The fallacy of discovery proving existance, By Brian37 OP/ED

Master of Logic Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 9384

I mind those who read this who are theists to keep in mind there is a HUGE difference between an individual, and the claims an individual makes. Do not take this as a personal attack. The following is an op/ed on how people fail to see human nature in regards to religion and it's global effect and it's damage to scientific inquery.

It started as a response of "we discovered this first" meaning people claim a religious label in regards to a point in history where a scientific discovery is made as evidence of a deity. This fallacy has happened throughout human history and unfortunatly still continues today. This opinion is not nesssarly that of this site or it's members and I am just a poster posting MY op/ed:.....................

Why religious labels are irrelevent to scientific discovery and the dangerous fallacy that holds humanity back, By Brian37 (Please excuse spelling errors)

It is human arrogance to place a "label" as the advent of or "first" of science, when most "discovery" comes throughout history, not as a result of a "label", but out of human curiosity. It is arrogent for the Muslim, Jew, American or Europien to claim, "We were first" when all you really are is one step amoungst many and those steps are not dependant on where you are from or the fictitious dad in the sky you believe in.

Humans seem to falsely atribute a contribution as being justification to cheerlead for a nation or a religion when the reality is that what was stumbled upon or diliberately found is an ongoing building block.

Humans at the same time also fail to see all the misses, or bad guesses throughout history.

Again, and I have stated in a couple recent threads, that merely making an observation doesnt mean that you know what is causing what you are absurving.

No sane person today would assing miosis to Thor or Apollo. No sane person would atribute "mountains moving" to Isis.

No sane person should claim that Henrey Ford could have built a modern Lamborginni back in the 1930s because his company built a Model T.

The labels, and nationalities are irrelievent to the discoveries and are mere bystandars. This is nothing more than propaganda devaluing the individual.

We can know why it is irrelevent simply by putting a Muslim, Jew, Christian, and atheist all in the same biology lab side by side and conduct the same experement and have all, use the same scientific method regardless of the wishes of any partisipant.

These "acompleshments" ignore bad guesses such as alchemy and cronology and "faith healing" and for every tangential observation someone in history makes their are far more bad guesses as to cause that retard or hinder progress because the species has not had a widespread practice of good methodology.

Algebra, is claimed by many Muslims as proof of Allah. Whatever middle east contributions to that math science made in ancient times still works outside a mosque. If' Allah's intent was to use Algebra as proof for his existance, I dont see the efficancy in reality. It is a universal math used by students and scientiests worldwide.

"The stars" I've heard Christians quote verses saying that the bible proves this or that about the universe. Yet no mention of Super Novas, or Black Holes or even galaxies.

So when modern Christians quote biologists who believe in Jesus I say so what? Where is the ancient greek or hebrew word for miosis? Where is the ancient medical explination for diabeties or cancer? "God did it" "God can do what he wants" "God works in mysterious ways". Is the ultimate answer once you strip all the junk science away through inquery.

The theist dresses up their myth with buzz words out of science to make it sound lagit but the end goal is still the same. I like what I believe and will defend hocus pocus Superman vs Kriptonite claims at all costs.

It is unfortunatly a natural side effect of human evolution. The "group dynamic" of "safty in numbers". The more people around you that think like you the more oportunity at physical and emotional resources the more oportunity to spread your own genes. However, as Dawkins and many other skeptics are begining to rightfully challenge, is that this side effect of evolution, once precieved nessary is really not.

In other words, we must be brave in our inquery and not seek comfort "just because" we've always done it that way. For the same reason it was bad to think the world was litterally flat, it is bad to think that gosts knock up girls and slamming planes into buildings will get you a purple heart in the after life.

What we "think" might be good for us often times is not. We must be willing as a species to face the unknown without fear and attack it with open inquery and stop incerting comic book claims in "Just because" we like them.

People used to like the idea of Apollo, but he died. Not because he was real. He died because humans moved on to incerting different myths in as answers. Why humans today think they are doing things differently is not suprising, but at the same time very sad.

We live in a great age where we have the oportunity to solve huge problems to humanity. Insted we are still stuck in tribalistic narrsicism in an ego driven "us vs them" alpha male mentality that may help us spread, but at the same time we ignore the harm it causes.

There are those who will read this and accuse me of being hatefull to religion. It is absurd knowing 6 billion people will never always agree on all issues, to assert some global dominance or one world goverment.

The Jew and Christian would fear a one world Islamic goverment and vice versa. I would fear one rule of any of the three as well. So what is the issue then?

The issue is to promote a reprioritizing of human thought. No one is going anywhere. No one should suggest a goverment forced end of those outsiders. That should be an acceptable agreement.

Then what? I say it is way past time to put ideology and religion where it belongs. Last in line to more important issues such as hunger, desease, famine, genocide, war. These issues have been around long before the modern big three.

That should say something. THAT WE do have the ability to stop the madness and that comes through knowing that everyone has the same biological needs and that WE let our differences divide us when we dont have to.

I will not "go quitely into the night" as once stated in a poem while fellow humans invent reasons to kill in agression or defense of their dads, if one were to assume to exist, should be kind enough to leave us mortals out of their beefs.

Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:00 pm

Quote:

Insted we are still stuck in tribalistic narrsicism in an ego driven "us vs them" alpha male mentality that may help us spread, but at the same time we ignore the harm it causes.

Tribalistic narcissism unfortunately extends far beyond just religion. In some ways, I’d say nationalistic or patriotic tribalism and its associated ideologies are just as prevalent. I wouldn’t necessarily be wrong in saying both are defended with much the same zealous, destructive fervor.

Tribalism helps certain localized groups or ideologies to spread at a cost to others. It encourages compartmental cooperation with its niche, just as our value based economic systems do.

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 10:32 am

Interesting analysis of the human race.....

Not sure if my comments here are suited to the above message, but it reminded me of this...

Only this morning I read on the Aussie news, that the richest man in Australia, Kerry Packer's son, James Packer is to wed in France. Here is the wonderful news:

(quoted from the "The Australian" web site). http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21929797-2702,00.html?from=public_rss

One guest yet to arrive last night, however, was Tom Cruise, who if US media reports are to be believed could find himself promoted from guest to celebrant.

Women's Wear Daily claims Cruise is now at the highest level of Scientologist, which would allow him to perform the wedding ceremony for fellow L. Ron Hubbard follower Mr Packer.

I always thought that a "spiritual" belief was maybe plausible for those who wish it, but to believe what the Scientologists do, is just too way out for any normal brain..surely...how can these people follow this Hubbard guy, who made this all up? (I have read all about the cult).

Well, people are still asking Mediums etc, to contact the dead, there are TV shows with mediums, fooling the puclic, too many in my book on "Physic police"..... Ghost Hunters....and so on.

Never mind religion per se, we are not progressing as a human race. The few that are Atheistic, Skeptics, or long for rational and logical thinking, are way too few.

The human race is going backwards, ever backwards. The wars and killings that continue to this day, are disgusting. It's all rather depressing.

I try not to think about it too much these days. I go out into my garden, and then I forget it all. I need more gardening karma.... LOL Cool

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

This is a funny statement considering the rest of the text...

Brian37 wrote:

Insted we are still stuck in tribalistic narrsicism in an ego driven "us vs them" alpha male mentality that may help us spread, but at the same time we ignore the harm it causes.

And here is his solution...

Quote:

There are those who will read this and accuse me of being hatefull to religion. It is absurd knowing 6 billion people will never always agree on all issues, to assert some global dominance or one world goverment .

Atheism naturally points to socialism and consolidation of power. I predict a "New Socialist" party under some catchy name to foster in a one world giv't scenario. If the US economy buckles it's all over.

Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 11:16 pm

Our world has become smaller and smaller as we improve travel and communication. A One world government is already in place.. we of course just don't see it directly. It would possibly take a thousand years before such an open government would be accepted.

Missionary.. the US economy is already buckling. None of this has anything to do with atheism.

Onward Christian Soldiers!

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

infidelguy wrote:

Our world has become smaller and smaller as we improve travel and communication.

Yeah, instant news and noodles.

infidelguy wrote:

A One world government is already in place.. we of course just don't see it directly. It would possibly take a thousand years before such an open government would be accepted.

I dunno. One bomb could change all that over night.

infidelguy wrote:

Missionary.. the US economy is already buckling. None of this has anything to do with atheism.

It could pull out. If not, emboldened radicals will claim victory and set their sights on Europe. But then again that's already happening. It'll just be more open than it is. Eventually, I expect the US to fall. It's not so much to do with atheism as it is with secularism, capitalism, and materialism.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 513

The U.S. was in deeper shit before, Missionary. The Great Depression far outpaces what we're in now.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

Cygnus wrote:

The U.S. was in deeper shit before, Missionary. The Great Depression far outpaces what we're in now.

Yeah, but we had manufacturing for wwII and national pride to bring us out. This is a different situation. I'm sure you realize we've become a importer-consumer nation. Not only are we bankrupt and in debt, we have nothing to sell and everyone wants insurance and gov't bene's.

Master of Logic Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 9384

Missionary wrote:

This is a funny statement considering the rest of the text...

Brian37 wrote:

Insted we are still stuck in tribalistic narrsicism in an ego driven "us vs them" alpha male mentality that may help us spread, but at the same time we ignore the harm it causes.

And here is his solution...

Quote:

There are those who will read this and accuse me of being hatefull to religion. It is absurd knowing 6 billion people will never always agree on all issues, to assert some global dominance or one world goverment .

Atheism naturally points to socialism and consolidation of power. I predict a "New Socialist" party under some catchy name to foster in a one world giv't scenario. If the US economy buckles it's all over.

Trying to pull that USSR crap, you are not the first and you wont be the last.

WHO the fuck is talking about wanting socialism or a one world govenrment? Not me.

You can't grasp your head around the Constitution? It is a law document that says WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS, who come together through government to seek common consensus. Is that socialism? NO!

If anything fascism is creeping up in America because there are only two parties. If we had a more diverse political spectrum than Republicans or Democrates we wouldn't be in this mess we are in.

You don't understand that ALL governments are capitialistic. The laws we live under is a separate issue and all markets attempt to capitalize be they closed or open.

The Saudis are pretty much one family and one party and they capitalize on oil. The Iranian government is centeralized party and Shiites reap most of the wealth because of their capitalistic theocracy.

WHAT YOU CANT separate is that WE have a free market, including that of ideas, whereas the USSR Capitialized on the labor of everyone and dissent was squashed. Do you think as a person with a dissenting view that I would seek to destroy the very LAW of the Constitution?

Our Constitution prevents, or at least it should prevent, this "consolidation" of power. BUT, under both parties OUR government has gotten bigger and bigger and bigger invading every aspect of our lives more and more.

DO NOT equate atheism with socialism or any form of government because they are TWO completely separate issues.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

Well Brian, you're just not towing the party line:
http://www.americanvision.org/foolsheart/blog/blogger.html

Quote:

"It is not the business of the President of the United States to appropriate billions of dollars of tax money to fund charitable programs through religious institutions, when it should be secular government that provides social welfare services to the people."

Newbie First Class Joined: May 02, 2008 Posts: 28

Missionary wrote:

Well Brian, you're just not towing the party line:
http://www.americanvision.org/foolsheart/blog/blogger.html

Quote:

"It is not the business of the President of the United States to appropriate billions of dollars of tax money to fund charitable programs through religious institutions, when it should be secular government that provides social welfare services to the people."

Your quote doesn't show that nonbelief = socialism, when in fact it argues against Faith-Based Initiative funding. Your source is faulty, try again.

Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 5:37 am

Missionary, that little blog you linked to was funny. The author is very concerned that the athiests may be planning to use the very same tactics people like Rod Parsley, Dr. D. James Kennedy, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, John Hagee, etc. have been pushing for decades: do what is most politically expedient to get people elected who will apoint judges with the same ideological agenda they have. The author has it in his head that all athiests are basically Marxists (most athiests are somewhat liberal, but quite a large percentage are libertarians. Two of the most ardent proponents of capitalism in the twentieth certury- Ayn Rand and Leo Strauss- were both atheists and George H. Smith, author of Athiesm- The Case Against God, is a noted libertarian. Also there is nothing about rejecting theism that would cause someone to be more sympathetic toward socialism than not.)

This blog is another drop in the sea of right wing morons lowering the bar of political discourse by using red baiting and other tactics to demonize their opponents rather than providing rational arguments against them. He takes a few quotes by two people and tells you what the speakers really mean (We must destroy all traces of religion and create a marxist one-world goverment so we can kill babies!) It would be hilarious if so many goons werent so easily persuaded by such nonsense.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

Now, I don't expect ya'll to go calling it "socialism" or "marxism" right out in the open and all. It's just that when people promote, "...secular government that provides social welfare services to the people." well, you can call it whatever name you want.

I for one am not a supporter of the right-wing evangelical agenda. But I understand what you're saying. Along the same lines, I don't find benefit in any special interest group pushing "their agenda" or working to get "their people" in seats of power.

Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 7:38 am

Missionary, you seem to have a false dichotomy going.

there is a big difference between a capitalistic system where the government offers a safety net and social services, verses outright state control over the entire economy.

many christians are on the left politically and there are plenty of atheists on the right, and some such as objectivists are purely libertarian. (pure capitalism with no safety net or social services)

so your claim that we're all secret commies is bullshit.

I for one am a moderate on economics, and think conservatives are almost right but tend to think social services are needed but should be aimed to teach folks to fish as opposed to giving them a fish for a day.

on social issues I lean libertarian. live and let live.

atheists do not all share one political view anymore than all believers do.

you wouldn't want me to insist you were part of the christian right, would you?

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

hillbillyatheist wrote:

Missionary, you seem to have a false dichotomy going.

there is a big difference between a capitalistic system where the government offers a safety net and social services, verses outright state control over the entire economy.

many christians are on the left politically and there are plenty of atheists on the right, and some such as objectivists are purely libertarian. (pure capitalism with no safety net or social services)

so your claim that we're all secret commies is bullshit.

I for one am a moderate on economics, and think conservatives are almost right but tend to think social services are needed but should be aimed to teach folks to fish as opposed to giving them a fish for a day.

on social issues I lean libertarian. live and let live.

atheists do not all share one political view anymore than all believers do.

you wouldn't want me to insist you were part of the christian right, would you?

Well, I'm not saying all atheists are all secret commies. However, all atheists do typically support secular humanism. That doesn't represent a democracy, it represents Nationalism which has nothing to do with free markets or economies. What we have now is a Republic with state rights and laws, a nation operated as a democracy, and "a capitalistic system where the government offers a safety net and social services" that needs to be trained back IMO. While I agree we need to "teach folks to fish as opposed to giving them a fish for a day", some folks just don't like to fish.

Nationalism tends to lead in a certain political direction and that is rarely democratic. The direction of Democratic Nationalism is where I see atheists and secular humanists steering the country which sets us up for a One World Gov't. When that happens, there won't be a gov't "of the people for the people". It will be a control of people, policy, economics, food, you name it. It's the new socialism, and it will raise the temp of water slowly to boiling so we don't even feel it.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore