Science is simply what we use to reaffirm our perceptions.

No, theo- science is, among other things, what we use to explain our perceptions.  There’s a difference.

one hail mary and two fundy supreme court justices would get us a religious tyranny, not a theocracy.

For anyone but a fundamentalist of the flavor concerned, theocracy = religious tyranny.

Like I’ve said many times before our religions are built on different things.  Mine is built on faith, yours on logic.

Characterizing science as a kind of religion is stretching the definition of “religion” taut to the snapping point.  Not many scientists would agree with you there.

Originally posted by zilch:
No, theo- science is, among other things, what we use to explain our perceptions.

Either way its about perceptions which is more important than what we are doing with them.

Originally posted by zilch:
For anyone but a fundamentalist of the flavor concerned, theocracy = religious tyranny.

I would personally strongly prefer to be regarded as a theocrat, not a religious tyrant.  For the sake of intelligent conversation it would be proper or if nothing else respectful to refer to ideas by their proper terms.  Otherwise I will prefer to call Socialist Swine Pinko Commie from here on out.  There is a reason we have terms to differentiate, so let’s not be so lazy to call apples oranges.

Originally posted by zilch:
Characterizing science as a kind of religion is stretching the definition of “religionâ€? taut to the snapping point.  Not many scientists would agree with you there.

I’m characterizing atheism as a religion.  Atheism happens to be, by practice more often than not, founded on science and logic.

Neither Science nor Atheism are religions by any stretch of the imagination, actually the antithesis of, is more like it.

And going by your definition then there is actually no such thing as a Theocracy since no such thing as Sun Gods or whatever flavor of god you believe in exist.
Call it religious tyranny or whatever you like, that’s what we are headed for.
I’ll stick with Theocracy, close enough.

Originally posted by Nunyabiz:
Neither Science nor Atheism are religions by any stretch of the imagination, actually the antithesis of, is more like it.

If I define a religion to be a system of belief about the supernatural and paranormal then atheism is certainly not excluded from the title of religion.

Originally posted by Nunyabiz:
And going by your definition then there is actually no such thing as a Theocracy since no such thing as Sun Gods or whatever flavor of god you believe in exist.

You perception that there is no God does not make it absolutely true.  If there is a God then theocracy can exist.  Religious tyranny can exist with or without the existence of God.

I know it’s trite to bust out the definitions, but since there is a semantic argument underway…

re·li·gion
1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

In short, at least according to standard usage, unless you have positive belief in a supernatural power, you cannot have religion. Theocrat, you are trying to redefine the terms is such a way that it is logically impossible to be without religious belief. If belief in a supernatural deity constitutes a religion, but disbelief in one also constitutes a religion, then what, in your mind, DOESN’T constitute a religion?

Well, then, by Theocrat’s definition, we already HAVE religious education in the schools when we teach evolution!  W00t!

... Oh.  We’re teaching the Wrong One?  That’s completely different.  Never mind.

You perception that there is no God does not make it absolutely true.

Makes it absolutely true to ME.

Your belief in some mythical critter you call god, without a single shred of proof to support this cognition does not make it absolutely true either, what it makes technically would be called a Delusional Psychosis.
As Iv stated before I am firmly convinced that Religious individuals suffer from Delusional Psychosis, you need psychiatric care and medication.

“Psychosis" is a very serious condition. This term covers a group of illnesses which affect the brain so severely that the person is no longer able to tell what is real or not. Having a “delusional psychosis”, like your father, means that he develops very strange, irrational beliefs — at odds with reality and which he can’t accept any arguments against.

http://health.ninemsn.com.au/asktheexperts/paulmorgan.aspx?id=1914

Another malady Christians most certainly suffer from is “Stockholm Syndrome”This page explains this perfectly.
http://www.devilzown.com/psychosisreligion.html

The name comes from a bank robbery in Sweden in 1973. Four people were held hostage for six days, and became attached to their captors. The same thing is a factor for prisoners of war, and abused wives.

In order for the Stockholm Syndrome to take effect the following conditions are necessary: One person threatens to kill another and is perceived to be capable of doing so. The victim cannot escape, and life depends on the captor. The victim is isolated from support, or in the case of hostages, the knowledge that other people are trying to help them. The captor shows kindness as well as violence increasing with the victim’s sense of being totally dependent on the captor. 

In my opinion, Christianity is the world’s largest case of Stockholm Syndrome. All the pieces are there.

Christians tell people that God will kill them, or rather, send them to hell, which is even worse. If the person believes in God, then he is certainly perceived as capable of doing this. After all, he’s God.

They are also told that they cannot escape God’s judgment, and that everything in life depends on God. The success of this tactic is illustrated by the number of Christians who claim that without God, life has no meaning and is not worth living.

There is no one to support them except for God. The only other being who might have the power to do so, the Devil, is presented as being powerless, and even worse than God.

At the same time, Christians are quick to point out how good God really is. He only threatens us because we deserve it.

The parallels become especially sick and twisted when we consider the analogy of the Church as God’s bride. If that’s the case, God has all the earmarks of an abusive husband, and it’s no wonder that the cries of his followers sound so much like the cries of a battered wife.

I can only pity those infected with this Mind Plague.

Here is the definition of religion according to Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary(1913):

Religion \Re*li"gion\ r[-e]*l[i^]j"[u^]n), n. [F., from L.religio; cf. religens pious, revering the gods, Gr. ‘ale`gein to heed, have a care. Cf. Neglect.]
1. The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of faith and worship; a manifestation of piety; as, ethical religions; monotheistic religions; natural religion; revealed religion; the religion of the Jews; the religion of idol worshipers.

An orderly life so far as others are able to observe us is now and then produced by prudential motives or by dint of habit; but without seriousness there can be no religious principle at the bottom, no course of conduct from religious motives; in a word, there can be no religion. --Paley.

Religion [was] not, as too often now, used as equivalent for godliness; but . . . it expressed the outer form and embodiment which the inward spirit of a true or a false devotion assumed. --Trench.

Religions, by which are meant the modes of divine worship proper to different tribes, nations, or communities, and based on the belief held in common by the members of them severally. . . . There is no living religion without something like a doctrine. On the other hand, a doctrine, however elaborate, does not constitute a religion. --C. P. Tiele(Encyc. Brit.).

Religion . . . means the conscious relation between man and God, and the expression of that relation in human conduct. --J. K["o]stlin(Schaff-Herzog Encyc.)

After the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. --Acts xxvi. 5.

The image of a brute, adorned With gay religions full of pomp and gold. --Milton.

The definition of religion changes as society changes.  These definitions are poor.  That is why I define relgion as a belief system relating to the supernatural and paranormal.  That definiton is absolute and will not change in meaning despite a changing society.

Originally posted by Ulfrekr:
Theocrat, you are trying to redefine the terms is such a way that it is logically impossible to be without religious belief. If belief in a supernatural deity constitutes a religion, but disbelief in one also constitutes a religion, then what, in your mind, DOESN’T constitute a religion?

Nothing can’t constitute a religion.  Everyone has a religion just like everyone has a political ideology.  I define political ideology as a belief system about how people ought to be governed.  Just because someone believes in tyranny and another in anarchy does not make belief or disbelief in ruling party a nonpolitical ideology.  It is impossible not to have a political ideology and it is impossible not to have a religion.

Originally posted by Geekmom:
Well, then, by Theocrat’s definition, we already HAVE religious education in the schools when we teach evolution!

No, science is not religion.  Science is “explaining our perceptions.” If teachers gave credit to what caused evolution to happen by saying God did or did not cause these things to happen, then it would be teaching religion in schools.

Originally posted by Nunyabiz:
Makes it absolutely true to ME.

No one cares what is absolutely true to you.  No one cares that the existence of a god(s) is absolutely true to a very large portion of humanity.  What we care about is that which is absolutely true in all cases.  That which is absolutely true, as all intelligent philosophers will tell you, can not be known to humanity.

Nunyabiz the problem with your definition with psychosis is that it does not define what reality is.  For all anyone knows in the absolute reality of things you could be psychotic along with the rest of us.  We assume that the reality it is talking about is perceptible reality.  Unfortunately discussing the existence of the supernatural in terms of perceptible reality gets us no closer to an answer.  You can’t claim the imperceivable to not exist just because it is imperceivable by any human standards.  Leave the metaphysics up to the metaphysicists and they will leave the science to the scientists.

Theocrat is playing the “let ME define the definitions” game I see. First with “theocracy” now with “religion.”

The definition of religion changes as society changes.  These definitions are poor.  That is why I define relgion as a belief system relating to the supernatural and paranormal.  That definiton is absolute and will not change in meaning despite a changing society.

Why you define religion as you do is irrelevant to the fact that your definition is, by definition, wrong. There are plenty of people in this world who are not in the least religious and yet still hold a belief in other supernatural or paranormal phenomena.

Nothing can’t constitute a religion.  Everyone has a religion just like everyone has a political ideology.  I define political ideology as a belief system about how people ought to be governed.  Just because someone believes in tyranny and another in anarchy does not make belief or disbelief in ruling party a nonpolitical ideology.  It is impossible not to have a political ideology and it is impossible not to have a religion.

Only by your own, personal, definitions of the words. I could just as easily say that, by my personal definition of the word, you can’t be anything other than a Satanist and yet I’m willing to bet you would refuse to agree to that particular definition of the word or to consider yourself as such simply because I’d decided to alter the definition to fit my needs. Please explain why we should be any more likely to accept your definitions over those in most dictionaries.

No, science is not religion.  Science is “explaining our perceptions.â€? If teachers gave credit to what caused evolution to happen by saying God did or did not cause these things to happen, then it would be teaching religion in schools.

Science isn’t about explaining our perceptions. Science is about explaining reality as best as it can be explained. Perceptions can be, and often are, wrong so science goes beyond trying to explain our perception of reality to explaining reality itself.

No one cares what is absolutely true to you.  No one cares that the existence of a god(s) is absolutely true to a very large portion of humanity.  What we care about is that which is absolutely true in all cases.  That which is absolutely true, as all intelligent philosophers will tell you, can not be known to humanity.

And intelligent philosophers have the last say on the matter… why?

Then again, given your propensity for devising your own definitions for words, I suppose we should first ask you just what, exactly, your definition of an absolute truth happens to be?

Nunyabiz the problem with your definition with psychosis is that it does not define what reality is.  For all anyone knows in the absolute reality of things you could be psychotic along with the rest of us.  We assume that the reality it is talking about is perceptible reality.  Unfortunately discussing the existence of the supernatural in terms of perceptible reality gets us no closer to an answer.  You can’t claim the imperceivable to not exist just because it is imperceivable by any human standards.  Leave the metaphysics up to the metaphysicists and they will leave the science to the scientists.

By the logic used above you can claim that anything exists and is just “imperceivable” so others shouldn’t claim that it doesn’t and smile smugly to yourself, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t laugh at your claims.

Invisible Pink Unicorns With A Fondness For Cotton Candy? Why there’s probably two or three standing right next to you right now and you just don’t know it! They’re “imperceptible” by any human standards, doncha know! The fact that sometimes Cotton Candy will just disappear on its own is evidence that they must!

Invisible Pink Unicorns With A Fondness For Cotton Candy? Why there’s probably two or three standing right next to you right now and you just don’t know it! They’re “imperceptible� by any human standards, doncha know! The fact that sometimes Cotton Candy will just disappear on its own is evidence that they must!

Thanks, Les! I knew there was a rational explanation for the rapid disappearance of my cotton candy- I sure don’t eat it that fast.  But judging by the rate of disappearance, there must be at least five or six I.P.U.w.a.F.f.C.C. following me around at county fairs…

Zilch, of course there are five or six I.P.U.w.a.F.f.C.C. following you around at country fairs. The I.P.U.w.a.F.f.C.C. are with you always. How can any rational person deny the existence of I.P.U.w.a.F.f.C.C.? Deep down, anyone who has ever seen a sunrise, or heard a baby’s laughter, knows that I.P.U.w.a.F.f.C.C. exist, even if he or she denies it. But yea, those who profess doubt shall surely be cast down, and trampled and impaled and blinded by rainbow-beams for all eternity. So you might as well believe in I.P.U.w.a.F.f.C.C., just to be on the safe side, right? And above all else, remember that the Great Unicorn sent his only progeny down to earth to suffer, die, and be resurrected for your sins, so you best RESPECT!:

My Little Pony, My Little Pony,
Now comes the time to say good-bye!
My Little Pony, My Little Pony,
Could that be a teardrop in your eye?

No need for sorrow; think of tomorrow!
We’ll be together again!
My Little Pony, My Little Pony,
Hope you keep smiling till then!
I hope you keep smiling till then!

Gloria Patri et Filly, Amen.

Ulfrekr, you are too much. 

Originally posted by Les:
There are plenty of people in this world who are not in the least religious and yet still hold a belief in other supernatural or paranormal phenomena.

There are also plenty of people in the world who have no interest in the world of politics and yet everyone has a political ideology.

Originally posted by Les:
I could just as easily say that, by my personal definition of the word, you can’t be anything other than a Satanist and yet I’m willing to bet you would refuse to agree to that particular definition of the word or to consider yourself as such simply because I’d decided to alter the definition to fit my needs.

I would disagree with you because you altered it to fit your needs and not the specific need of having an absolute defintion for itelligent universla communication.  If you find fault with my definition then please offer a more concrete one.

Originally posted by Les:
Science is about explaining reality as best as it can be explained. Perceptions can be, and often are, wrong so science goes beyond trying to explain our perception of reality to explaining reality itself.

So now referring to Philosophy 101, what is reality?  If you know the answer to that I’m sure you could make a fortune and win all kinds of awards.  Where is the reference point, the one absolutely true and undeniable fact on which we can build absolute knowledge?  We must know that in order to understand reality.  However, I am certain you don’t know where that reference point is because no one has discovered it yet.  So you are not really referring to reality, but the perceptible reality we are trying to find a logical base for through science.

Originally posted by Les:
And intelligent philosophers have the last say on the matter… why?

If you have a quandry about designing a building you ask an architect.  If a mathematical proposition, a mathematician.  If a animal, a zoologist.  Each to their expertise.  If you desire to know about the imperceivable, only those who are devoted to that quest of knowledge will be most fitting to give a credible answer, hence the philosopher.

Originally posted by Les:
I suppose we should first ask you just what, exactly, your definition of an absolute truth happens to be?

Something that may be perfectly known.  A fact that has all aspects to it perceivably known to be consistent and true.

Originally posted by Les:
By the logic used above you can claim that anything exists and is just “imperceivable� so others shouldn’t claim that it doesn’t and smile smugly to yourself, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t laugh at your claims.

Exactly.  No attempt to apply the scietific method to the supernatural can bring understanding to the supernatural.  This is where the scientists sit down and the philosophers take over.  The very idea that we can ask the question “Is there a god(s)?” logically grants that there is an answer.  This answer is apart of the knowledge of the universe that humanity should be trying to attain.  Because it has an answer there is no reason to attack those who seek such answers.  You may think it is a waste of time to try to discover what can be observed on Earth to lend credence to what the imperceivable may be, but others may think trying to realize the observable is a waste of time as well.  To each his own.

I would disagree with you because you altered it to fit your needs and not the specific need of having an absolute defintion for itelligent universla communication.

Pot, there’s someone I’d like you to meet...I think you’ll find you have a lot in common.

If you find fault with my definition then please offer a more concrete one.

Hmm, maybe that’s why we all referred to the dictionary definition, maybe? And in any case, it doesn’t matter how concrete a definition is if it’s not the right definition.

So you are not really referring to reality, but the perceptible reality we are trying to find a logical base for through science.

Again with the definitions. Humans use words to communicate concepts. If we cannot come up with a general consensus on what words mean, then there’s little point in trying to communicate. We could certainly decide that the word “reality” does not refer to that thing which is perceptible and can be known through science, but then we would just have to come up with a different word for that thing. What would be the point? 

If you desire to know about the imperceivable, only those who are devoted to that quest of knowledge will be most fitting to give a credible answer, hence the philosopher.

The most basic definition of a philosopher is someone who investigates nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. So there are at least two problems with your assertion that we should turn to them for all of our questions about reality. The first of these is that there is little reason to assume that the philosophical method is inherently superior to empirical methods in determining what is real. The second problem is that, unlike in the field of science, there is very little consensus among philosophers, precisely because they are not necessarily bound to check their assertions against objective evidence. So if, as you suggest, we defer to philosophers regarding supernatural questions, we run into the problem that the answers we get will be highly dependent on which philosophers we ask. A great many of them will probably say something along the lines of “Well, some people think this, and some people think that, but no one can really say for sure.” Such an answer might be terribly interesting, but it probably won’t be particularly useful, and is highly unlikely to resolve any arguments to the satisfaction of all parties. To make a broad generalization, philosophy is probably most useful in how it informs other disciplines, rather than as an end unto itself.

The very idea that we can ask the question “Is there a god(s)?� logically grants that there is an answer.

Of course there is an answer. But that answer will never, ever be conclusively known to us, particularly given your way of looking at things. Consider this: even if Jesus himself appeared in the sky and spoke to all of humanity simultaneously, there would still be people like you who would question the reality of the event. Really, this is fine. I doubt any atheist has a problem with the question, or its inherent lack of a conclusive answer. I don’t need evidence against the existence of god(s) to make determinations based on the lack of evidence FOR the existance of god(s), and I also don’t see any objective reason to have a problem with people who make a different determination than mine. Where atheists do tend to take issue is with people who insist that the question SHOULDN’T BE ASKED IN THE FIRST PLACE. The only people who overwhelmingly tend to take this position are theists. I might think you are wrong to believe in a god, for any number of reasons. I might even think you’re wasting your time in considering the question of a god’s existence. What I’m not going to do is cloud the issue by telling you that if you even ask the question, you are risking eternal torture. Only people who are afraid to ask the question in the first place would do that. In short,

To each his own

is a wonderful idea, but virtually no major religion actually subscribes to it, which is why you find so many people adamantly opposing your position.

I just skimmed this thread, but this caught my attention:

I know it’s trite to bust out the definitions, but since there is a semantic argument underway…

re·li·gion

What follows is three definitions involving a belief in a higher power.  Then we are given number 4 which is:

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

No mention of a higher power.  Yet we are told:

In short, at least according to standard usage, unless you have positive belief in a supernatural power, you cannot have religion.

Did I miss the footnote that was not reprinted for us that indicated that definition number 4 was not standard usage, or was that just a slip of fingertips that was passed over?  Because if I read the dictionary right “a principle pursued with zeal” is a religion, at least if we use the dictionary that is.

Correction:

We are only given two definitions that mandate a belief in a supernatural power.  Definition number three likely incorporates such a belief by the leader, but such a belief is not a prerequisite for all uses of the term “spiritual leader.” In fact, Les qualifies as a “spiritual leader” depending on how “spirit” is defined.

Les, you’re my spiritual leader. I just wanted you to know.

Oh, and so are you Consi.

Hugs!

Consi:
You are absolutely right. Belief in a higher power is not necessary to having religion, even under the definition I used to insist that it is. For example, you might say “I watch the Simpsons religiously”, or “Eating that piece of cake was a religious experience”, or “Playing rugby is my religion”, and all of these usages would be perfectly valid. So you’ve got me there.
That said, when someone says “Atheism is a religion”, it is my understanding that they generally mean something different from “It is a cause, activity, or principle pursued with zeal or devotion.” Atheism is a principle, but it does not require any particular zeal or devotion. Moreover, while an atheist might follow the teachings of a particular leader in regards to spiritual issues, again, it’s not necessary, nor even likely. Somehow I doubt that we would be having all of these debates about the religiosity of atheism if people were asserting it in the “Collecting stamps/ Saving the rainforest/Opposing gun control is my religion” sense.
When people say “atheism is a religion”, what they generally seem to be saying is that atheism and theism are both belief systems on equal footing. In a very, very, very narrow sense, I am willing to concede this point. Regarding questions of the supernatural, that which, by definition, is inexplicable under natural laws, I agree: ultimately, the atheists know as much as the theists. What I take issue with, however, is what always seem to be the extension of that argument, namely, that since atheists cannot disprove the existence god(s) any more than theists can prove it, we must place equal value on everything else these two factions say, particularly in regards to certain scientific matters. This is a huge leap of logic. The side that doesn’t accept “God did it” as sufficent explanation for phenomenon X has repeatedly shown that their own explanation is more useful, and is thus the better explanation. If religious people could ever give an explanation for anything that proved useful, then I am certain most atheists would adopt it, but so far that hasn’t happened. You may believe that lightning is caused by Zeus, but if I can reproduce electricity and you can’t, then my explanation is better. I would probably start to question whether this Zeus guy was an adequate explanation for any of the other things for which you gave him credit, even those things which I couldn’t test myself. Moreover, the Zeus worshipper would probably stop making that particular claim, since ultimately it would only make him look pointlessly obstinate. I think religious people today forget just how many times this sort of thing has happened throughout history. As recently as a century or two ago, the bar minimum for religious devotion entailed believing things that today most religious people (or at least most Western Christians) hold to be incorrect. So, you can call atheism a religion all you want, but recognize that it is intrinsically different from any known religion; to date, none of its claims whatsoever have been proved incorrect, or even necessary to amend.

Ulfrekr:

When people say “atheism is a religion�, what they generally seem to be saying is that atheism and theism are both belief systems on equal footing. In a very, very, very narrow sense, I am willing to concede this point.

I’ll take this and exit while I’m ahead.  I’m not vested in other’s opinions of the intellectual superiority, or lack thereof, of my assessment of God’s existemce. I do note that you try to impute the intellectual sins of some theist’s great-great-great-grandfather to the theist who has not necessarily committed the same intellectual sin.  If we apply such an analysis to all, woe to thee and me.

By the way, excellent taste in comics.  Calvin Rocks!! 

Originally posted by Ulfrekr:
We could certainly decide that the word “reality� does not refer to that thing which is perceptible and can be known through science, but then we would just have to come up with a different word for that thing. What would be the point?

No need for another word only a need for differentiating between perceptible and absolute reality.  The point would be clear communication of concepts that could be looked back on in the future and universally discovered to still be clear and understandable.

Originally posted by Ulfrekr:
The first of these is that there is little reason to assume that the philosophical method is inherently superior to empirical methods in determining what is real.

The philosophical method is superior to the empirical method because the only thing the empirical method can say is, “It is perceived there is no God, so there is no God.” The empirical method can go no farther than that.  The philosophical method will never get an absolute answer either, but its theory will be much more complete and reasonable than the one provided by the empirical method.

Originally posted by Ulfrekr:
The second problem is that, unlike in the field of science, there is very little consensus among philosophers, precisely because they are not necessarily bound to check their assertions against objective evidence.

I blame advancing communication ability for this.  Anyone can be a philosopher anymore and without even prior knowledge of what philosophers have said in the past.  A philosopher anymore is someone who can spout an idea or theory on the nature of things.

In reality philosophy has evolved a lot and for some time was running in a manner almost akin to point/counterpoint.  Plato to Aristotle to Aquinas to Descartes to Spinoza to Leibniz to Kant.  They were all building off each other and the last couple hundred years has just brought on a storm of ideas coming from no basis beyond, “hey it’s a theory.” Well it’s nice you can think, but how does it compare to what has been thought and how does it progress the status of what is known?

The philosophical method could come up with a very interesting theory if we went back to evaluating all ideas in the past and building upon those instead of being distracted every time some moron raises his hand and says I have an idea.  No ideas if you don’t understand all the previous ones.

Originally posted by Ulfrekr:
Such an answer might be terribly interesting, but it probably won’t be particularly useful, and is highly unlikely to resolve any arguments to the satisfaction of all parties. To make a broad generalization, philosophy is probably most useful in how it informs other disciplines, rather than as an end unto itself.

Agreed.  Philosophy, no matter its ability to resolve, should not be underestimated because it is still evolving.  The scientific method is in stone so the only thing increasing is the perceptible knowledge of the universe around us.  Philosophy, if it is possible to reach some end, could begin to come up with definitive logical theories on the nature of all things.

Originally posted by Ulfrekr:
Consider this: even if Jesus himself appeared in the sky and spoke to all of humanity simultaneously, there would still be people like you who would question the reality of the event.

I’m not sure I can agree with that, but it would take me a long time to explain why that isn’t likely.  Most simply, if a supernatural being perfect in every way made itself known to us finite imperfect beings, I think our imperfect nature would verify that nothing more perfect than this being can exist because it logically would not be able to register.  Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz deal with the idea of perfection and how it relates to us, I would need to brush up on them to offer something a little more conclusive than the previous statement.  Or you can trust me that that has already been dealt with.

Originally posted by Ulfrekr:
Where atheists do tend to take issue is with people who insist that the question SHOULDN’T BE ASKED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I’m lost.  What question are you referring to?

Originally posted by Ulfrekr:
In a very, very, very narrow sense, I am willing to concede this point. Regarding questions of the supernatural, that which, by definition, is inexplicable under natural laws, I agree: ultimately, the atheists know as much as the theists.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Ulfrekr:
What I take issue with, however, is what always seem to be the extension of that argument, namely, that since atheists cannot disprove the existence god(s) any more than theists can prove it, we must place equal value on everything else these two factions say, particularly in regards to certain scientific matters.  This is a huge leap of logic.

I agree with you.  Philosophy starts with expanding upon observable nature into finding the transcendent nature of things or absolute reality.  A major problem though in recent history is how philosophy has been divorced from science.  I think the philosophy must come before the answer suggested by empirical data.  For example mathematics deals with an infinite range of numbers and can easily be manipulated so that a wide range of things can be made to be equal therefore just because an answer can be given should not be automatically assumed to be absolutely correct.  The example I am thinking of is that although E=mc^2 may make sense mathematically it doesn’t quite make sense in how that relates to the rest of the known universe.  Specifically will someone please show me how (E=mc^2)=(Time travel IS possible).  How we got time travel is possible from a math equation makes me think someone needs to check their logic pattern.

Theoretical science and mathematics, I think, are causing too many people to jump the gun on what may and may not be true about absolute reality.  No one is checking the philosophy behind these “discoveries.” In order for an absolute knowledge of the universe to continue to be strived after it all begins with philosophy.

Originally quoted by me:
Moreover, the Zeus worshipper would probably stop making that particular claim, since ultimately it would only make him look pointlessly obstinate.

I’m going to take a second here to totally contradict myself. I realized upon futher reflection that if the majority of people today acted like the Zeus worshipper in my hypothetical scenario, there really wouldn’t be much of a reason to take issue with religion. The problem is that so many religious people DON’T react to better explanations for phenomena than their own by adopting the more useful explanation. If they did, we’d have a lot more deists than we seem to now.

This answer is apart of the knowledge of the universe that humanity should be trying to attain.  Because it has an answer there is no reason to attack those who seek such answers.

I don’t think we’re attacking those who seek such answers, we’re attacking those who say they already have them.

Specifically will someone please show me how (E=mc^2)=(Time travel IS possible).  How we got time travel is possible from a math equation makes me think someone needs to check their logic pattern.

It’s called time dilation.  You can find the formula in any modern physics text.

For example mathematics deals with an infinite range of numbers and can easily be manipulated so that a wide range of things can be made to be equal therefore just because an answer can be given should not be automatically assumed to be absolutely correct.

That’s why scientists do experiments.  Lots of them.  Technically, the math isn’t assumed to be absolutely correct, but rather having a high probability of being very close to what would happen. 

Those manipulations have rules.  That’s why the speed of light is thought by some to be the fastest that anything can travel, b/c the equations (experimentally tested and still working out) would end up with division by zero if an object reached lightspeed.  After consuming an infinite amount of energy, of course.

Theo,

One problem with your support of the philosophical method as a means to knowledge is that the vast majority of contemporary philosophers reject the claims made by most religions.  Moreover, numerous philosophers, Immanuel Kant being one who comes immediately to mind, argue that religious claims are the sort that should be examined empirically versus through pure syllogism alone.

On an interesting note, I remember reading about a plan to put a super accurate laser clock into orbit on a satellite and keep one just the same on Earth to test time dilation. Of course, I’ve forgotten where I read it, or even if I read it all. To be honest, I could have just made it up.

Originally posted by Ragman:
I don’t think we’re attacking those who seek such answers, we’re attacking those who say they already have them.

Yet you claim to have answers of your own.  If you assert that the pursuit of the supernatural is folly then you are claiming to have an answer.  Both sides are at fault and need to watch how they assert themselves.

Originally posted by Ragman:
It’s called time dilation.  You can find the formula in any modern physics text.

This is the problem though.  You are still using math to explain math.  Tell me how, in a theoretical or philosophical sense, you can go from a math equation asserting something to a theory asserting something illogical.  The ideas must connect logically before we get excited about the answers doing the same.

Originally posted by Socialist Swine:
One problem with your support of the philosophical method as a means to knowledge is that the vast majority of contemporary philosophers reject the claims made by most religions.

I know I haven’t read the vast majority of contemporary philosophers, but through discussions with my professors I’m coming to the conclusion that the vast majority of contemporary philosophers are the morons who are just raising their hands.  Remember to that the philosophical method gave us the scientific method.  Once it did that we seem to have stopped evolving the philosophical method and concentrate almost exclusively on discovering the perceptible universe through the scientific method.  As great as that is I can’t believe that the philosophical method is anywhere near a final form.  What more could it give us if we picked back up where Kant left off?

Today my professor said that Kant ended the debate between rationalists and empiricists.  That’s nice, but that doesn’t mean we are done.  I will take courses on the philosophy of history, the philosophy of law, the philosophy of religion and many other things.  Kant said that the mind has neither innate nor experiential knowledge, but that the mind has a structure it perceives everything through.  My prof gave an example that if we had glasses permanently attached to our heads we would see everything through them and through the glasses is the only way we can perceive anything.  We can’t wonder how things would look if the glasses were taken off because we can’t take them off.  There is a structure to how we perceive things.

I think there is a philosophy of philosophy and when we discover what that is we will clearly see how the structure of our minds perceive things.