<p>^ The way I see it, science is nothing more than pattern recognition. By looking at what has happened in the past, we predict what will happen in the future and how our actions can alter that.</p>
<p>Religion is about why patterns exist to be recognised, and what we should be doing to alter them.</p>
<p>Science is a hammer. Using it, we can build a table. Religion is the thing that gave us the hammer and the reason we want a table.</p>
<p>Guys…</p>
<p>You know who the most influential man to ever exist was? The man who invented God. MAN INVENTED GOD. Not the other way around. We let the invention get out of control and now it is dictating how we live our lives. Why should we help the person sleeping on the street? Why should we let morals wrack our decisions? That was the very important lesson of Nietzsche.</p>
<p>Now science is becoming the new religion/god. If a scientist tells you that there are things in an atom, most people believe the scientist even though they have no proof that the scientist is right. If a scientist tells you that a potentially lethal drug can cure you, you dont look at him with skepticism. You just take the pill. Science definitely triumphed over Religion.</p>
<p>^i actually kind of agree with that. Man did create religion, and now science is overpowering religion. I think it’s because people are starting to approve it and now there are a lot more “nonbelievers” in the world. The thing about science and religion is that you can always argue against them. There are so many theories in biology and the concept of religion is an entire theory on it’s own. It’s just whether or not you believe it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See post #861.</p>
<p>I dont think it’s fair to say that I make “idiotic assumptions.” how can someone who recognizes or concedes that there are inconsistencies or falsehoods in scripture and the logical disprovability in god simply make up a new rule that it exists outside of logic? How many more irrational inventions does it take before it’s clear that the guy just doesnt exist?</p>
<p>Two things: First, it’s not an irrational invention, it’s the obvious way a god must be if a god exists. Second, we don’t recognise the “logical disprovability of god”. God is logically unprovable, at least without Him writing His name in the sky or something, but He is also impossible to logically disprove, or at least, any logic which would seem to disprove Him would also disprove us and the rest of reality. It’s the nature of origins claims that they can’t ever be completely proven.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It isn’t necessarily a “new rule”. It’s more or less an overlooked possibility. If there is indeed an omnipotent and omniscient being with knowledge beyond our comprehension, who are we to deny its existence based upon logical suppositions crafted by our comparatively feeble minds?</p>
<p>^^ God is logically disprovable. Mifune addressed that. It’s just something that you aren’t willing to accept. You dont accept ANYTHING that goes against your religion even when you are completely wrong.</p>
<p>That’s a rather brash and shallow assumption to make. I don’t believe I made any comments at all about my religion. I’m not even religious, I’ll tell you that much. I just don’t reject the possibility of a godlike figure. Let’s not get frustrated.</p>
<p>Our perception of logic is limited by our our feeble minds. We are not all-knowing–not even close. Where you might believe that a “God” is logically disprovable, I have serious doubts about our mental capability to make such a claim. If a god truly is omniscient and infinitely knowledgeable, then proving/disproving its existence may be beyond our mental faculties. All we can do is speculate to no end. I think there is a lot more to solving this question than what our minds (and our grasp of logic, for that matter) are capable of understanding, and therefore cannot outrightly reject the idea of a “God” with complete confidence.</p>
<p>By the double carrot I meant that I was referring to MosbyMarion. Sorry for the confusion.</p>
<p>What a delightful misunderstanding 
I’m sorry, my bad.</p>
<p>^^ Caret</p>
<p>^ Hijack</p>
<p>
So perhaps I was being a bit harsh. But we’re all speaking English, so perhaps not.</p>
<p>MosbyMarion, you have once again submitted another slew of assertions that are misrepresentative, logically egregious, scientifically illiterate, or so transparently infantile, so distant from reality, that it is painful to see someone so mislead into a false worldview (and perhaps with essentially no hope of transcending above it). But in fact, I don’t think I would trust an argument from any individual who has deducted or been indoctrinated into the idea that brain activity demonstrates the legitimacy of supernaturalism, that humans and dinosaurs coexisted within the past few thousand years, that the Earth is 6,000 years into its existence, or that evolution doesn’t exist – just fatuously stupid, absurd, ill-considered, and overwhelmingly discredited viewpoints.</p>
<p>You are not willing to embrace the overwhelming abundance of objective proof and an impenetrable barrier of scientific evidence that overbearingly devastates and delegitimizes your assertions. You continue to fill your argument with substandard reasoning, continue to blunder with simple logical syllogisms, continue to misrepresent scientific findings, and continue to remain na</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a common argument from “sensible” theologians who recognize that sound logical proofs exist exposing the nonexistence of god. That is, resolutely firm logic corroborates the fact that certain purported (humanly endowed) characteristics of god simply cannot be simultaneously possessed, or even individually held, hence invalidating the entire concept. However, stating that a supernatural entity transcends logic or is not subject to its foundations is completely baseless and does not discard all intellectualization as conveniently as theists might hope. In fact, it merely opens them to further recrimination and defeat. </p>
<p>If human logic is insufficient for metaphysics then debating for the existence of “God” is inherently futile. It is human logic, psychology, and subjective judgment that humanity (or, more specifically, theists) conceives the concept of ethereal deities in the first place. Secondly, “beyond logic” or “free from logical constraints” (or any other phrasing variant) is nothing more than an admission that such beliefs are irrational and logically indefensible. Thirdly, to say that “God” could create a round square or a cubical sphere, for instance, is to say that its abilities are those that cannot logically exist, placing it into the realm of nothing more than delusional fantasy, equivalent in fabricated ontology to many of our former childhood friends (Santa Clause, fairies, the Easter bunny, and so on). </p>
<p>Logic, at its very basis, is reasoning conducted or assessed according to rigorous principles of proof and inference and describes relationships among propositions in terms of consequence, contradiction, contrariety, conversion, and so forth. In essence, it represents a specific system or codification of the principles of validity and deduction. Any contravention or departure from logical grounds inherently denotes an untruth. That said, appealing to the unknown to substantiate the known is one of the most basic logical fallacies that exists. In addition, it is certainly a factual trend that scientific truth and impartially obtained evidence have invariably encroached upon beliefs in the pseudoscientific, religious, godly, superstitious, and delusions of all kinds and necessitates supernatural dissolution. </p>
<p>Quite frankly, religion is a figurative time bomb. At a time when religious assertion is objectively derailed, the belief is no longer tenable. However, religious beliefs and their extraneous outgrowths habitually die hard, regardless of how unmistakably false. Creationism, intelligent design, and any beliefs that indefensibly spurn evolution or, in the generalized sense, promote anti-scientific dogma, are in the same boat, just as geocentrism and the flat-Earth theory were in a more uncultivated era.</p>
<p>Many neuroscientists, psychologists, and scientific researchers have concluded that religion is simply a byproduct of otherwise normal processes in the brain. We tend to detect agency when there isn’t any, and instinctively and inaptly personify phenomenon. Brain imaging establishes that our evolutionary past governs our tendency to adhere to religious and irrational beliefs due to the scientifically inaccurate way in which we fashion the world. Throughout the past, submission to the needs of a greater group were far more advantageous than simply going it alone, since personal advantage follows from the subsequent success of the group. Hence, it shouldn’t be peculiar that reciprocity (in the common distinctions of altruism and cooperation) has come to predominate the human population. A species simply cannot survive without it. </p>
<p>We are biologically inclined to assign intentions to entities whose behavior is of great import to us. This is not only inappropriately importuned to “God” but to ordinary inanimate objects as well. Those who have technical difficulties with automobiles and computers, for instance, will almost always entreat the machine with some set of passionate requests in a quixotic attempt to provoke the proper function. In essence, we are projecting intent onto insentient objects, as if it is an instinctual algorithm inherent in us. Basically, it is normal psychological processes being applied in the wrong context, which is conceptually parallel to the underlying basis of religious belief. Yet, we frequently believe in the religions and deities that are developed out of these same misdirected tendencies. The attribution of immaterial sentience to events in indeed a far easier method of fulfilling intellectual void than to study phenomena scientifically, a convenient way to spontaneously resolve existential enigma. </p>
<p>[Religion</a> and the Brain - Dana Foundation](<a href=“http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=24068]Religion”>http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=24068)</p>
<p>Religion is the aggregate of fabled chronicles that attempt to explain the origin of a people, their fate, and their indebtedness to subscribe to particular figures of worship, ethical conventions, and other protocols. But its attributional basis is inappropriately reversed. Religious and moral conviction does not proceed in top-down fashion but rather from the bottom-up, from people to their tribe, group, or culture. They are not derived from the top-down or from the general to the particular, from some animated force or immaterial being to the people by means of the culture. Belief is inherent in human psychology, not independently or transcendentally endowed to it.</p>
<p>Simply put, many people fundamentally allow themselves to blindly believe certain things. It is personal deception that accounts for so much intrinsic gullibility. There is an intoxicating alacrity in all too many people to irrationally adhere to certain beliefs even in the absence of evidence, through substitution of a false rationality, the presence of illusion that they perceive as evidence, or even when there exists an inviolable fortress of evidence that runs starkly in contrast to the belief(s), typically through indoctrination or willful self-deception. But emotional and societal factors influence our method of thought and formation of conclusions more often than we would be privy to admit. People misperceive random events or natural features that seem to corroborate their beliefs (i.e. rationalizing the banana as proof of some sentient existence). </p>
<p>Interpretation of the raw feed provided from sensory experience is not objective but rather influenced by mindset, previous experience, innate disposition, expectations, beliefs, and culture. (Such is the reason why “eyewitness” accounts are often so evidently flawed.) Anything inherently subjective in nature is susceptible to such distortion. This is precisely why science and its impartial foundations of gathering evidence has become such a powerful, effective, and guiding intellectual tool and why its corresponding branches of learning proliferate to such a significant and relentless extent. But the most important thing is to learn exactly what type of cognitive errors our species is prone to making. Indeed, the false perceptions of paranormal activity and supernatural experience are the most profound examples. </p>
<p>Adherence to supernatural existence or belief in a coordinating, socially uniting figure is often the result of tribalism or a requirement for inclusion into a particular group. In more primeval times, that meant survival and reproductive success. There has been more than enough time for epigenesis – genetic slants of cognitive development – to evolve and produce moral, religious, and supernatural tendencies. In other words, indoctrinability was selected to such an extent that it became instinct. Over time, religious, supernatural, and ethical precepts are so culturally (and, by extension, individually) ingrained that their origins become forgotten. For instance, many individuals mechanically say “bless you” to those who sneeze even though (most) no longer believe that “demons” are entering and departing the body. </p>
<p>Moreover, commonly tethered to religious belief is the concept of the afterlife, a profound utopia or transcendent nonmaterial revitalization that religious cultures invent to vindicate the subordinating imperative of social existence. It conveniently fabricates a justification for moral tendency out of the congenital human (emotional) desire for immortality. Religion and god-belief provides a strong psychological safeguard against the fear of death. It is not rational arguments (there aren’t any), but rather emotions, that cause belief in a future life. Humans typically cope with the reality of death by fatuously imagining that it isn’t real – that somehow humans rematerialize elsewhere in pure desire for a permanent existence. </p>
<p>Some individual’s fanatical, irrational, and ceaselessly hidebound need for dogma is a biologically based vestige from our species primitive days – a misconceived reaction to some inherent impulse. Simply stated, for most, science and secular humanism do not satisfy this organic instinct. It’s objectivity and imaginatively sterile nature (at least in the comparative sense) bluntly contrasts with the psychically exuberant and emotionally fulfilling nature of transcendent thought. But if critical thought is in some supply and can reach a simple conclusion, it is that zeal and desire are not fundamentally equivalent or as practically significant as truth. </p>
<p>The totality of humanity’s devotional confusion is that it genetically developed to believe one explanation regarding the foundations of our existence (and, in turn, sacrilised this hoax) and stumbled upon another. The human mind evolved to believe in gods, superstition, paranormality, and other illusions. It did not evolve to believe in the comparatively unemotional, dispassionate natural explanations provided by science, which has largely only been feasible within a very short period of time. </p>
<p>The uncomfortable truth – regardless of what many think – is that science and religion are not genuinely consistent or factually reconcilable. The fundamental solidarity which indisputably underlies the full scope of our accumulated knowledge – irrelevant of the seeming disparities between academic disciplines – is unobtainable without understanding their true nature, particularly the unsettled misconceptions still present regarding religion’s and supernatural thinking’s objective basis.</p>
<p>And indeed, indiscriminate adherence to supernatural belief and refusal to budge from fixated ideas when no evidence is present or even in the existence of an overwhelming abundance of evidence to the contrary is a form of mental abnormality. The neurological phenomenon associated with paranormal experience involve some form of over-stimulation of the limbic system, which subsequently intensifies religious experience. For example, Alzheimer’s Disease is profoundly associated with a disintegration of the limbic system and the religiously devout among those afflicted tend to lose personal interest in religion in extent to the severity of its progression. [M. Spinella and O. Wain (2006)]</p>
<p>Alleged personal revelations of a god-figure are patently delusory. Collective hubris and erroneous belief in humans’ divinely selected significance profoundly influence the emotional inclination toward god-belief. It is more vainglorious to believe that there is an entity that deeply cares, watches, guides, implicitly communicates, and responds to oneself than the correct alternative (its genuine lack of existence). But, if anything, it’s nothing more than an anthropocentric and speciesist whim in the belief that humans are the most superior and divinely connected breed in the universe. These days, we can stimulate portions of the cerebral cortex to induce mystical or spiritual occurrences. Hence, these experiences are not independent of human psychology but rather manifested on a neurobiological level.</p>
<p>[Religion</a> versus science might be all in the mind - smh.com.au](<a href=“http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/28/1051381900365.html]Religion”>Religion versus science might be all in the mind)</p>
<p>Without question, science, secular humanism, and rationalism consistently depreciate any perceived merit in religious claim. In fact, the former are the only views compatible with reality. The natural sciences unify in theory and in impartial evidence form the impregnable technical foundation for modern civilization, thought, and academic study. Superstitions, pseudosciences, spiritual elements, and supernaturalism gratify individual psychosomatic needs but are patently devoid of valid ideas or the means to furnish proper explanation to the technical ground and merely profit from obscuring the truth.</p>
<p>Religion and its followers, without integrating the findings of science, will continually lose credibility. But it will inevitably remain as an intellectual outlet to those fundamentally biased, those prone to the psychologically fulfilling nature of its creative asseverations, and those who simply wish to oppose a clearheaded recognition of its inconsistencies, contradictions, and patent falsehoods. But the consequent result will inevitably be the consciousness and criticism of fable and the secularization of religion and the mythos and tradition associated with human culture.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I want to clear up, I don’t believe that our brain processes are “simultaneously operated by some fairy in the sky”.</p>
<p>I believe that each Human being posesses a mind capable of thought not deterministically dictated by outside factors. I don’t think our minds are controlled by god. I don’t think they are controlled by physics either. I think our minds are controlled by us. I reject determinists whether they are theists or atheists.</p>
<p>This is relevant to the morality question because if we don’t really have free will then how can we act like someone did “wrong”? Something can only be “wrong” if there was a possibility of chosing “right”.</p>
<p>I think you agree with me on this issue, though you come at it from an atheistic viewpoint.</p>
<p>As for the rest of your posts, they were addressed at argument #2, on which, as I said, I have little to say here.</p>
<p>As for evolution, I don’t reject it because of my religion. There would be no reason for me to do so, as it does not contradict my religion.</p>
<p>The reason I reject evolution is because I consider it unsupported by the evidence. To convince me of its truth will take more than a lecture on letting go of my “superstitions” and being “objective”.</p>
<p>If you want to make evolution more credible, then you should present specific evidence. Give me specific examples of fossils that show a “continuous evolutionary progression”. Tell me specifically how such relationships as the cleanerfish could evolve by variation and natural selection. Show me specific cases where we have observed new traits emerge by mutation.</p>
<p>When you state repeatedly that I don’t accept the “vast amounts of evidence” but do not show any of this evidence, you only make me more skeptical of the theory.</p>
<p>And Adenine, if the fact that theistic theories have been changed in response to new evidence falsifies them, then evolution is also false, since it has been shown wrong and changed many times, for example in the case of Piltdown Man, Embryonic Recapitulation, and numerous cases where the “family tree” had to be shuffled in response to new fossils being found “out of timeframe”.</p>