Why do you care if people believe your god tales?

[Zzyzx]

.
Why do you care if people believe your god tales?

From a current thread:

Holding a negative view of atheists seems to be a requirement to bolster up some theologies. Holding a realistic view would cause to many cherished doctrines to crash to the ground.

"It is all a big conspiracy. The five percent (5%) who are Atheists are ganged up against we seventy percent (70%) who are Christians -- and they have a bunch of smart people and scientists on their side."

Of course, the spread of non-belief threatens the livelihood and status of preachers. But, why does it seem to so upset everyday believers? Does disbelief of others affect their own beliefs?

[DavidLeon]

And yet, with evidence science still finds a need for self correction.

Exactly.

Science corrects itself as new and more accurate information becomes available. It does NOT claim to have final answers. It is a method for learning about the universe we inhabit. Notice that when errors are found (and corrected) in scientific work, it is scientists who make the discoveries and corrections -- not theologians or apologists.

A system that claims to have final answers is just tooting its horn. A system that claims answers are written in an ancient book is an exercise in self-delusion.

Exactly what answers are you talking about? Science, when, for example, it speculates on whether or not man can build a machine that flies, or how apes interact, is always wrong and laughing at the poor brothers who work on a flying machine or the secretary who goes out and lives with the apes and they, not science, are the ones who have the answers. Then, and only then, science jumps on their coattails. Science can't even manage to get their own funding unless they sell out to the highest bidder.

What answers have religions claimed to have? Do you seriously think that religion was invented by man to provide answers for man? They would have to invent the answers. Science and religion are two sides of a coin. Neither have any answers. They have questions.

People who hate religion do so because it is destructive and they perceive it as a threat to their questions. The same reasons people hate science. It's a distraction like politics and sports. Bread and circuses. The playground for ideologues, the fighting rink for propaganda. Science and religion aren't looking for answers they're hiding from them. As long as you have questions you don't have the answers.

[Zzyzx]

Thank you for a religious perspective on these matters

And yet, with evidence science still finds a need for self correction.

Exactly.

Science corrects itself as new and more accurate information becomes available. It does NOT claim to have final answers. It is a method for learning about the universe we inhabit. Notice that when errors are found (and corrected) in scientific work, it is scientists who make the discoveries and corrections -- not theologians or apologists.

A system that claims to have final answers is just tooting its horn. A system that claims answers are written in an ancient book is an exercise in self-delusion.

Exactly what answers are you talking about?

The answers I speak of are those that produce modern medicine, electronic communication, advanced transportation systems, efficient food production and distribution – and answers that put spacecraft into orbit or beyond.

Those who attempt to demean science belie their sincerity by taking advantage of all the benefits it proves, while bad-mouthing science when it conflicts with their beliefs in imaginary supernatural entities.

Science, when, for example, it speculates on whether or not man can build a machine that flies, or how apes interact, is always wrong and laughing at the poor brothers who work on a flying machine or the secretary who goes out and lives with the apes and they, not science, are the ones who have the answers. Then, and only then, science jumps on their coattails. Science can't even manage to get their own funding unless they sell out to the highest bidder.

Quite an emotional rant.

What answers have religions claimed to have?

“Goddidit”

Do you seriously think that religion was invented by man to provide answers for man?

Of course not. Thousands of 'gods' descended on Earth and whispered in the ears of men telling them all sorts of secrets. Encountering women they impregnated them and produced giants.

Since the 'gods' evidently can't get their story straight, the tell different versions to different men – who then go about proselytizing their version, condemning competing 'gods' and religions, fighting over who has the best 'god' and the best palaces of worship and the best rituals.

They would have to invent the answers.

Yes, religions have no objection to inventing answers. Hurricanes are produced by homosexuality, for example.

Science and religion are two sides of a coin. Neither have any answers.

Correction: Science provides answers to the extent of its knowledge and ability. The Earth is spherical not flat, it rotates, it revolves around the Sun. Water changes from liquid to gas in a process known as evaporation. Later the gas may change back to liquid and fall as what is known as precipitation. Storms, droughts, and floods are normal / expected atmospheric processes.

They have questions.

Correction: Religion has THE answer – “Goddidit”

People who hate religion do so because it is destructive and they perceive it as a threat to their questions.

Agree that religion has demonstrated ability to be destructive.

However, religion does NOT threaten anything about science – except when it is a theocracy. Religion does attempt to discredit science that casts doubt upon religious claims and tales.

The same reasons people hate science.

People who 'hate science' may have slept through science classes – but they still seek care from modern scientific medicine when seriously ill or injured. They also use modern communication and transportation (brought to you courtesy of science)

It's a distraction like politics and sports. Bread and circuses. The playground for ideologues, the fighting rink for propaganda.

Interesting religious perspective. “Science is distraction” – distraction from what? From worshiping 'gods'?

Science and religion aren't looking for answers they're hiding from them.

Interesting. Thousands of researchers worldwide are not currently looking for answers regarding Covid-19. They are hiding from answers. Yup, just a great worldwide conspiracy to keep truth from being known.

As long as you have questions you don't have the answers.

As long as you have THE answer (“Goddidit”) there is no need to ask questions or seek answers. If you are seriously ill or injured just pray that a 'god' will heal you.

Sounds quite appropriate – for thousands of years ago.

Your rant might go over well in Holy Huddle or in some fundamentalist churches.

[DavidLeon]

Thank you for a religious perspective on these matters

There's such a thin line between sarcasm and irony, don't you think?

The answers I speak of are those that produce modern medicine, electronic communication, advanced transportation systems, efficient food production and distribution – and answers that put spacecraft into orbit or beyond.

Excuse me, sir, if I fail to see the reasoning. These aren't theological answers but theists have participated in them equally if not more than non-theists.

Those who attempt to demean science belie their sincerity by taking advantage of all the benefits it proves, while bad-mouthing science when it conflicts with their beliefs in imaginary supernatural entities.

And those who attempt to do the same with theism? Was it not the Muslims who preserved knowledge and culture? What part did theism play in the founding of science and higher education? At the very least the universe that atheists inhabit is so intensely conditioned by mythological presuppositions that they take for granted the ethic that emerges out of that as if it's just a given. Jordan Peterson. Science can't test the supernatural.

Quite an emotional rant.

It only appears to be. This is like a rehearsal. A dance rehearsal.

“Goddidit”

That arguably leaves out Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Scientology, Shintoism and Taoism. Can you refute the answer and if so, how?

Of course not. Thousands of 'gods' descended on Earth and whispered in the ears of men telling them all sorts of secrets. Encountering women they impregnated them and produced giants.

I see. And the answers you supply with your self proclaimed - sorry - self correcting wisdom is a suitable alternative? Wait a minute . . . you don't have one do you? Nephilim? Panspermia? No, no, no. We aren't talking about how life began. You have no answer for that, do you.

A possible alternative to your answer might be that Jehovah created Adam in 4026 BCE. The flood takes place from 2370 - 2390. Noah's grandson was Nimrod (aka the Sumerian king Dumuzi, aka Tammuz). The symbol of Tammuz was the mystic Tau, a cross. (Ezekiel 8) A fertility symbol representing the male genitalia. He founded several cities in the land of Shinar, including Accad, Calneh, Erech and most significantly, Babel (Babylon). Peleg (2269-2030 BCE) who lived in the days the earth was divided (Genesis 10:25; 1 Chronicles 1:19) i.e., when Nimrod built the tower in Babel thinking he could avoid the next flood, should there be one, which caused the people to gather in one place when Jehovah wanted them to scatter throughout the Earth. So, he confused their language and they scattered, taking their stories of giants, crosses, Ziggurats, and floods with them.

Moses didn't complete the book of Genesis until 1513 BCE which leaves 850 years for those stories to be embellished and spread throughout the globe with alarming similarities. I hope I got that right. I suck at math, but you get the picture.

Since the 'gods' evidently can't get their story straight, the tell different versions to different men – who then go about proselytizing their version, condemning competing 'gods' and religions, fighting over who has the best 'god' and the best palaces of worship and the best rituals.

Then all of those chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction science has created might prove to be useful someday, huh?

Yes, religions have no objection to inventing answers. Hurricanes are produced by homosexuality, for example.

As a homosexual who abandoned the practice due to his Bible beliefs I can tell you that homosexuality doesn't produce hurricanes. But now spontaneous generation, well, that's another story.

Correction: Science provides answers to the extent of its knowledge and ability. The Earth is spherical not flat, it rotates, it revolves around the Sun. Water changes from liquid to gas in a process known as evaporation. Later the gas may change back to liquid and fall as what is known as precipitation. Storms, droughts, and floods are normal / expected atmospheric processes.

Right. Discovered by Eratosthenes, a theist, Copernicus, Lutheran, and Wallerius, a theologian.

Correction: Religion has THE answer – “Goddidit”

Which God? And you don't have an alternative. So it's the only answer we know.

Agree that religion has demonstrated ability to be destructive.

However, religion does NOT threaten anything about science – except when it is a theocracy. Religion does attempt to discredit science that casts doubt upon religious claims and tales.

By competing with it? Otherwise how so?

People who 'hate science' may have slept through science classes – but they still seek care from modern scientific medicine when seriously ill or injured. They also use modern communication and transportation (brought to you courtesy of science)

Mostly theists.

Interesting religious perspective. “Science is distraction” – distraction from what? From worshiping 'gods'?

Oh, no. Science has it's gods, they just don't fully understand the basic concept of gods.

Interesting. Thousands of researchers worldwide are not currently looking for answers regarding Covid-19. They are hiding from answers. Yup, just a great worldwide conspiracy to keep truth from being known.

You might be interested in the work of Shi Zhengli

As long as you have THE answer (“Goddidit”) there is no need to ask questions or seek answers. If you are seriously ill or injured just pray that a 'god' will heal you.

Sounds quite appropriate – for thousands of years ago.

No, I wouldn't pray that a 'god' would heal me if the God in question cursed me with sickness and death. That would be stupid. So long as that were under effect, but I do look forward to when Jehovah God can tell me how he created the earth instead of some mad scientist in a lab coat who could never actually imagine how.

Your rant might go over well in Holy Huddle or in some fundamentalist churches.

Yeah, not unlike science minded atheists, theists don't care to be criticized or questioned, so they don't care much for me. The two actually have a great deal more in common than they like to admit.

[brunumb]

Then all of those chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction science has created might prove to be useful someday, huh?

From a theistic point of view all of that was created by God. Humans really just discovered the properties of matter and energy inherent in God's creation. What they then chose to do with that knowledge is not a fault of science.

Discovered by Eratosthenes, a theist, Copernicus, Lutheran, and Wallerius, a theologian.

Science, or more specifically the scientific method, is independent of the religious beliefs of the people involved. They did not make their discoveries through the practice of religion.

[DavidLeon]

From a theistic point of view all of that was created by God. Humans really just discovered the properties of matter and energy inherent in God's creation. What they then chose to do with that knowledge is not a fault of science.

You mean Goddidit. You are a theist?

Science, or more specifically the scientific method, is independent of the religious beliefs of the people involved. They did not make their discoveries through the practice of religion.

Then of what harm is theism to science? It's abject unaccountability in the guise of self correction?

[brunumb]

From a theistic point of view all of that was created by God. Humans really just discovered the properties of matter and energy inherent in God's creation. What they then chose to do with that knowledge is not a fault of science.

You mean Goddidit. You are a theist?

No. Please read the part I bolded. It means that from your point of view all of that 'stuff' can be attributed to God. We just found it. But, just like fire, it can be used for good or bad. Fire can be used for cooking and keeping warm, or for burning heretics.

[Zzyzx]

.

Thank you for a religious perspective on these matters

There's such a thin line between sarcasm and irony, don't you think?

My statement is neither sarcasm nor irony. I truly appreciate Theists providing readers with religious perspectives (the more irrational and emotional the better) – to be evaluated in comparison to non-religious perspectives.

The answers I speak of are those that produce modern medicine, electronic communication, advanced transportation systems, efficient food production and distribution – and answers that put spacecraft into orbit or beyond.

Excuse me, sir, if I fail to see the reasoning.

What part is difficult to understand about: science provided the information upon which are based modern medicine, electronic communication, advanced transportation systems, efficient food production and distribution?

These aren't theological answers but theists have participated in them equally if not more than non-theists.

The answers referred to are scientific answers. It matters not if a person doing scientific studies believes in gods.

Belief in / worshiping gods does not produce modern medicine, etc.

Those who attempt to demean science belie their sincerity by taking advantage of all the benefits it proves, while bad-mouthing science when it conflicts with their beliefs in imaginary supernatural entities.

And those who attempt to do the same with theism?

The 'they did it too' defense doesn't even work in school recess.

Was it not the Muslims who preserved knowledge and culture? What part did theism play in the founding of science and higher education?

Theists and theism deserve SOME credit – So what?

At the very least the universe that atheists inhabit is so intensely conditioned by mythological presuppositions that they take for granted the ethic that emerges out of that as if it's just a given. Jordan Peterson. Science can't test the supernatural.

Agree that science cannot test the PROPOSED supernatural – or claims that invisible, undetectable, proposed supernatural entities did ANYTHING.

Quite an emotional rant.

It only appears to be. This is like a rehearsal. A dance rehearsal.

I agree with the emotional rant being a dance.

“Goddidit”

That arguably leaves out Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Scientology, Shintoism and Taoism. Can you refute the answer and if so, how?

If promoters of Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Scientology, Shintoism and Taoism object, I will take their concerns under consideration.

Of course not. Thousands of 'gods' descended on Earth and whispered in the ears of men telling them all sorts of secrets. Encountering women they impregnated them and produced giants.

I see. And the answers you supply with your self proclaimed - sorry - self correcting wisdom is a suitable alternative? Wait a minute . . . you don't have one do you? Nephilim? Panspermia?

Argument from Ignorance – Argumentum ad Ignorantiam – The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.

Common erroneous 'argument' presented by novice debaters, particularly when attempting to defend Bible tales.

No, no, no. We aren't talking about how life began. You have no answer for that, do you.

That is correct. I do not pretend to know how life began. Do you?

A possible alternative to your answer might be that Jehovah created Adam in 4026 BCE.

Interesting speculation. Based on what verifiable evidence?

The flood takes place from 2370 - 2390.

Finally, an exact date of the mythical flood. How can this be verified?

Noah's grandson was Nimrod (aka the Sumerian king Dumuzi, aka Tammuz). The symbol of Tammuz was the mystic Tau, a cross. (Ezekiel 8) A fertility symbol representing the male genitalia.

How, exactly, is all that related to the thread topic “Why do you care if people believe your god tales"?

He founded several cities in the land of Shinar, including Accad, Calneh, Erech and most significantly, Babel (Babylon). Peleg (2269-2030 BCE) who lived in the days the earth was divided (Genesis 10:25; 1 Chronicles 1:19) i.e.,

How, exactly, is all that an 'alternative to [my] answer?

when Nimrod built the tower in Babel thinking he could avoid the next flood, should there be one, which caused the people to gather in one place when Jehovah wanted them to scatter throughout the Earth. So, he confused their language and they scattered, taking their stories of giants, crosses, Ziggurats, and floods with them.

Oh, 'Jehovah' confused languages? Did humans have only one language until the Babel incident?

Moses didn't complete the book of Genesis until 1513 BCE which leaves 850 years for those stories to be embellished and spread throughout the globe with alarming similarities. I hope I got that right. I suck at math, but you get the picture.

OH? Do you claim to know that Moses wrote the book of Genesis? And to know when it was completed?

Kindly provide verifiable evidence to support such claims of knowledge.

Since the 'gods' evidently can't get their story straight, the tell different versions to different men – who then go about proselytizing their version, condemning competing 'gods' and religions, fighting over who has the best 'god' and the best palaces of worship and the best rituals.

Then all of those chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction science has created might prove to be useful someday, huh?

What the heck do weapons have to do with gods whispering in ears?

Yes, religions have no objection to inventing answers. Hurricanes are produced by homosexuality, for example.

As a homosexual who abandoned the practice due to his Bible beliefs I can tell you that homosexuality doesn't produce hurricanes. But now spontaneous generation, well, that's another story.

As a heterosexual who has studied and taught meteorology, I regard hurricanes as products of atmospheric conditions and circulation.

Correction: Science provides answers to the extent of its knowledge and ability. The Earth is spherical not flat, it rotates, it revolves around the Sun. Water changes from liquid to gas in a process known as evaporation. Later the gas may change back to liquid and fall as what is known as precipitation. Storms, droughts, and floods are normal / expected atmospheric processes.

Right. Discovered by Eratosthenes, a theist, Copernicus, Lutheran, and Wallerius, a theologian.

If a mechanic repairs a car, does theism get credit is he claims to be Christian? OR is he functioning as a mechanic when he does the repair?

If an engineer designs a bridge, does Atheism get credit if he identifies as an Atheist?

Correction: Religion has THE answer – “Goddidit”

Which God?

The Bible God, of course. Didn't 'he' create everything (according to the tales)?

And you don't have an alternative. So it's the only answer we know.

That is classic argument from ignorance – Argumentum ad Ignorantiam – The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.

Agree that religion has demonstrated ability to be destructive.

However, religion does NOT threaten anything about science – except when it is a theocracy. Religion does attempt to discredit science that casts doubt upon religious claims and tales.

By competing with it? Otherwise how so?

Christianity has quite a history of anti-science actions. Remember Galileo?

People who 'hate science' may have slept through science classes – but they still seek care from modern scientific medicine when seriously ill or injured. They also use modern communication and transportation (brought to you courtesy of science)

Mostly theists.

Read above about a mechanic and an engineer.

Ideology does not get credit for accomplishments just because an involved person happens to subscribe to the given ideology. The mechanic is functioning as a mechanic. His religious beliefs have nothing to do with repair of a vehicle.

Interesting religious perspective. “Science is distraction” – distraction from what? From worshiping 'gods'?

Oh, no. Science has it's gods, they just don't fully understand the basic concept of gods.

By all means, share your understanding with scientists who have inferior understanding of god concepts. Perhaps publishing in a well-known scientific journal would reach them.

Interesting. Thousands of researchers worldwide are not currently looking for answers regarding Covid-19. They are hiding from answers. Yup, just a great worldwide conspiracy to keep truth from being known.

You might be interested in the work of Shi Zhengli

Is Ms Zhengli part of the worldwide conspiracy to hide answers – along with all the thousands of biologists researching the virus?

As long as you have THE answer (“Goddidit”) there is no need to ask questions or seek answers. If you are seriously ill or injured just pray that a 'god' will heal you.

Sounds quite appropriate – for thousands of years ago.

No, I wouldn't pray that a 'god' would heal me if the God in question cursed me with sickness and death. That would be stupid.

I agree with 'That would be stupid'. I do not agree that 'god' curses people with sickness and death. That has not been shown to be anything more than imagination. However, feel free to provide verifiable evidence to implicate gods.

So long as that were under effect, but I do look forward to when Jehovah God can tell me how he created the earth instead of some mad scientist in a lab coat who could never actually imagine how.

Lots of luck on that. Let us know how it turns out.

Your rant might go over well in Holy Huddle or in some fundamentalist churches.

Yeah, not unlike science minded atheists, theists don't care to be criticized or questioned, so they don't care much for me. The two actually have a great deal more in common than they like to admit.

Condolences on any feeling of rejection.

[DavidLeon]

From a theistic point of view all of that was created by God. Humans really just discovered the properties of matter and energy inherent in God's creation. What they then chose to do with that knowledge is not a fault of science.

You mean Goddidit. You are a theist?

No. Please read the part I bolded. It means that from your point of view all of that 'stuff' can be attributed to God. We just found it. But, just like fire, it can be used for good or bad. Fire can be used for cooking and keeping warm, or for burning heretics.

I read it. I know what you meant. What man does with fire isn't necessarily the fault of science or, for that matter God. Especially if you insist there is no God. You see the dilemma. Don't ask me to defend religion, I loath religion. Not one religion that ever existed was true, even to itself, and never will be. It's human nature to . . . muck everything up.

In a debate on self correction in science I've repeatedly asked for examples of science needing to correct itself and I'm not getting any. Not that I doubt that they're there I just doubt you can easily accept them. That makes you appear as similar to those whom you criticize. The kettle calling the pot black. This suggests to me, with nearly a quarter of a century of personal experience with atheist vs. theist debate on the subject that there is dogmatic tendencies in, not science, but ideologues who promote it in order to justify, affirm, and rationalize the paradigm they misrepresent to an equal extent as those they criticize. Meet the new boss same as the old boss.

[DavidLeon]

How, exactly, is all that related to the thread topic “Why do you care if people believe your god tales"?

You're right. I don't like all of this. I don't think it's right. Let me think on this for a few hours and I'm going to see if I can come up with a much more constructive approach.

[brunumb]

In a debate on self correction in science I've repeatedly asked for examples of science needing to correct itself and I'm not getting any.

Sleeping through science classes has its disadvantages. Atomic theory has undergone quite a number of corrective changes. Initially, observations of the patterns produced by packing spheres and those in crystals, suggested that atoms themselves were tiny solid spheres. When the electron was discovered it was necessary to modify the structure of the atom to allow for those negatively charged particles and the yet to be discovered positive matter that was required to render atoms neutral. Thus we got Thomson's Plum Pudding model. The famous gold foil experiment conducted by Rutherford again required a change to the structure to explain the observations. The nucleus with orbiting electrons became the best model explaining all observations to that date. Later the proton was discovered, and later again the neutron. The basic model has since been thoroughly shaken up with the discovery of numerous other subatomic particles and the complications of quantum mechanics. All that aside, even now, considering atoms to be tiny, indestructible spheres is adequate for the layman to help understand basic concepts regarding matter.

Sometimes the data we have can lead to more than one satisfactory explanation. When the wrong one, for whatever reason, is generally accepted as correct, that is not really the fault of science. Fallible human thinking can always lead to mistakes. The beauty of science is that such faults can usually be exposed when more information is obtained. That's how self-correction works. The hindrance to it can come from dogmatic acceptance of the status quo and refusal to accept the need for change. That is simply a human fault.