What is your religion?

[curious]

I'm not the only on who thinks the Bible was an attempt at Science. Ever heard of Sam Harris? Probably not. Anyway, I can assure you that he has 10 times the education that you have and he TOO believes religion is a failed science.

He has ten Ph.Ds in science? Wow.

[losturmarbles]

Professors squash advancements all the time because the advancement makes them look bad.

This might hold water if you could provide some examples. Advancements are hindered by professors sure, but not because of their ego. More because of big business using government and universities to monopolize and control industries. This goes back to the free market being sacrificed in the early part of the 20th century in favor of "helping others" ie socialism, which ends up only enslaving those it's suppose to be helping.

On the Bible being an attempt at science, I think you and John Galt are both right. Wikipedia defines science as "an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world". So some books of the Bible certainly tried to explain things about the world, and could be considered a weak attempt at Science.

The bigger issue is religion has always been a tool for the elites in power to control people. They know it's a scam, so really the Bible (at least in the last 1700 years) has served more as disinformation or a diversion to actual knowledge. But that doesn't necessarily mean that at the time the books were originally authored that it wasn't a genuine attempt at what we call science.

[curious]

But that doesn't necessarily mean that at the time the books were originally authored that it wasn't a genuine attempt at what we call science.

I know the Bible pretty well, having read it several hundred times from cover to cover. Show me one scripture which is the authors using the scientific method to explain something.

[urge2kill]

If you're brain was as large as a pea you would be easier to have a debate with, who gives a shit that both are impossible to prove if one is backed up by all the logic and available information in the world and one is one of a dozen culturally popular completely madeup fairy tales with no scientific evidence. Its impossible to prove theres not T-Rexs flying in a space shuttle waiting to land on earth and take over, but who the **** cares that you cant disprove it, that's not a valid argument for supporting a belief in it. You're too stupid to understand I give up, go to church they'll explain everything for you, you're just who they're looking for. Someone that believes if something is lottery winning unlikely and makes absolutely zero sense that its still reasonable to believe in it since it cant be absolutely disproven. By the way watch out for the T-Rexs when they land my friend.

LOL this isn't a debate, it's you trying to refute what I said by constantly changing it.

[losturmarbles]

I know the Bible pretty well, having read it several hundred times from cover to cover. Show me one scripture which is the authors using the scientific method to explain something.

Curious, why do you always try to argue points no one is trying to make.

What does using a methodology that's only been around for a few hundred years have to do with text from 3000 years ago?

[curious]

Curious, why do you always try to argue points no one is trying to make.

What does using a methodology that's only been around for a few hundred years have to do with text from 3000 years ago?

So give one example of the point you were making that shows that Bible writers were trying to explain science. If that isn't what you were saying then spell out what you were saying and give an example of it.

[DaProfessor23]

Theravada Buddisht

[Glitch]

re-poll

[gwiz]

I'm not the only on who thinks the Bible was an attempt at Science. Ever heard of Sam Harris? Probably not. Anyway, I can assure you that he has 10 times the education that you have and he TOO believes religion is a failed science.

he doesn't mention the bible, he is talking about religion which is a broad subject.

The only way he is correct in biblical terms is that in the bible someone with a handicap was considered punishment for something a descendant had done wrong.

You have to admit at some point your lack of knowledge of the content of the bible,when you finally read it you can still have plenty to criticize

go to google maps and type in Israel,this is a real place on earth, the bible is telling the story of these people.

[losturmarbles]

So give one example of the point you were making that shows that Bible writers were trying to explain science. If that isn't what you were saying then spell out what you were saying and give an example of it.

What are you talking about "explain science"? Science wasn't a word until circa 1300. That doesn't mean concepts of what science is wasn't around. The bible tries to gives knowledge like where man came from, why we die, what cause sicknesses, etc. You can argue that it could've been disinformation perpetuated by authorities and given as fake knowledge, but to argue that they didn't use the scientific method so it wasn't science is just asinine.

My example: Man's origins - Book of Genesis

Now your turn:

Give one example of a professor squashing an advancement just to protect his reputation.

[curious]

What are you talking about "explain science"? Science wasn't a word until circa 1300. That doesn't mean concepts of what science is wasn't around. The bible tries to gives knowledge like where man came from, why we die, what cause sicknesses, etc. You can argue that it could've been disinformation perpetuated by authorities and given as fake knowledge, but to argue that they didn't use the scientific method so it wasn't science is just asinine.

My example: Man's origins - Book of Genesis

Now your turn:

Give one example of a professor squashing an advancement just to protect his reputation.

I wasn't arguing that. I was trying to understand what you are talking about. But since you want to insult me then **** you.

[losturmarbles]

I wasn't arguing that. I was trying to understand what you are talking about. But since you want to insult me then **** you.

nice deflection. It's not that hard to understand. And if you weren't arguing that, then what's the point to your challenge in finding it in the bible?

[losturmarbles]

LOL this isn't a debate, it's you trying to refute what I said by constantly changing it.

He didn't change anything. You can't prove a negative.

An atheist (even a "strict atheist") will become a theist as soon as you prove God exists.

But a theist believes in God without proof. If God fails to reveal himself, a theist will still be a theist. There's no way to prove God doesn't exist, just like there's no way to prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.
You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the positive.
I'm pretty sure BTIB has already said this.

[losturmarbles]

[aggieshawn]

Hockey is my religion.

[DeeVeeOSs]

My religion is tribalism. So is yours.

[urge2kill]

He didn't change anything. You can't prove a negative.

An atheist (even a "strict atheist") will become a theist as soon as you prove God exists.

But a theist believes in God without proof. If God fails to reveal himself, a theist will still be a theist. There's no way to prove God doesn't exist, just like there's no way to prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.
You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the positive.
I'm pretty sure BTIB has already said this.

That's pretty much what I said. Neither can prove their belief.

[losturmarbles]

That's pretty much what I said. Neither can prove their belief.

One can't prove it. The other has nothing to prove. Big difference.

[urge2kill]

Let me ask this, how is the belief that a God has a 0% chance of existing and is an impossibility more logically sound than the 100% belief that a God does exist?

[ATP123]

i know that i cared a lot about a jehovas wittness for 2 years and i now know everything she would ever say to me was just a bunch of lies, notreligiously speaking because she never talked about that but in general, they scare the hell out of everyone within and lies just come out over and over

[losturmarbles]

Let me ask this, how is the belief that a God has a 0% chance of existing and is an impossibility more logically sound than the 100% belief that a God does exist?

I guess that depends on the individual.

Look at it this way:
There are believers and non-believers. (Not 2 sets of different beliefs as you suggest)
Agnostics would logically fall into non-believers.

[gwiz]

in this vid we learn that the origin of slavery was in Egypt,

the bible deals with the story of enslavement,man owning man,I know this is a foreign concept to young minds but is very Real.

The god jehovah brought the people of the bible out of slavery.

the story is twisted but the ultimate concept is when you sin you are a slave to sin which ultimately leads to slavery to man

[bettilimbroke999]

Let me ask this, how is the belief that a God has a 0% chance of existing and is an impossibility more logically sound than the 100% belief that a God does exist?

Quit trying to get me to kill myself in order to find out if theres a God and end this debate

Honestly my argument is more against any religion being correct, as far as whether there is existence after death I have no idea, when we die I suppose we'll find out instantly. Either we wont exist or we will exist in another form, personally I believe we'll die and cease to exist bc we use an animal brain to perceive our own existence and when that brain is dead how could we perceive anything? But having never died I dont know what will happen after death, I do however know to a certainty that all the world's religions are nothing but complete bullshit, there is an unbelievable amount of logical evidence against each one and virtually know logical evidence for each one, every religion is based on "faith" in the face of overwhelming evidence its complete bullshit.

[The Madcap]

Give one example of a professor squashing an advancement just to protect his reputation.

Having some experience in the academic community I can tell you that it's not as simple as "providing an example" of a professor "squashing advancement."

It's more of a group think psychology that results in a passive-aggressive dismissal of unpopular ideas before they are even published.

Here's how it works:

the top dogs in the field all think a certain way. The lesser dogs that want to be top dogs realize the only way to gain the respect of the top dogs is to either, start thinking that way, or pretend publicly that they do. Which means that they too will also then become publicly dismissive of ideas that conflict with the prevailing wisdom of the top dogs, even if deep down they actually agree with the ideas that they are dismissing.

The academic community is as cliquey as any fraternity or high school lunch table. There are certain publications within each field that have garnered reputations amongst the community as to being more "popular" than others, and some that are viewed so poorly that if you get published there your reputation will become under question.

Say academics are like the hot stuck up bitches that went to your high school. And say the journals they publish their research in are the selective pool of boyfriends the stuck up bitches have to choose from. Well, as long as the girls pick the right guy from the right family, from the right neighborhood, who drives the right car, and has the right amount of money, whose parents have the right job, well then, all your fellow girls will look to you and say "oh, he's so cute. You did so good. You have a bright future." And they will welcome you into the circle and do what they can to bolster your reputation.

Meanwhile, if traditionally you've been one of these stuck-up bitches, and you decide you've had enough of their two faced back stabbing bullshit, and think the selective pool of approved boys to date is full of arrogant two-timing assholes, and you go and branch out and start hooking up with a bad boy from the wrong side of the tracks (a guy like me for instance) well before too long you're no longer invited to the cool parties, asked to be a part of that group for prom, and suddenly find cheer-leader practice a tense and unwelcoming experience. (Which was great for me, because I didn't have to deal with her bitch friends, but not so great for her.)

Anyway, point is, there's an unwritten and understood rule in academia, and that's not to rock the boat. Unless you've gotten word of some prior approval first. It starts the second you start going for a PHD. Your advisors will do everything they can to brainwash you into their side of the fence. And if that doesn't work, then once you get your PHD your colleagues will all gang up on you to weaken your credibility.

Academia is not a place for people with new ideas that can think beyond the accepted ideal. It is full of lemmings incapable of their own critical assessment. Which means when the status quo baseline theories start getting dissected and picked apart, they aren't intelligent enough to figure out what's going on and where they stand. So they get lost in the shuffle, losing their prominence, publishing numbers, and lecture fees. And so in this world, new ideas/advancements are often shunned, either overtly or covertly, to prevent any sudden upheaval that stands to reshuffle the deck of who the leaders of the field happen to be. Any time new advancements are made, it is only after the top dogs have had the time to comprehended them first, and then they go out and take credit for them. It's complete bullshit. But that's the way it is. And that's why most sane decent intellectually honest people got out of academia years ago, and it is now full of arrogant snobbish elitists.

[mr.kush]

agnostic here.

[losturmarbles]

Having some experience in the academic community I can tell you that it's not as simple as "providing an example" of a professor "squashing advancement."

It's more of a group think psychology that results in a passive-aggressive dismissal of unpopular ideas before they are even published.

Here's how it works:

the top dogs in the field all think a certain way. The lesser dogs that want to be top dogs realize the only way to gain the respect of the top dogs is to either, start thinking that way, or pretend publicly that they do. Which means that they too will also then become publicly dismissive of ideas that conflict with the prevailing wisdom of the top dogs, even if deep down they actually agree with the ideas that they are dismissing.

The academic community is as cliquey as any fraternity or high school lunch table. There are certain publications within each field that have garnered reputations amongst the community as to being more "popular" than others, and some that are viewed so poorly that if you get published there your reputation will become under question.

Say academics are like the hot stuck up bitches that went to your high school. And say the journals they publish their research in are the selective pool of boyfriends the stuck up bitches have to choose from. Well, as long as the girls pick the right guy from the right family, from the right neighborhood, who drives the right car, and has the right amount of money, whose parents have the right job, well then, all your fellow girls will look to you and say "oh, he's so cute. You did so good. You have a bright future." And they will welcome you into the circle and do what they can to bolster your reputation.

Meanwhile, if traditionally you've been one of these stuck-up bitches, and you decide you've had enough of their two faced back stabbing bullshit, and think the selective pool of approved boys to date is full of arrogant two-timing assholes, and you go and branch out and start hooking up with a bad boy from the wrong side of the tracks (a guy like me for instance) well before too long you're no longer invited to the cool parties, asked to be a part of that group for prom, and suddenly find cheer-leader practice a tense and unwelcoming experience. (Which was great for me, because I didn't have to deal with her bitch friends, but not so great for her.)

Anyway, point is, there's an unwritten and understood rule in academia, and that's not to rock the boat. Unless you've gotten word of some prior approval first. It starts the second you start going for a PHD. Your advisors will do everything they can to brainwash you into their side of the fence. And if that doesn't work, then once you get your PHD your colleagues will all gang up on you to weaken your credibility.

Academia is not a place for people with new ideas that can think beyond the accepted ideal. It is full of lemmings incapable of their own critical assessment. Which means when the status quo baseline theories start getting dissected and picked apart, they aren't intelligent enough to figure out what's going on and where they stand. So they get lost in the shuffle, losing their prominence, publishing numbers, and lecture fees. And so in this world, new ideas/advancements are often shunned, either overtly or covertly, to prevent any sudden upheaval that stands to reshuffle the deck of who the leaders of the field happen to be. Any time new advancements are made, it is only after the top dogs have had the time to comprehended them first, and then they go out and take credit for them. It's complete bullshit. But that's the way it is. And that's why most sane decent intellectually honest people got out of academia years ago, and it is now full of arrogant snobbish elitists.

Your argument is all fluff, no substance. Some of your post may be factual, but it goes back to my assertion that other forces are at work. Advancements are never squashed solely to protect a professor's reputation.
Curious' original statement was "Professors squash advancements all the time because the advancement makes them look bad."
Which is complete horse squeeze.

[The Madcap]

Your argument is all fluff, no substance. Some of your post may be factual, but it goes back to my assertion that other forces are at work. Advancements are never squashed solely to protect a professor's reputation.
Curious' original statement was "Professors squash advancements all the time because the advancement makes them look bad."
Which is complete horse squeeze.

I'm aware it's fluffy. But it's not like this is the type of thing you can find empirical evidence for.

I've witnessed first hand a professor discard a student's doctoral thesis because the professor was too stupid to account for the findings in the report and didn't want to deal with the risks associated of having his name attached to it. And that's just one example of dozens I've witnessed, and dozens more I've heard about.

People who have had their ideas squashed don't bring it up or they are banished to obscurity. And they want to make tenure one day and get some satisfaction out of wasting 7-10 years to get a PHD. And those who say "screw this, I'm not taking this bullshit anymore" move on to jobs in the private sector where the squashing of their ideas is long since forgotten.

Curious statement is right. But so is yours. They aren't mutually exclusive. A professor will squash advancement solely because he doesn't want to allow his theories to be challenged in the field, but this doesn't mean there aren't other forces at work. There are. He wouldn't be a position to think he could get away with such a thing, nor would he even think to, if the environment he worked in was more open minded and welcoming of new ideas.

If the feeling in the academic community was "wow. That's some cool shit. Interesting, I've never thought of that before" (as it should be) then new ideas wouldn't get squashed. But this isn't the attitude. The attitude is: "how is this going to look on my resume? Will this help me get that grant money and fellowship I'm after? Will this take me out of the running for the Nobel? Will my colleagues think I'm foolish? Will I be making as much money after I publicly vouch for this research? Will I be able to afford my mortgage and keep my house at the beach?"

It's never about the inherent validity or interest of new ideas, it's about the political ramifications within the field and how that will effect one's reputation.

[urge2kill]

I guess that depends on the individual.

Look at it this way:
There are believers and non-believers. (Not 2 sets of different beliefs as you suggest)
Agnostics would logically fall into non-believers.

How does logic change depending on the individual? Validity of non-provable evidence varies by individual, but logic itself doesn't change. If you can't prove something doesn't exist then it logically has to have a greater than 0% chance of existing. How does a strict atheist get to 0% without proof? I believe it's the same way a theist gets to 100% belief in existence and what religions always preach, faith.

[JohnGalt2341]

he doesn't mention the bible, he is talking about religion which is a broad subject. The only way he is correct in biblical terms is that in the bible someone with a handicap was considered punishment for something a descendant had done wrong. You have to admit at some point your lack of knowledge of the content of the bible,when you finally read it you can still have plenty to criticize go to google maps and type in Israel,this is a real place on earth, the bible is telling the story of these people.

Good one. I recommend you read the Bible yourself. Nothing can bring a person to Atheism faster than reading the Bible. If you HAVE actually read the bible and you're not an Atheist then you need some serious help.

[JohnGalt2341]

Your example is totally wrong. Science regresses all the time because of human interference. Just because EVERYONE did not accept the NAZI flying bell does not make it that humans did not regress science for their own personal gain. I don't care what the general population accepts, they mostly just listen to what they are spoon fed by the politicians and the big money interests. You obviously have not studied anything technical at the college level. Professors squash advancements all the time because the advancement makes them look bad.

So is there any point in time where Science was better overall than it is now?

[losturmarbles]

in this vid we learn that the origin of slavery was in Egypt,

the bible deals with the story of enslavement,man owning man,I know this is a foreign concept to young minds but is very Real.

The god jehovah brought the people of the bible out of slavery.

the story is twisted but the ultimate concept is when you sin you are a slave to sin which ultimately leads to slavery to man[/quote]

Video starts "Like all animals, people want to dominate..."

Didn't you have a problem with Hitchens referring to people as animals?

think of yourself as an animal then go read the bible with this in mind.

And ask yourself honestly aren't animals considered lower than man

and doesn't man have dominion over animals

so why would you want to think of yourself as an animal.

Only watched about a min, too many faulty premises gwiz.

People act in their own self-interest. We are born free. The only sin is infringing on someone else's freedom.
There can be no slavery to sin since sin is just a word made up by slave masters.

[JohnGalt2341]

go to google maps and type in Israel,this is a real place on earth, the bible is telling the story of these people.

Is Israel on that flat place we call Earth? My great great grandfather once suggested the earth was round to some Christians... and they murdered him... you know for being a Heretic. Don't worry... it was all in the name of Peace.

[losturmarbles]

It's never about the inherent validity or interest of new ideas, it's about the political ramifications within the field and how that will effect one's reputation.

I'll concede that this may have some truth to it, however the academic "environment" is not a natural development by itself. This environment is a product of the influence of external forces of government and big business. During the so-called progressive era big business created an ideology of a public interest where so-called enlightened business men would claim to be for the greater good and convince the government to enforce monopolies or cartels. They got away with it by aligning with the universities and having the intellectuals become apologists for them. These intellectuals would promote the state (and corporate) agenda and in exchange be sponsored or subsidized in some way. When these cartels hold the power over whose research gets funded, which jobs are created, etc., then the free exchange of ideas, along with the free market, is oppressed.

On a side note, this is the same role the church played in most of history. That is until western civilization tried to separate the church and state. Ironic that our greatest period of growth and advancement was during the time when freedom was at it's highest.

[losturmarbles]

How does logic change depending on the individual? Validity of non-provable evidence varies by individual, but logic itself doesn't change. If you can't prove something doesn't exist then it logically has to have a greater than 0% chance of existing. How does a strict atheist get to 0% without proof? I believe it's the same way a theist gets to 100% belief in existence and what religions always preach, faith.

How can one be "more logically sound"? I told you if you're agnostic, meaning there's no way of knowing, that you're automatically a non-believer by LOGICAL DEFAULT. You're right logic doesn't change.
If there's nothing to prove, then there's nothing to NOT believe in. That is irrelevant to the probability of whether something actually exists or not.

[The Madcap]

I'll concede that this may have some truth to it, however the academic "environment" is not a natural development by itself. This environment is a product of the influence of external forces of government and big business. During the so-called progressive era big business created an ideology of a public interest where so-called enlightened business men would claim to be for the greater good and convince the government to enforce monopolies or cartels. They got away with it by aligning with the universities and having the intellectuals become apologists for them. These intellectuals would promote the state (and corporate) agenda and in exchange be sponsored or subsidized in some way. When these cartels hold the power over whose research gets funded, which jobs are created, etc., then the free exchange of ideas, along with the free market, is oppressed.

On a side note, this is the same role the church played in most of history. That is until western civilization tried to separate the church and state. Ironic that our greatest period of growth and advancement was during the time when freedom was at it's highest.

Indeed.