/sci/ - Science & Math

Free education

We're getting close.

>>3306813
This.
Or extermination by robot uprising.

by teaching people there can be good without god, the only reason people persist with religious practice is because it's conventional and teaching them that the existential crisis experienced immediately postdeconversion does not persist if you're smart.

>What would be most effective and humane way to get rid of religion?

There is no humane way to take away someone's right to be free to make up their own mind. It's like asking what is the most humane way to insure that no short people are born.

>>3306822
get rid of religion is not the same as taking away people's choice.

>inb4 anti-censorship kiddies

Go back to reading your Orwell books. Censorship and "thought control" has some uses which increase the utility of mankind.

>>3306822
>choice

hahaha

>>3306813
I don't know why you think education automatically makes people less religious. Many of the 9/11 hijackers/conspirators had Master's degrees and a couple had Ph.D.s. Religiosity is dependent on factors other than intelligence or educational attainment.

I don't see how we can get rid of religion other than by the same method which initially brought them it: Military force.

imo, religion is on the slow decline, if you make the comparison from modern times to, lets say, 50 years ago? the value religion once held has decreased throughout the years, i know to atheists or people who value science over childrens stories, it may seem that there are still too many people who devoted their lives to something that is unreal (but even besides that point, just plain unnecessary) but within the next 100 years i think the majority will have left the ways of old or at least not interpret them so literally.

>>Have no fear OP, the day you seek will come (just most likly not in you're lifetime)

>>3306831
Yeah like censoring some military information to protection the safety of our navy seal operatives while they hunt down terrorists. But for nearly all other examples, censorship is wrong.

>>3306896
Education raise the number of non-religious.
Raising number of non-religious raise the number of non-religious by effect of following the group/it becoming the norm.
Rid of religion? Probably never.
Making it the minority? We are on the way.
(yes, even in america. the creationism bullshit it a desperate reaction from a dying beast.)

Use airplanes to spray birth control across the US and Middle East... and maybe Africa and Mexico too.

In a few generations religion should be gone from the world.

>>3306803
>Christianity and Islam
Why only these two?

What does "humane" mean, and what laid the premise of such a concept?

>>3306954
because budha and Japanese spirits doesn't give a fuck about politics

>>3306960
But Jews do.

>>3306960
Let's face it, Judaism is the root of all evil. Islam and Christianity have only caused more havoc because they aren't as racist as the original and could lure in more followers.

isolate children from there religious parents, give them a normal childhood devoid of the concept of god

>>3306963
Jews are an extreme minority. There are 0.2% of Jews in the world--and even less actually practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism

>>3306981
Yet they still identify themselves as "jews" .
How can you detect atheist jews? Isn't judaism only a religion?
lol

>>3306981
They are so few yet they manage to hold major positions in banking, politics and massmedia...

>>3307056
It isn't.

>>3307066
A culture that highly values education . Simple.

>>3307079
A racial minority that higly relies on pointing at the Holocaust whenever someone points out that they are overrepresentated in positions of power and are likely to cheat.

>>3307140
[citation required]

this should be funny

>>3307157
Some pics should be enough, right?

You can do the equation by yourself and look up how many jews there are in the USA and how many jewish showmasters, actors, directors, bankers and politicians there are.

>>3307140
I wonder how come they are overrepresentated..?
By using some sort of jewdi mind trick in persuading people to give them their jobs and nobel prizes?
Are they superhumans ?
Or do you mean that a culture that sees education as the best way to survive and trive, therefore teaching its value to the children and so on is cpable of leading these people more easily to the heights?

Tough one...

>>3307210

Nerve gas

>>3307213
>By using some sort of jewdi mind trick in persuading people to give them their jobs and nobel prizes?
Working together and promoting eachother. Something that is called racist when whites do it.

>>3307228

Drop a MOAB or FOAB on every major city of every country that isn't in either Europe or the far east.

The few religious people left will eventually die out because of modern-day secularism.

I don't necessarily agree with this method, but it's certainly the most effective way.

>>3307239

>>3307213
I won't do the politicians because you should be able to use wikipedia and look up jewish senators and representatives on your own.

Something around 30% of all members of the democrat caucus are jewish.

>>3307210
>>3307221
>>3307228
>>3307239
>>3307257
yes, YES ! We got it. We already know there are many jews in many high places !

>>3307273
At some point it just gets to much to be overlooked or excused with being "their Gods' masterrace" but everyone who points in the right direction is just a nazi.

Nazi is a bit lame of an argument if used too much.

>>3307283
>>3307273
Antisemitism creates more reasons to be antisemite.

Prove me wrong.

>>3307281
The allegory of peasants is even more true than you might realize.

In the Middle Ages nobility had an untouchable status very much like the Chosen People today. What peasant would have asked why even obviously mentally retarded members of the nobility got into the highest positions.

>>3307303
>Prove me wrong.
Why should I? Your statement is partially true. You need to be antisemitic to take a closer look, but you don't have to create anything.

How do we (/sci/) get rid of evangelicals like OP?

jesus fuck all these threads devolve into 'hurr kill them all'

>>3307350
It started with that.

>>3307311
Listen...
Sure, some jews use this shoah thing as a pretext, as a way to censor critics against Israel. Yes.
I totally agree. Yes the sionist lobby is fucking annoying.

Now, let me remind you some History : jews were always regarded as a threat because of their high adaptibility and tendancy to reach the highest places quick, thus making the natives furious, jealous etc and making the local ruling people wanting to dominate or even kill them in order to keep their power.
Sure, jews, like any other group of people that carries an identity, are xenophobic and they have a tendancy to prefer jews to non-jews.
Yes that's shitty. But that's what nearly all of humanity do and ever did.

Do you forget all these jews that are runing little shops here and there? Do you forget the jews that "only" awarded nobel prizes for research that made Humanity progress?

I dunno dude.
We should fight any kind of racism, *any* kind.

>>3307333
What I mean was this : picture yourselmf raised in a culture that enforces education as the best way to prosper. Now picture the locals around you being jealous and hateful towards you and every member of the people you identify with... see that in every godamn country you go, sooo much people are perpetuating ridiculous mythologies about you and your siblings going to secret jew meetings in order to rule the world, as a human being, youll begin to think that everybody is a potential anti semite.
Add Hitler to this.... your people murdered for being educated, murdered only for being jew.. wow, creepy. Aren't you getting paranoid? I know for sure that I would .

The more you hate them, the more they'll close the ranks , the more you will hate them, etc the more they will hate you in return.

>>3307370
>jews were always regarded as a threat because of their high adaptibility and tendancy to reach the highest places quick, thus making the natives furious, jealous etc and making the local ruling people wanting to dominate or even kill them in order to keep their power.

;_; oh ohhh ohhhhh poor little swine! ;_;

Weren't you asking this earlier:
>[citation required]
>this should be funny

After I pointed to the usefullness of the Holocaust? I don't care about Israel or Zionists or whatever. It's you guys that use that shit. You are worse than nazis because you were literally bred with that racist jewshit ideology.

Jews are powerfull wherever they can use bible stories or guilt to gain power. Jews are a threat. You pests should get thrown out of our countries.

>>3307501
Nope.Sorry it wasn't me. I try toi avoid using condescending comments when I'm having a serious conversation, simply because I know it ruins it all.
Proof.

>>3306803

Enforce laws that say NO religion for anyone under 18

Let's be honest, a child cannot choose it's parents and if the parents are religious they generally FORCE their religion on the child, which is brainwashing and I think that's pretty illegal.

Works for alcohol and drugs for a very large group, why not religion?

>>3307501
So you're calling me a jew now?
I'm an atheist.
I am of celtic/hispanic ascends, part german, part french and part spanish. My mother's mother was a german woman who worked in the german phone company during WW2 ("for " the nazis then).
I'm blond with blue eyes (is it going to be enough to convince you?)
Wait! My foreskin is intact !!
Calm down.bro :)
I'm nowhere near jewish.

>>3307519
My experience leads me to doubt your claim.

>>3307528

that is ABSURD. WAY too intrusive of the government. and im an athiest. you just cannot take away peoples rights like that, to live how they want with their kids. granted they cant ABUSE their kids but they shouldnt be told when they can and cant tell them...

>>3307528
Because religion was never legally dimmed "evil" .

Why get rid of religion? As long as it doesn't intrude into the public sphere/harm people I see no problem with people doing what they want.

>>3307544
Your experience is an approximation. This is a precise case.
And I persist: it wasn't me.

Destroy the the Vatican, destroy mecca.

>>3307559
>As long as it doesn't intrude into the public sphere/harm people

It exactly does that, everyday.
Religion is not just an extra parameter on top on somebody's mind. Religion is a whole philosophy, and when you're raised in this "philosophie", you think by it.
So it does intrude in our public life : creationism trying to short circuit science, anti birth control, pro death sentence, etc
The religious lobbies are influencial, and they are made of .... religious persons.

getting rid of willful ignorance is the root of your cause, OP. good fucking luck :)

Fund & support this operation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nADFJlAggnY

>>3307583
Yes, willful ignorance. As long as Science isn't able to provide us with a reassuring answer about our very existance, willfull ignorance will persist.

You're just as bad as religious fundamentalists.

>>3307585
Ridiculously oversimplified pseudo science & fake video.

The only way to get rid of religion would be to create a new universe devoid of god and destroy the current one.

>>3307074
Judaism is a religion asswipe, fuck you and wikipedia for spreading that propagandized bullshit. God dam that shit makes me furious and it should make jews themselves furious.

Israel/Judea = nation
Hebrew/Semite = race
Judaism = religion

We don't know who was really from the original Israel or Judea so don't believe anybody when they make claims about that shit because for one they won't be-able to prove it and for two they're probably looking for any ounce of entitlement they can get.

How the fuck would you like it if Christians claimed to be a race and anybody who hated Christianity was called racist? YOU WOULDN'T BECAUSE THAT'S ILLEGITIMATE REPREHENSIBLE SHIT!

come the fuck at me bro I'm ready to end this bullshit right now

>>3307597
nah, you're fake.

>>3307617
MY DADDY WROTE THE TALMUD AND THE TORAH AND YOU CAN JUST BURN IN HELL!

Give them an alternative.

It's why religions excommunicate people, or outright kill them for having conflicting beliefs. Scare tactics keep most people ignorant of alternative lifestyles, try bringing a group of intelligent women from conservative Islamist areas to Europe or the US, free of whatever social and financial ties to their home, give them a free education and a shot at making it on their own. I bet 95%+ wouldn't ever want to go back to being treated as a second class citizen.

The Amish have it right, in this respect.

>>3307646
I kind of agree. Altough we weren't expressively adressing the case of islam . We were talking about USA and Europe too ..well, religion as a species-wide phenomena .

>>3307585
>>3307585
>>3307585
>>3307585
>>3307585
>>3307585
Let's put the genes back in Genesis.
-Jasper Winkel

>>3307704

It was just an example. It's easier to make one when drawing from a culture with inherent human rights issues.

But really, all you have to do is give them an alternative. Well adjusted adults will find responsible belief structures. Unfortunately, adults with problems will often times flock to dangerous belief systems because you can put the blame on God, or homosexuals, or brown people, or jews, or anything that isn't yourself.

Besides providing secular socialist programs that offer assistance based on science rather than magic, I don't know what else there is.

>>3307585
I really hope this shit real or/and that it won't never be applied.
That is not going to be accepted by actual ethics and that will cause major, maaaaaajor hatred towards USA (means terrorism and shit)

>>3307725
That's kind of what we were saying, so I agree.
Science is an alternative to religion. Not as a religion in turn, as a mean to discover to we don't need to live in such delusions.
I think it works (naturally/logically I might add.)
But slowly. Over generations.

>Ctrl F: Hindu Caste System
>0 of 0
>hate religion
>Translated: hate Christianity

I forgot that 75% of atheists are angsty teenagers. Thanks OP!

Why you stupid atheists have a 'war' against religion is beyond me. You're worse than radical islam.

>>3307729
While the USA military 'works for democracy' it isn't democratic itself and doesn't/won't get reviewed by any ethics committee.

>>3307786
>it's not a crusade when we do it

>>3307818
We invade no countries doing so, we rape and kill no one. Call it a crusade if you please.

>>3307786
I can't remember when an atheist slit-throated a non atheist yelling "REALITY ACKBAR!!"

So why you don't try and stop using ludicrous comparaisons for...for what exactly? Why so agressive?

Secularity.

And it won't get rid of religion, but religion doesn't really work when it can't bully you into buying into it. So it will continue to fade into a mild, mostly uplifting spiritual hopefulness and tradition observations, the trend we see in all the good parts of the world.

You'll never get rid of the crazies, but we'll be talking about isolated Jonestowns that are universally and vocally decried, with the perpetrators easily identifable. Nothing like the kind of religious fundamentalism drawn liberally from the ranks of religious moderates who have god shaped backdoors in their bullshit firewalls, that we see today.

>>3307899
that's because you don't have a nation because nobody takes you guys seriously.

>>3307956

>mfw Europe is secular and secular is all atheists want

>and all the shittest parts of the world, and all the shittest parts of the developed countries, are unfailingly the most religious

Brainwash the population into believing life came from non-life, intelligence came from non-intelligence, logic came from illogical, uniformity came from chaos, and existence came from non-existence. Although I am not quite sure how anyone could believe that even if they were brainwashed...

>>3307966

But... even superstitiousfags believe this stuff. They just differ over the mechanism.

>>3307210
>>3307210
I didnt think you'd be stupid enough to actually respond. So I forgot about this thread and went out to work on my deck, its looking good btw! And so is that sun, check her out sometime.

Anyways your "proof" that Jews always whine about the holocaust when people accuse them of being "overrepresented" is to show how there are many jews in the media and banking? First off, that doesnt even address the statement I asked for proof on, you cant even keep your mindless rantings coherent. Try to keep up with yourself at a bare minimum, I am legitimately concerned for your mental health.

And as for Jews in banking and the media, well you COULD have solved these questions yourself if you had chosen to go to a library rather then a propaganda website. See once upon a time, Jews were not allowed to join guilds and were in fact shut out from most aspects of Christian society.
This means that they could not find work. it sucks that I actually have to explain this, remember the part about the library pelase.

>>3307999
Anyways, one thing that they WERE allowed to do was to loan money for interest. Christian moneylenders were not permitted to charge interest. As a result, there were NO christian money lenders asside from the church itself, and as the church could not collect interest it was quite selective in its loans.

Where as the Jews could afford to be less selective. They were culturally isolated and marginalized and this fostered a culture of nepotism, which they have preserved long after other cultures have drifted away from overt nepotism.

ANd as for the media? Same story, jews were not welcome in media that was dominated by the East Coast studios at the time. So the jews made their own studios out west, and with the west's varying climates, low tax rates, low overhead and Access to massive groups of extras from the Mexican military, the Jewish owned studios were wildly succesful.

Do you have some kind of problem with capitalism?
Anyways, go and learn about basic history and watch in amazement as your paranoia melts away.

>>3307999
>>3308003
Also right.

Tyranny. I think humans have tried it a few times before but it didn't work because humans like independence and liberty. And if you think you can stop humans from practicing a religion you are sorely mistaken.

bumping an epic thread

>>3308003
interest rates? Oh you mean usury? not that guy btw.

>>3308154
I did not say anything about rates at all as I assumed that to be self-evident, so in that context the two words are absolutely interchangable.


Are you sure you are not that guy? It seems that you have some issues with reading and comprehension as well.

Lol @ anti-Semitism ITT.

>>3308180
You're right, you didn't say rates but as far as your comprehension of history is concerned usury and interest is interchangable so I just assumed interest rates and interest are equally so.

I mean after all, we are only talking about usury so lets forget those other terms to keep it simple ok?

Most effective way? Continuous progression of science and technology. We see that the more modernized we are the more atheists there are. There is nothing humane of murder, or even oppression of religious peoples. No doubt, I feel they are wrong and people should be freed from those beliefs but it's their choice. One thing I do know though, is that there will be a day when no theists are present or are at a statistic of 1-2%. As scientists and/or appreciators of science we should not be intolerant of peoples' beliefs but intolerant of intolerance.

I honestly don't think we need to get rid of religion. We don't need some dystopian society where everything goes by stone cold logic.

i understand how unscientific that sounds...but essentially religion isnt the problem

>>3308212
>intolerant of intolerance.

You don't want that either though, turns into a super PC society where free speech is limited.

Didn't Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia try to be rid of religion?

>>3308209
>also antisemitism, 1881, from Ger. Antisemitismus, first used by Wilhelm Marr (1819–1904) German radical, nationalist and race-agitator, who founded the Antisemiten-Liga in 1879; see anti- + Semite. Not etymologically restricted to anti-Jewish theories, actions, or policies, but almost always used in this sense. Those who object to the inaccuracy of the term might try H. Adler's Judaeophobia (1882). Anti-Semitic (also antisemitic) and anti-Semite (also antisemite) also are from 1881, like anti-Semitism they appear first in English in an article in the "Athenaeum" of Sept. 31, in reference to German literature.

This is just an anti-religion thread don't get all butthurt about jews getting in the mix as well by using misnomers.

NO RACE CARD FOR JEW

>>3308231
Fuck off.

>>>/new/

This is great. When a post condemns religion, it gets bumped, but when anyone defends or supports religion, they get a week's ban for (and I quote) "assinine trolling garbage".

Science can ONLY progress where there is a free exchange of ideas. Science can ONLY exist when people are allowed to question, "What if?" When an athiest mod eliminates any who would disagree with him, and ONLY allows athiest thinking, then that is not science. That is dogma. I hereby rename this board /dg/.

I know, back to banning land. See you all on proxy.

>>3308243
Retarded buttmad christfag

>>3308241
don't get mad just cause I whipped out the etymology all over your fallacious face

>>3308243

You're right. Often, when I debate, I'm actually looking for the answers myself. I think atheists and theists should talk openly and discuss their separate point of views in a friendly, cooperative manners. They should help each other understand why they believe what they believe. Some theists really do believe they are being scientific in their thinking.

>>3308225
They tried to get rid of the adverse power it represented, yes. Tyrants don't like another tyrant in their territory.

The answer to the question is overmedication, mass media culture, and consumerism.

Science doesn't help; as can be seen from the behavior of /sci/, it just gets used for a new religion.

Genetically engineer humans that have no fear of death. But that might cause other problems.

Still, for all the problems religion causes, I don't think people realize how much it anesthetizes people.

>>3308255
so why did the Catholic church support Hitler? Why did Hitler allow them to support him?

SOUNDS PRETTY SKETCHY

>>3308243
Seriously, there is too much trolls using religion as their best material that a legit thread will suffer from the blast radius... sorry.

Maybe one the mods is an asshole... this isn't under our control.

>>3308243

Seriously?

A philosophy that holds it has all the answers already is anathema to discussion. And in so far as it allows discussion, it discredits it's own foundation.

Science is not this thing.

>>3308268
They cowarded under the fuhrer's authority. As lackeys, they could survive.

Time travel is easier to do OP, and simultaniously also the only effective solution.

Now, unless we're willing to discuss the consequences and possibilities of time travel, this thread is not fucking /sci/entific enough.

>>3308269
you know what else can't be helped?
Atheists posing as Christians online
and
Christian's posing as atheists online

So let's all just accept that and apply that same tactic it to other things!

Send that bitch an anecdotes. Bitches love anecdotes.

>>3308273
Neither is religion.

I tried to get rid of religion. Thought I'd start small with something like Judaism, but NO, they said. You can't DO that; that's GENocide, they said.

>>3308273

Not religious, but I don't think it acts like it has all the answers. At its core it seems to be just a sort of objective morality to abide by. Scientific advancement can, and has, occurred in religious societies.

>>3308268

Because ideologues are pragmatic. And ideologies are designed by people, and interpreted by people. All ideologies, whether they claim to have supernatural elements to some degree or not.

The idea that Nazi Germany's or Soviet Russia's attacks on religion mean anything other than one absolutism trying to crowd out another absolutism is absurd. We should be against any absolutist ideologies, whether they claim to come from science or god. They are the problem. Religion is just one flavor, an absolutist ideology which claims to come from god. Like I say, invented by people and run by people who claim to have the authority of god invested in them.

>>3306803

> Particularly Christianity and Islam

Look at this jew...

WHY IS THIS THREAD SUDDENLY ABOUT BASHING JEWS? IT'S ABOUT GETTING RID OF RELIGION, FUCKING ASSHATS. RELIGIOUS JEWS ARE A SUPERMINORITY. WE SHOULD FOCUS ON CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM, LIKE OP'S POST SAID.

>>3308314
>>3308314

>objective morality

what are you an idiot? The entire reason rationalists don't like religion is because it is anything but objective. It's "morals" are arbitrary and designed to keep the core system in power, or else there would be no need for a church or religious leader.

Also, scientific advancement occurred in religious societies but NOT BECAUSE OF RELIGION. In fact, historically religion has kept scientific advancement back for centuries. Scientists (like Galileo) were persecuted for their scientific advancements by religion, and other scientists were forced to hide away their work until they were practically on their deathbeds because of religion (see Darwin). In the face of historical analysis, all arguments for the benefit of religion on social advancement fails, simple as that.

>>3308343
>Factitious disorder
It's not.

>>3308299
>>3308314

Not all religions are identical. There are three big ones that think one of their historical documents is the word of god, though.

And, like I say; in so far as they claim these books are perfect, they are anathema to real discussion; in so far as they allow discussion, they discredit their foundations. If they claim to know which parts of the books are to be taken seriously and which are not, then they must also explain why there is no consensus on the interpretation, or methodology to settle disputes over the interpretation.

But people are pragmatic as well as incredulous, and double-think is a real concept. So yes, scientific advancement of a sort can occur in religious societies, throttled by the ability to manipulate the interpretations of the book to fit with reality, or by the ability to ignore the book where it contradicts reality. This can only go so far before the book is totally discredited to all reasonable men.

>>3308391
The trend of authoritarian dogmatism is bad for people who care about discovering more about reality, yeah, but that's kinda beside the point

well anyways, to answer OP's question, i believe that it has to start at the government level. government agencies need to stop showing religious favoritism, or simply favoritism towards being religious. Once that occurs, it can spread into the education system. This is where the most change will occur. As is the one truth binding all religions, they way they all grow most quickly is by indoctrinating (brainwashing) children into believing that they are absolute truth. The same way that once a child learns that 2+2 = 4 and will never believe anything else, if he also learns that, for example, the bible is absolute truth, he will never believe anything else as he grows up. Therefore, our education system needs to start teaching kids to think critically and question things and rationalize things for themselves at a very early age, or else there is no hope for the future. Once we break the cycle of child indoctrination, religion will slowly fade away to reason and critical thinking. This is the most effective and humane way to get rid of religion, though it is difficult and slow to do.

>>3308391

I agree that religious people can create scientific advancement and do it quite well, this fact is indisputable. However, I believe that a religious SOCIETY will always hinder this process, and thus prevent people from socially advancing in order to keep their hold on power over the people.

>>3307966

If you think life coming from nonlife is impossible you do not have a thorough enough understanding of biochemistry and physics. Non intelligence coming from intelligence is explainable from the evolution of neurological systems. "Logic from non logic": no ones claiming that because that statement seems to be gibberish. Uniformity coming from chaos is completely mathematically explainable (google chaos theory and cellular automata)

the only difficult and interesting problem is "existence from nonexistence" which is quite possibly a philosophically insoluble problem. But then again any religious, theistic answers to this issue are just a suspect when it comes to logical incoherence

tl;dr: you don't understand enough about reality to make the implications you are implying

>>3306803
Solve Global Poverty and the inequities developed by unrestrained capitalism.

>>3308428

It's bad for everyone. But religion is a term so nebulous that it is almost meaningless, but within the bracket most agree upon are some very benign faiths indeed. I see no reason why religion would ever need be a target of elimination; historically only other absolutist ideologies have even tried to wipe it out. The secular world is big enough to accommodate anyone, really, so long as they aren't trying to force religious laws on everyone else, and they don't mind that the laws of the land must concern themselves solely with the life, and be ignorant of the soul.

>>3308467

Of course. Religions are pretty much the fostering of confirmation bias, while science is pretty much the elimination of confirmation bias. They can coexist in one society, even in one mind, but they are not good bedfellows.

How the universe came to be, and for what purpose, really isn't a question of science. That's not something science can prove or have answers for. It's really a question for philosophers and theologians.

>>3308501
>origin of the universe
>not within the domain of science

Ever heard of cosmology?

>>3308485

>implying we have an example of unrestrained capitalism to judge by; and the problems in the world aren't caused by corrupt governments who are happy to make laws to suit the corporations who bribe them

>>3308501

WRONG

>>3308501

For philosophers, yes. When someone finds god, then we can start up this field of 'theology' to understand it.

You have to understand, for most people, theology is just Batman Studies that have gotten way out of hand.

>>3308508
That all may be true, but poverty is what breads religious fantacism, and wealth breeds atheism.

So the direct conclusion of these axioms is that to erradicate religions, you must erradicate poverty.

Not that I'm saying it's possible.

>>3308501

philosophers are really the better choice to study subjects outside the domain of empirical falsification, theologians are like philosophers in that they study similar things (and technically are philosophers) but they have too many inbuilt religious biases. Essentially theologians are philosophers who have commitments to a particular doctrine and do philosophy from within the particular perspective of that framework. this is unlike proper professional philosophers who do not hold to pre-committed beliefs without rigorous justification

>get rid of religion?
you're equating a source of the problem with the problem itself. Dogma is the real problem, not religion. It would be futile to attempt to rid the world of religion by some unnatural means. (Converting people to atheism)

Religion is a useful meme and helps people with feelings, relationships, etc..

I'm not sure the best way to fight dogma. If you can provide a environment that helps people so they don't need the things that religion provides in the first place, then there will be no need for religion. People will only switch over if this new environment is more attractive.

This is happening gradually already, but not because Hitchens' and crew are denouncing the evils of religion. (They assume people are persuaded by logic and not by survival and happiness)

Remember, logic is only important to a small minority of the population.

>>3308543
>It would be futile to attempt to rid the world of religion by some unnatural means. (Converting people to atheism)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nADFJlAggnY

So if you could use those unnatural means, would you?

>>3308543
>(They assume people are persuaded by logic and not by survival and happiness)
> persuaded by logic and not by survival
>not by survival
wtf man? Implying YOUR sense of greater good much?

>>3308501

>>How the universe came to be, and for what purpose, really isn't a question of science. That's not something science can prove or have answers for. It's really a question for philosophers and theologians.

Not anymore. We now have the technology to investigate those questions, and already have produced tentative answers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ15kFvUyJg

Famously, on the same day that a philosophical compliation was published which listed the composition of the sun as fundamentally unknowable, the mass spectrometer was used for the first time to answer that very question.

And anyway, when science can't answer a question, that doesn't automatically mean that philosophy or religion can. They're just as incapable as ever, as they offer no methodology for establishing the veracity of claims.

>>3308518
For most people, believing in relativity and QM are not different than believing in Jehova or crystal healing.

>>3308566
no, because I don't get a hardon by changing people's entire belief systems. I believe change, if needed, will be gradual and natural.
For example, the US revolution "naturally" occurred because it was the path of least resistance. Change happens when a majority DEMANDS change. Religious people aren't demanding that change in their lives and are in no shape or form the minority.
>>3308580
please expound. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

>>3306803
As a moral suggestion, Dan Dennett's suggestion of a comparative modern religions class required for all children.

>>3308596
>the difference of course being that we know that relativity and QM are wrong.

>>3306813
hah, I was going to make a reply when I saw this topic, but I dont even have to read past the second post, Its already /thread right here.

OP are you Jewish?

>>3308596

You are spot on there, anon. Spot the fuck on.

But there is something to be said about the validity of a claim when it is agreed upon as the most correct theory by everyone who cares to investigate it. To whit, all (you know what I mean by all) physicists agree on relativity, while most theists disagree on Jehovah, and those that agree on it's existence disagree on major or minor details.

I think everyone should think about why they believe in the things they believe in. For me, scientific claims pass muster almost every time. Superstitious or supernatural claims rarely do.

For the record, I base my views on a few things. Whether there is consensus among those who claim to know something about the field, and whether there is a means to settle disagreements between those in the field (are they ever wrong, and how did they decide what was right in the end?). My own analysis of any obvious logical faults with the theory (not the most important, but still good to consider). The trustworthiness and proximity of the source of this knowledge (are they hitting me up for money, and is it second, third, or nth hand information?). The practical applications that are explained by this theory (everyday use of something constitutes a massive study of the truth of the underlying principles).

>>3308596
>>3308667
False.

It's in here somewhere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvJZQwy9dvE
Somewhere around 12:18.

Let me try to paraphrase. How do you know that Mount Everest exists? You've never seen it. You've only been told. Is this different than believing in a god which you've never seen, but only been told that it exists? Yes. Because for Mount Everest, there are experts who have actually seen Mount Everest. They have gone there and attempted to falsify the claim that Mount Everest exists. This is untrue of God. Even the so-called God experts claim to not understand, nor have they tried to falsify the claim. That's the difference.

>>3308643
jewmad.jpg

>>3308621
you're right that was a poor job on my behalf..
1) survival is logical (bio-logical)
2) logic is not a tool for persuasion

I see so many people make this mistake, particularly ardent atheists. Unless you are using physical force then you are ONLY AND ALWAYS persuading people with argument(s). Logic is only the tool to analyze those arguments made; its is astronomically rare to have logic sharper than a sword.

I've seen misogyny threads on /v/, /a/, /k/ and /b/, I've seen racist threads on /new/ and /int/, but you people...

You are the worst.

Why does no one talks about science on this board, seriously, even /v/ is better.

>>3308767
Most of /sci/ hates them. They're just a few dedicated trolls.

>>3308738

Maybe I phrased my post poorly. I agree with most of what you say here.

I just think that it's a fair point to compare belief in, say, Everest, or quantum mechanics, or gravity, with belief in these supernatural claims. For most people, they will have exactly the same opportunity and inclination to pursue these claims and find the truth, or at least the truthiest thruth we humans have access to. If you make a fair comparison between the beliefs, one will find that the supernatural and superstitious claims are always deficient, or even outright lies.

So to Joe Dumbass from Buttfuck, Nowhere, relativity seems just as crazy as transubstantiation. If he investigates the matter in even a cursory fashion, he will find that relativity was put forward by some guy, that it is used to explain these phenomenon, and that everyone who is in the field agrees it is a decent explanation of the facts. If he investigates transubstantiation in the same way, he will find that there is no source for it, nobody has ever tested it's accuracy and nobody has ever tried, and people who believe in it are opposed by far more people who believe it is absolutely wrong.

>>3308755
oh, i think i get what you thought i meant at first.

my point was that if you've ever argued with a religious person, you'll realize quickly that they aren't interested in finding truth through logic, but more concerned with preserving their current belief system.
Their current belief system is useful to them in some way, probably many. So their ego protects it.

>>3308767
>>3308767
>>3308767
>>3308767
>>3308767
>>3308767

>racism threads
>misogyny threads
>worse than a thread about eliminating a meme which largely brought about the prior two

>>3308667
Divergence of claims in religion is not a particularly problematic occurance, unless you happen to be thinking that all of reality is only objective and impersonal, which would be absurd, but appears to be an extremely common belief among people who hold religions in contempt. Science is good at certain things, not at all of them. It is the conceit of the scientism-ists that anything that science is not good at does not exist or could be done better by science. What is missing is an understanding of how the method limits the understandings that can be gained from it.

>For me, scientific claims pass muster almost every time. Superstitious or supernatural claims rarely do.

Most people live this way. Kind of like how relativity doesn't matter much for everyday actions. Nothing wrong with it.

>>3308767
>>3308767
>>3308767
>>3308767
>>3308767

>racism threads
>misogyny threads
>anti-religion thread somehow worse than prior two
>when it's about eliminating a meme which largely brought about those two

>>3308789
You're still missing the crucial distinction. The crucial distinction is trust and intellectual honesty and adherence to science. It's eye witness testimony. Eye witness testimony is evidence.

The average person may know god exists. The average person may know that Mount Everest exists. The difference is the evidence available to that average person. If Mount Everest does not exist, then so many things would have to be broken that he might as well have to live in The Truman Show. So many pieces of human trust and eye witness testimony would have to be broken.

To the contrary, it's perfectly plausible that god does not exist. You would not need a conspiracy on the scale of you being Truman in The Truman Show.

That's the /very/ crucial difference. I'm being scientific when I claim that Mount Everest exists. I'm being scientific when I claim that E = m c^2, even though I don't really know what it means. I would not be being scientific if I claimed that god exists.

>>3308755 continued
I usually fuck up on explaining logic too..
Here is a revision

1.) Logic is only applied to arguments

2.) The analytical method is ~logic~, the analytical conclusion is ~logical~. logic =/= logical; that is to say There is no logical reason or, rather, valid set of arguments as to why logic is necessary.

3.) The only logical conclusions are true and false: logically true and logically false. There is no logically good, logically bad, logically red, logically warm, logically sane or logically superior.

'Logic' doesn't care about truth, it only cares about finding contradictions.

>>3308799

It is religious people themselves who claim that they are onto something objectively true. Only those who are already tempered by the flames of enlightenment even concede that all religions are a bit right. And these alloyed religionists are none of my concern, since they live perfectly well in the secular societies that spawned them.

>>3308804

They are just as worst as this one, but at least I see those once a day.../sci/ is like this or "my classmates are dumb" all the time.

>>3308822
>Logic is only applied to arguments
>There is no logical reason or, rather, valid set of arguments as to why logic is necessary.
>'Logic' doesn't care about truth, it only cares about finding contradictions.

A pretty good example of contradictions, then.

>>3308828
Religion has been well and truly co-opted by political authoritarian dogmatism. There is also a problem with the use of the term "objective", which gets fairly complicated. But that's largely beside the point. As a religious person myself, I'm for as secular a society as we can get.

>>3308795
I can agree with them statements.

I posted in another thread earlier where the subject is "why do people get mad when they are proven wrong?" In there I mentioned about people protecting their morals and ethics where basically I was asserting once you prove someone's 'belief' system wrong then you are practically proving them wrong about every instance where they thought they were right in exercise of that particular belief. To dig deeper I would assert that belief systems are shields to change and rejecting to use logic or even ad hoc administration of logic is a shielding of their belief shielding, rather a meta-shielding and rather self-reinforcing behavior.

This is all logical banter which is illogical to use against self-reinforcing radicalism of course however while those people hate logic they are still usually compelled to address contradictions and in more apparent-hood they are compelled fight the title of hypocrite; you just have to fully spell out the contradiction or hypocrisy even if that means being redundant.

>>3308847
define truth.