Is Religion A Mental Illness?

[Tlaceceyaya]

Especially when science doesn't show any evidence for the existence of this god.

Certainly, you are not implying that the religious base their belief in G-d on scientific evidence, are you? Science permits us to learn how the universe as a whole functions.

No, I'm not. But he said that he believes in most well-established scientific theories and that science is humanity's way of understanding how god (why do you remove the o?) does stuff. Why not say that science is humanity's way of how the sky bonobo does stuff? Science is the only way to find confirmable truth about the universe.

[The Deadlands Of Sprits]

Certainly, you are not implying that the religious base their belief in G-d on scientific evidence, are you? Science permits us to learn how the universe as a whole functions.

No, I'm not. But he said that he believes in most well-established scientific theories and that science is humanity's way of understanding how god (why do you remove the o?) does stuff. Why not say that science is humanity's way of how the sky bonobo does stuff? Science is the only way to find confirmable truth about the universe.

Hey man, don't dis the sky bonobos!

[Evraim]

No, I'm not. But he said that he believes in most well-established scientific theories and that science is humanity's way of understanding how god (why do you remove the o?) does stuff. Why not say that science is humanity's way of how the sky bonobo does stuff? Science is the only way to find confirmable truth about the universe.

Hey man, don't dis the sky bonobos!

They bite. Although if you were attempting to insinuate that the idea of G-d is illogical and/or irrational it could have been done in a more interesting manner. After all, I prefer that those who mock my belief system possess at least a creative sense of humor.

Tlaceceyaya: I remove the "o" because of my religion. I would suppose that the reason that he didn't attribute the creation of the universe to the scy bonobo is because its a presumption about reality that is not inherently falsifiable. In short, no empirical method is applied to G-d. It is, however, applied to everything else in the universe. Essentially, he made one additional assumption after assuming that no evil geniuses were messing with his senses. The real question is what if we're all delusional?

[Tlaceceyaya]

Hey man, don't dis the sky bonobos!

They bite. Although if you were attempting to insinuate that the idea of G-d is illogical and/or irrational it could have been done in a more interesting manner. After all, I prefer that those who mock my belief system possess at least a creative sense of humor.

Tlaceceyaya: I remove the "o" because of my religion. I would suppose that the reason that he didn't attribute the creation of the universe to the scy bonobo is because its a presumption about reality that is not inherently falsifiable. In short, no empirical method is applied to G-d. It is, however, applied to everything else in the universe. Essentially, he made one additional assumption after assuming that no evil geniuses were messing with his senses. The real question is what if we're all delusional?

But why is not the scientific method applied to your god? Why is it exempt from investigation? Because he said so?

[Genivaria]

They bite. Although if you were attempting to insinuate that the idea of G-d is illogical and/or irrational it could have been done in a more interesting manner. After all, I prefer that those who mock my belief system possess at least a creative sense of humor.

Tlaceceyaya: I remove the "o" because of my religion. I would suppose that the reason that he didn't attribute the creation of the universe to the scy bonobo is because its a presumption about reality that is not inherently falsifiable. In short, no empirical method is applied to G-d. It is, however, applied to everything else in the universe. Essentially, he made one additional assumption after assuming that no evil geniuses were messing with his senses. The real question is what if we're all delusional?

But why is not the scientific method applied to your god? Why is it exempt from investigation? Because he said so?

Because it asks uncomfortable questions.

[Evraim]

They bite. Although if you were attempting to insinuate that the idea of G-d is illogical and/or irrational it could have been done in a more interesting manner. After all, I prefer that those who mock my belief system possess at least a creative sense of humor.

Tlaceceyaya: I remove the "o" because of my religion. I would suppose that the reason that he didn't attribute the creation of the universe to the scy bonobo is because its a presumption about reality that is not inherently falsifiable. In short, no empirical method is applied to G-d. It is, however, applied to everything else in the universe. Essentially, he made one additional assumption after assuming that no evil geniuses were messing with his senses. The real question is what if we're all delusional?

But why is not the scientific method applied to your god? Why is it exempt from investigation? Because he said so?

Because it is quite possible that G-d could exist in such a manner as to be beyond science, beyond reason, beyond logic, and beyond the bounds of this universe, assuming his existence of course.

But why is not the scientific method applied to your god? Why is it exempt from investigation? Because he said so?

Because it asks uncomfortable questions.

Which ones? Who would you rather have a fling with Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich? That's an awkward question, but still...

[Tlaceceyaya]

But why is not the scientific method applied to your god? Why is it exempt from investigation? Because he said so?

Because it is quite possible that G-d could exist in such a manner as to be beyond science, beyond reason, beyond logic, and beyond the bounds of this universe, assuming his existence of course.

It is also possible that there are bonobos which exist in such a manner as to be beyond science, beyond reason, beyond logic and beyond the bounds of this universe, but we have no proof of that.

[Genivaria]

But why is not the scientific method applied to your god? Why is it exempt from investigation? Because he said so?

Because it is quite possible that G-d could exist in such a manner as to be beyond science, beyond reason, beyond logic, and beyond the bounds of this universe, assuming his existence of course.

Because it asks uncomfortable questions.

Which ones? Who would you rather have a fling with Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich? That's an awkward question, but still...

......*vomits*

[Xeng He]

But why is not the scientific method applied to your god? Why is it exempt from investigation? Because he said so?

...or perhaps it does apply, but since there hasn't been any data supporting any theory of how the universe began (or what lies beyond the observable universe) any more, his ideas (possibly our ideas) really aren't any worse than anyone else's.

[Xeng He]

Science is the only way to find confirmable truth about the universe.

Well, actually, science's track record of later proving itself wrong, at the very least in cosmology, brings this into doubt.

[Kummen]

But why is not the scientific method applied to your god? Why is it exempt from investigation? Because he said so?

Because it asks uncomfortable questions.

Those questions being...?

[AustriaHungaryBohemia]

Well, actually, science's track record of later proving itself wrong, at the very least in cosmology, brings this into doubt.

Proving things wrong is the essence of science. In fact, the only way to get me to distrust science would be if it claimed never to be wrong.

[Xeng He]

Proving things wrong is the essence of science. In fact, the only way to get me to distrust science would be if it claimed never to be wrong.

It's the essence of the scientific method, yes. However, it is not always the entire essence of individual scientific ideas.

Including, well...again, the old island universe idea. Once it was proven wrong, you couldn't really trust it...

[Kummen]

Well, actually, science's track record of later proving itself wrong, at the very least in cosmology, brings this into doubt.

Proving things wrong is the essence of science. In fact, the only way to get me to distrust science would be if it claimed never to be wrong.

OK, tell me what you think of this phrase: "Science itself can never be wrong, but scientists can be wrong." Your thoughts?

[AustriaHungaryBohemia]

OK, tell me what you think of this phrase: "Science itself can never be wrong, but scientists can be wrong." Your thoughts?

I agree. Science, as in the scientific method, can not be wrong, as it is not a factual claim. It is a way of acquiring facts, not a statement of fact in itself.

[Mysore (Ancient)]

Because it is quite possible that G-d could exist in such a manner as to be beyond science, beyond reason, beyond logic, and beyond the bounds of this universe, assuming his existence of course.

It is also possible that there are bonobos which exist in such a manner as to be beyond science, beyond reason, beyond logic and beyond the bounds of this universe, but we have no proof of that.

Right ok a Bonobo is a primate that lives in the Congo basin.



See that it has dimensions, is made of matter and evolved from the same common ancestor as us. Yes do you agree with me? Now if the universe is infinite then Bonobos must exist beyond the bounds of the observable universe. This is correct and the infinite universe theory maintains that it is true because to infinity everything that can happen must happen. However if the Bonobo exists as you say in such a manner as to be beyond science, beyond reason, beyond logic and beyond the bounds of this universe.

Then the Bonobo is God.

See it doesn't make any sense (well as much sense as any deity) which means we should stop trying to convert people to atheism and let people do what they want. Don't you see? That makes sense because WHAT god is and WHETHER he exists or not is unknowable and not worth arguing over.

[Xeng He]

Right ok a Bonobo is a primate that lives in the Congo basin.

(Image)

See that it has dimensions, is made of matter and evolved from the same common ancestor as us. Yes do you agree with me? Now if the universe is infinite then Bonobos must exist beyond the bounds of the observable universe. This is correct and the infinite universe theory maintains that it is true because to infinity everything that can happen must happen. However if the Bonobo exists as you say in such a manner as to be beyond science, beyond reason, beyond logic and beyond the bounds of this universe.

Then the Bonobo is God. See it doesnt make any sense which means we should stop trying to convert people to atheism and let people do what they want. Don't you see?

I'm sorry, but that is just...an insane misinterpretation of an idea that fellow and I share. Note that the bolded text is not what I was saying.

Instead, I would say that therefore, somewhere, the bonobo exists.

Just like somewhere, the divinity exists. That doesn't change the properties of either. It just means there is a bonobo and a god out there beyond or even within the observable universe.

[The Alma Mater]

Proving things wrong is the essence of science. In fact, the only way to get me to distrust science would be if it claimed never to be wrong.

OK, tell me what you think of this phrase: "Science itself can never be wrong, but scientists can be wrong." Your thoughts?

It it possible that the scientific method leads to the wrong conclusion, and that scientists are fallible.

The first for instance is possible if the universe was created by an untestable omnipotent deceiving God, who has deliberately made things so that everything seems exactly like it happened without divine intervention of any kind - and that this progress is clear and testable. The scientific method will then only discover the false evidence the Deceiver planted.

The second goes without saying.

[Xeng He]

The first for instance is possible if the universe was created by an untestable omnipotent deceiving God, who has deliberately made things so that everything seems exactly like it happened without divine intervention of any kind - and that this progress is clear and testable. The scientific method will then only discover the false evidence the Deceiver planted.

Or it's possible if the god didn't really care whether we found out or not and in fact, the universe doesn't really seem one way or the other. It just seems like it can sustain itself, which is equally likely to happen with a god involved as without, and your "first" possibility is in fact a straw man.

[Tlaceceyaya]

But why is not the scientific method applied to your god? Why is it exempt from investigation? Because he said so?

...or perhaps it does apply, but since there hasn't been any data supporting any theory of how the universe began (or what lies beyond the observable universe) any more, his ideas (possibly our ideas) really aren't any worse than anyone else's.

But then why believe in yours? Few scientists actually claim to believe or know how matter came to be. (FYI the big bang theory is about how the universe got into its current expanding state)

[Genivaria]

Because it asks uncomfortable questions.

Those questions being...?

Where's the evidence?

[Xeng He]

But then why believe in yours? Few scientists actually claim to believe or know how matter came to be. (FYI the big bang theory is about how the universe got into its current expanding state)

Because I'm actually a bit more likely to be correct than someone that doesn't guess.

And, to be honest, most scientists do in fact have an opinion. They just are willing to change it under the proper circumstances...

The Big Bang theory, while flawed, isn't what I'm thinking of in this particular case...although, its flaws actually provide another reason to suspect that there is a god somewhere.

[Furious Grandmothers]

But then why believe in yours? Few scientists actually claim to believe or know how matter came to be. (FYI the big bang theory is about how the universe got into its current expanding state)

Because I'm actually a bit more likely to be correct than someone that doesn't guess.

Is this your version of Pascal's Wager, which, by the way, has been utterly refuted?

And, to be honest, most scientists do in fact have an opinion. They just are willing to change it under the proper circumstances...

Ooh, this will be interesting. Kindly list some examples of scientists who have an opinion on this matter? Having an opinion, much less having one to change later on "under the proper circumstances"?

The Big Bang theory, while flawed, isn't what I'm thinking of in this particular case...although, its flaws actually provide another reason to suspect that there is a god somewhere.

What flaws, pray tell? And I would have thought flaws would actually work AGAINST suspecting that there is a god somewhere. A perfect being who likes making imperfect stuff, eh?

[Xeng He]

Is this your version of Pascal's Wager, which, by the way, has been utterly refuted?

No, because I'm acknowledging that the probability that my particular belief set is correct is near zero. Pascal's wager was refuted because of the infinite possibilities of belief sets to be correct. However, that doesn't change the fact that "near zero" (infintessimal) is greater than "actually zero", which is what you get when you don't even hazard a guess, pretty much by default.

Ooh, this will be interesting. Kindly list some examples of scientists who have an opinion on this matter? Having an opinion, much less having one to change later on "under the proper circumstances"?

Richard Dawkins, At least a large portion of people taking this survey.

What flaws, pray tell?

The fact that in order to account for a large portion of cosmic expansion, it's dependent on an undetectable force.

And I would have thought flaws would actually work AGAINST suspecting that there is a god somewhere. A perfect being who likes making imperfect stuff, eh?

Believe it or not, I think the idea that an orderly universe supports the existence of a god is ridiculous. A disorderly universe supports such an idea far more, because it increases the likelihood of something beyond the natural in the mix.

[Greater Tezdrian]

Militant Atheists:

Why is it so goddamn important that you systematically 'enlighten' the populace?