FACT is something that has been tested and/or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for further examples. The scientific evidence in support of the scientific fact of evolution is absolutely overwhelming. There is no reason not to believe it is objectively true.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation and/or model of some aspect of the natural world/universe, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation AND experiment. (i.e. empirical evidence). Using evolution as a model the "theory of evolution" refers to a particular model of evolution and does not refer that evolution could possibly not occur. The model of evolution is adjusted in the light of new evidence being discovered or new observations. Adjusting / tweaking the model does not falsify evolution as a scientific fact.

A scientific hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory but may also be based on a scientific theory. The basic idea of a scientific hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome and hence the hypothesis might be adopted, altered or discarded as more empirical scientific evidence is repeatedly observed or gained through repeated experimentation. Then it will be regarded as a scientific theory.

You just somehow magically believe the evidence is true.

Empirical evidence gained through repeated observation and / or repeated experiment.

Nobody bloody well thinks or behaves like that. Nobody.

You were talking about science were you not? Without supporting evidence in support of their claims, they believe in those matters by faith.

Emotion is a part of everything that humans do.
To suggest that we put emotion aside is fanciful nonsense.

Scientific fact is emotionless. And you were talking about science.

 

[Roylion]

No. I understand why the light turns on. It's not a mystery.

Scientific fact. No faith required.

Anyone got an answer to how the universe started from nothing?

There's a couple of scientific hypotheses / theories as to how that might have occurred. There prevailing one is of course the Big Bang hypothesis / theory as well as the Steady State Theory or Oscillating Universe Theory.

 

[Sinjin Smith]

How about the rainbow serpent and the singing whales? They are powerful mythical entities actually capable of delaying or preventing national resource projects! Do you debunk these fairytales too?

Whales do sing, notably Humpback whales. They aren't mythical.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

No. I understand why the light turns on. It's not a mystery.

Anyone got an answer to how the universe started from nothing?
Nope.
One minute there's nothing. Nek minnit there's something.
Please explain.

Science has theories , but will admit they don't have an answer yet.
Of course you could make something up and declare it the divine truth.

 

[Gethelred]

What is it that causes people to believe/trust/have faith in science or scientists?

The scientific process is about verifiability and repeatability, so belief/faith isn't really the right word. Trust is closer because you can trust the process by which someone else arrived at the results they got, but that does not mean you cling to their findings as closely as you would something you checked out yourself.

And what's verified is observable phenomena: what we can confirm via hypothesis that adheres to what we can see and can repeat.

This is where someone comes along with their 'Schrodinger's electron' bit - only in a single place when observed - but that's something that cannot be explained right now, not that it never will.

It's not nothing. As Eddie Murphy's dad would say 'nothin from nothin gives nothin'.

I provided a Faraday quote above which should reconcile the difference between a belief system and a trust in the scientific process.

Being willing to discard a hypothesis due to new information allows our understanding of nature to change, where a faithful perspective is to an extent stagnant and unable to move.

 

[Number37]

The scientific process is about verifiability and repeatability, so belief/faith isn't really the right word. Trust is closer because you can trust the process by which someone else arrived at the results they got, but that does not mean you cling to their findings as closely as you would something you checked out yourself.

And what's verified is observable phenomena: what we can confirm via hypothesis that adheres to what we can see and can repeat.

This is where someone comes along with their 'Schrodinger's electron' bit - only in a single place when observed - but that's something that cannot be explained right now, not that it never will.

I provided a Faraday quote above which should reconcile the difference between a belief system and a trust in the scientific process.

Being willing to discard a hypothesis due to new information allows our understanding of nature to change, where a faithful perspective is to an extent stagnant and unable to move.

I understand that you have to 'trust in the process'.
But what is that?
If it's not faith?

What if 'the process' is wrong and we find a new 'process' that does give us answers?
Does that mean that you (not you specifically) have believed/trusted in a falsehood?
How is that different to religious faith?
In both cases you 'have faith'/trust that the answer is X but the answer is actually Y.

On observable phenomena.
We can observe things that doesn't mean we understand that which we are observing.
We only understand things based on things we know, or think we know.


If you just say 'trust in the process' doesn't that sound a lot like football coach speak?

 

[Number37]

Science has theories , but will admit they don't have an answer yet.
Of course you could make something up and declare it the divine truth.

You are confused.
From the point of view of the person. Not the point of view of what the person is being told.