Stop using the word "truth" to mean "what I think." You need to understand the difference between objective true and subjective truth.And would you say that that is more of a FACT or an OPTION? And would you say that that is more of a FACT or an OPTION? As in, has no one, in the history of the world, be able to be moral AND religious? Is it PROVEN that if you want to be "truly fair and moral" you need to "take away the bible," always?
You see what I am getting at? There is a BIG difference between FACTS and POINTS OF VIEW. Do you see here that your have been stating your points of view, which is different that a fact?
"The truth hurts" is only a relevant statement if you look up something in the dictionary/wiki and there it is. If you look up "moral" in the dictionary you will NOT find "to be without a bible." Or "religious debate" and find "cesspool."
Anything other than dictionary/wiki is just your OPTION and you need to find a BACKING for it, its not good enough to just state it.
Is this a joke? When are you going to stop twisting my words into things I didn't even say. I said giving the bible credibility it doesn't deserve is immoral. I didn't say anything about people who follow the bible. This is just proof of how unfair debates are on these forums. People like you go around taking my posts and turning them into things I never said OR implied in the first place.
The same goes for my cesspool statement which was horribly misquoted and then misinterpreted by many simply to accuse me of things I hadn't committed.
What credibility it does not or does 'deserve' is subjective. I hope you understand that.
I just quoted you on what you said, sir, "If you want to be truly fair and moral, then take away the bible... when debating." This means: (truly fair and moral in debate) -> (take away bible)
Which is what I said it meant(I cut off 'in debating' because its implied in the context of this thread), and that your trying to state that as a "fact." YOUR not being careful with your statements.
And if you want people to stop 'twisting' your words, you should choose them more carefully. That is the main point I am trying to drive home here. Being 'fast and loose' with what you say will do nothing but hurt your point.
Tarmogoyf, you were out of line. Man up and face the facts. You cannot hide behind the excuse that "the truth hurts" because by the time of your infraction, what you were saying had nothing to do with the truth, and everything to do with your anger and frustration. You say religious arguments hide behind fallacies, but rather than expose those fallacies in a calm and civil tone, you went off on a contentless rant.
The only person saying that people have to respect the authority of the Bible in Debate is you. The only reason you think this is that you chose not to question that authority in a manner befitting a debater. Your unwillingness to believe that you could possibly have done anything genuinely wrong has led you to the patently ridiculous conclusion that there is some pro-fundamentalist bias in the forum. But the simple truth is that whatever respect the Bible deserves in terms of ideas, those on the Debate board deserve a respectful tone. Most posters can understand the difference. Once you can manage it, you're welcome to come back.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The problem is simple: there's a cultural double standard. Scientific evidence has to "prove" things, whereas religious dogma gets accepted on face value. This is blatantly ridiculous, yet because religious leaders greatly benefit from this double standard they encourage its continuation; and the religions' followers largely perpetuate it.
A "debate forum" should require evidence (whether logical, mathematical, historical, forensic, or scientific depends on the subject matter in question) and failing to do so gives the debate forum an inherent bias.
The idea that "religion deserves respect" is a pro-religion idea and enforcement of it inherently generates a pro-religion bias. Religion deserves no more respect than any other idea- it should have to earn it, the same as any other worldview.
I have to disagree. Every position deserves you're respect. That doesn't mean you hold it in high esteem. It means you give it your consideration. That's what people mean by 'respect' here. You give the other idea consideration, allowing for the chance, even the smallest one, that they could be correct. Respect means not dismissing their argument out of hand for any reason until it's proven wrong.
If you actually look at it after getting off your high horse, religion has its proof. Its holy book (most religions have one) has its proof. For Christianity, it's the Bible. And the proof are all the events that happen in the Bible. The Bible is Christianity's scientific paper, with the conclusion being "There is a God, and this is the true religion." The paper convinced the people. Just like the paper on (insert scientific theory here) convinced others.
When referring to 'respect' as 'holding in high esteem', then yes, Religion should have to earn it. But we're not talking about that.
I have to disagree. Every position deserves you're respect. That doesn't mean you hold it in high esteem. It means you give it your consideration. That's what people mean by 'respect' here. You give the other idea consideration, allowing for the chance, even the smallest one, that they could be correct. Respect means not dismissing their argument out of hand for any reason until it's proven wrong.
You show here an extremely fundamental misunderstanding of how logical debate works. If you make an assertion "X", I do not have to disprove it if I disagree. You have the obligation to prove your own assertion. My job if I rebut it is to find errors in your proof (or find evidence that one of the initial statements is wrong; for instance if you cite a study that claims that tobacco does not cause lung cancer as a reason not to ban smoking in bars, one of the possible rebuttals to that would be to find flaws in that study and/or more expansive studies with other results).
If you actually look at it after getting off your high horse, religion has its proof. Its holy book (most religions have one) has its proof. For Christianity, it's the Bible. And the proof are all the events that happen in the Bible. The Bible is Christianity's scientific paper, with the conclusion being "There is a God, and this is the true religion." The paper convinced the people. Just like the paper on (insert scientific theory here) convinced others.
The Bible is hardly a "proof" of anything. In order to use the Bible as evidence that something is true, you have to first prove that the Bible is true. Scientific papers are "true" because they are backed by experiments (in fact, scientific papers are usually descriptive of the experiments) and peer-reviewed. Laws are "true" because of court precedents. Mathematical proofs are "true" because every statement follows from the previous, back to some fundamental set of axioms. The Bible meets none of these standards.
(To put it another way, if you are going to offer the Bible up as proof of some assertion, you must give me a valid reason why I should accept the Bible and not, say, the Koran.)
You're showing an extremely fundamental misunderstanding of how the debate works in the first place. You -have- to show respect for your opponent's position. You -have- to take it into consideration, or there's no debate in the first place. That very problem is what started this thread. The OP decided the opposing argument was not worth his time, said so with inflammatory language, and left.
First of all, yes, I have to prove my side of the argument if I make an assertion. But disagreeing is making the assertion that my argument is wrong, so you have an obligation to prove YOUR assertion. It's something our debaters seem to miss.
'True' and 'fact' are two completely different things. As for the Bible, for the sake of argument (which doesn't even belong here): The evidence from the Bible is said to be taken from Observation, which is one form of scientific experiment. It is peer-reviewed (ever heard of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?). And the reason you use the Bible instead of the Koran is because, in this instance, we were talking of Christianity, and the Koran isn't the Christian holy book.
However, that argument doesn't belong in this thread.
The point is, you respect your opponent's argument so he respects yours. If you toss his argument out for no reason, tossing it out out of hand, he has every right to do the exact same thing to you. No, it's not fact until proven so. But it's not fiction until proven so.
'True' and 'fact' are two completely different things. As for the Bible, for the sake of argument (which doesn't even belong here): The evidence from the Bible is said to be taken from Observation, which is one form of scientific experiment. It is peer-reviewed (ever heard of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?). And the reason you use the Bible instead of the Koran is because, in this instance, we were talking of Christianity, and the Koran isn't the Christian holy book.
The fact that you decree the Bible to be "peer-reviewed" and "scientific" indicates that either you are absurdly biased in favor of Christianity (and/or religion in general) or that you have absolutely no understanding of what the words "peer-reviewed" actually mean.
There are plenty of ancient works that claim to be real stories, using any them in a modern debate without some sort of basis as to why you pick that specific one to be declared "factual" is laughable.
Frankly, based on what I've seen you say here, you have no real understanding of modern scientific procedures or logical debate, just stuff that "sounds good" and a general idea that "all ideas should be respected".
The former is clearly non-rigorous and the latter is patently absurd- if someone declares that the earth is flat simply because some 4000 year old mythology says it is, his ideas don't deserve respect because it clearly goes against scientific evidence. He doesn't deserve equal time on a TV debate or even "respect" on an internet forum. It's a ridiculous idea. A thousands-year-old text that predates the scientific method cannot possibly be scientific without modern verification of its contents. The ancient Greeks did math involving shadows that declared the earth to be round. We don't use their texts as evidence of the earth's roundness today for a multitude of reasons.
I know very well what peer-reviewed means. It means that the work you are submitting is reviewed by experts of the field upon publication. I was taking it a bit more generalized. The Bible was published. And experts in the field of Christianity have reviewed it and labeled many parts to be factual. These experts are what you know as Priests.
Frankly, you've seen me make two posts. That's not enough for you to have any idea on me. If I were to follow your form there: "From what I've seen of you, frankly, I'd say you're one of the hard scientific worshipers that treat Science as its own religion and won't allow for anything that science cannot explain. You also don't understand the concept of a philosophical debate." But I don't make assumptions about people, especially off of two posts.
Third: If someone declares that the Earth is flat and comes up with good evidence that it is so, it's only fair to argue against him without dismissing him. Otherwise, he can simply dismiss your idea that the Earth is round without looking at -your- evidence.
Furthermore, since we're bringing up the ancient Greeks? Their result was correct, though their methods may be archaic. Just because it's old and predates your oh-so-precious scientific method doesn't mean its incorrect.
I also love that sentence in there about the scientific method, where you bolded it. It covers your rear while making an absurd statement. "Something before the scientific method cannot be scientific unless science has looked at it again." It could be read two ways, depending on which phrase you take to be the main phrase. Either "Something before the scientific method cannot be scientific", or "Something cannot be scientific without being verified by modern methods." Both are false. For the former, I point out Galileo and leave it at that. For the latter? I -still- point out Galileo. It was scientific before science verified it, and it was scientific afterwards.
You -can- have debate about non-scientific facts. Philosophy is a great example. How about the debates of 'Should we still be at war'? That doesn't follow your scientific method. It doesn't -have- to be scientific in order to be a debate, and you should stop arguing as such.
You also -do- need to respect your opponent and your opponent's argument in order to hold a reasonable debate. You can laugh at this all you like. But if I don't respect you, I'm not going to bother coming up with a post (like this one) in order to argue with anything you say. And if I don't respect your argument, I'm not going to come up with a post (like this one) in order to counter your argument before presenting my own. Lack of respect in the first leads to ad hominem, and lack of respect int he second leads to "I'm right, you're wrong" statements.
These debates don't belong here, however. I'm pointing them out because, to be honest, they point out a certain closed-mindedness that makes debate a struggle to contain annoyance rather than a fun past time to discern truth from a non-scientific discussion.
You -can- have debate about non-scientific facts. Philosophy is a great example. How about the debates of 'Should we still be at war'? That doesn't follow your scientific method. It doesn't -have- to be scientific in order to be a debate, and you should stop arguing as such.
Funny that, my first post in this thread said:
A "debate forum" should require evidence (whether logical, mathematical, historical, forensic, or scientific depends on the subject matter in question) and failing to do so gives the debate forum an inherent bias.
The issue of creationism/evolution is, in fact, one where the debate requires scientific evidence.
Quote from Nai »
Furthermore, since we're bringing up the ancient Greeks? Their result was correct, though their methods may be archaic. Just because it's old and predates your oh-so-precious scientific method doesn't mean its incorrect.
Actually, the ancient Greeks were wrong on the diameter of the Earth, which is something we would not know had we simply accepted their ancient texts as fact on the surface of things (or even with the barest minimum confirmation that the earth is in fact round), which is precisely what the typical Creationist demands we do with the Bible (which you have declared is valid "proof").
Evidence relies on the context of the argument at hand. If you're talking Science? Scientific evidence! But what evidence do I have of the Philosophical argument? I don't have any scientific evidence that I actually exist. I have even less scientific evidence that YOU exist. But I have Philosophical evidence on both. Religious arguments don't always require scientific evidence.
Oh, and by the way, as the -creator- of that Creationism/Evolution debate, I can tell you it didn't need any Scientific evidence in the first place. The debate wasn't asking if either was right. It was asking if the two ideas could be reconciled with each other, and why they couldn't if not.
And in this argument, it doesn't -matter- that the Greeks were wrong about the diameter of the Earth. The point was that the Greeks got the answer right even though not all the details were correct.
And you're incorrect about the 'typical Creationist'. From what I understand, Creationism doesn't include Flat Earth. More so, I was talking about Christianity, not Creationists, which are not the same thing. And the typical Christian doesn't say that the Bible is exact proof.
Moreover, I hope you actually read my post when I said 'for the sake of argument'. "For the sake of argument" means "I'm going to take something as true in order to continue this debate, because not taking it as true makes the debate worthless". I didn't say it initially, because I thought it was an unneeded statement. I continually overestimate how much people on this forum are willing to debate for the sake of debate rather than debate to shut down the debate.
In addition, I didn't say 'valid' proof. I said proof. Their proof may be incorrect. But the Bible can be offered as proof that a religion is true.
Oh, and so you're aware? I'm Agnostic. I don't like religion at all. I believe in God, but not for the reasons that any religion that I"ve looked at so far has said. I'm not defending Religion because I'm a religious fanatic, or even because I like religion. I'm defending it because you're trying to exclude religion from arguments for ALL the wrong reasons.
And you're incorrect about the 'typical Creationist'. From what I understand, Creationism doesn't include Flat Earth.
You are incapable of understanding the concept of an "example"? I deliberately chose something else to make my point.
In addition, I didn't say 'valid' proof. I said proof. Their proof may be incorrect. But the Bible can be offered as proof that a religion is true.
That is not at all what the word proof means. You cannot "prove" something and have it turn out to be incorrect. The Bible cannot be offered as "proof" that Christianity is true unless you first prove that the Bible is true.
You may make a logically valid sequence of assertions based on a false principle and have a sequence of logically sound statements that nonetheless come to a false (or undefined-truth) conclusion. For example:
It rained on Tuesday. (false premise)
If it rains, I carry an umbrella. (true premise)
"Because it rained on Tuesday, I carried an umbrella" -> this statement is false as written because it is based on a false premise, even though it has sound logic.
Have you ever taken a course in formal logic?
Oh, and so you're aware? I'm Agnostic. I don't like religion at all. I believe in God, but not for the reasons that any religion that I"ve looked at so far has said.
The two bolded parts are a direct contradiction in terms. If you believe in god, you are by definition not an agnostic. I suspect you simply haven't read enough on this issue to have a good grasp on the terminology.
And I am not trying to "exclude religion from the debate". I am trying to get people to realize that the cultural bias of treating religion with "respect" and accepting the religion's holy book as evidence towards the validity of that religion is clearly unacceptable. If religious individuals are willing to argue from first principles (whether of math or of science) in a scientific context then that's fine; but this whole "<some book> is true because I believe it's true and <that book> proves my religion right which means <that book> is right!" thing is nothing more than an exercise in circular logic and has no room in logical debate.
You didn't say 'for example', so I had no way of knowing it was an example.
And if we're going to have to prove every step of our argument, then there's no way to argue it at all. For instance, every observation you make is using 'we exist' as an established fact. But by your logic, we must PROVE we exist before we can use the observation.
If the argument is 'Christianity is true', I submit my proof of the Bible, saying the Bible says its true. I am assuming the Bible is correct when I use it. If you hold issue with my evidence, the Bible, you may say 'the bible is not true' and I'll be forced to say the Bible is true. But until you say my evidence is false, my evidence is held to be true.
Agnostic, noun.
2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
In this case, I'm unwilling to commit to an opinion about a religion. Please don't tell me I haven't read enough or that I don't know terminology. I'm very well read, have a large vocabulary, and am generally correct about the words I use. There are cases I am wrong, but they aren't incredibly abundant.
Quote from ChocoCid »
A "debate forum" should require evidence (whether logical, mathematical, historical, forensic, or scientific depends on the subject matter in question) and failing to do so gives the debate forum an inherent bias.
The idea that "religion deserves respect" is a pro-religion idea and enforcement of it inherently generates a pro-religion bias. Religion deserves no more respect than any other idea- it should have to earn it, the same as any other worldview.
Bolding is mine, of course. Now, your first statement there says that the debate should require evidence. But you've also said there's no evidence for Religion. This adds up to "until religion gets evidence, it doesn't belong in the debate forum". The second bolding is a double standard on your part. You seem to want to compensate for society's automatic give to religion (something I notice and I agree it shouldn't exist) by automatically giving the automatic high ground to science and kicking Religion to the curb. Your attitude comes across as 'because its science, it's automatically more credible', which is just what you're arguing against but on the other side of the argument.
Agnostic, noun.
2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
In this case, I'm unwilling to commit to an opinion about a religion.
You have committed to the opinion "(a) god exists", which is by definition a theistic position. You are likely irreligious, possibly a Deist of some sort; but certainly not an agnostic.
Bolding is mine, of course. Now, your first statement there says that the debate should require evidence. But you've also said there's no evidence for Religion. This adds up to "until religion gets evidence, it doesn't belong in the debate forum". The second bolding is a double standard on your part. You seem to want to compensate for society's automatic give to religion (something I notice and I agree it shouldn't exist) by automatically giving the automatic high ground to science and kicking Religion to the curb. Your attitude comes across as 'because its science, it's automatically more credible', which is just what you're arguing against but on the other side of the argument.
Let's see... Religion asserts non-evident things as true. Science requires evidence to be examined, reviewed, and corrobated before declaring something a theory. You're damn straight science is automatically more credible than religion. The mere fact that a claim is "scientific" means that there has already been tested evidence in favor of it.
If religious scholars can actually come up with evidence supporting their wild claims, then they can have equal footing. Not before. They certainly haven't done so yet.
The idea that religion should be given "equal footing" with science is preposterous. Where science and religion conflict, religion should give way for the simple fact that the science has testable evidence behind it and the religion does not. Furthermore, no religion has any more evidence for it than any other religion, and they often conflict with each other. If we reject evolution on the grounds that "religion says evolution is wrong" then we somehow (without evidence!) have to choose between the claims of many competing religions. This is an untenable position, and the only reason anyone advocates it is because they are the followers of some specific religion. (Curiously, they always declare that we should accept that specific religion's claims, and no other.)
I -just- gave you the definition of Agnostic I'm using, and you're arguing against it. Please direct your argument now to the editors of the Merriam-Webster dictionary. I am agnostic in terms of religion, not in terms of deity.
So, basically, you're changing your argument. Initially you said that Religion deserves no more respect than any other idea. Now you're saying it deserves LESS respect than any other idea. They aren't the same. And Science should not be more credible automatically. Credibility means 'reasonable ground for being believed'. In many cases, the Scientific argument isn't reasonable to the layman, while religion is. So to them, religion is more reasonable. To you, Science is more credible. Credibility is a very personal word, and is not an absolute.
And your saying that science has testable evidence is automatically biased against Religion. Religion says 'God did so and so'. For this to be testable, we have to somehow force God to do it again. This, by definition, isn't possible. And even if it was, it still wouldn't be in our control, and you would argue against it. Your entire argument is biased for Science because you can easily recreate a scientific experiment while the Religious argument can't be replicated. But, relative to the argument, the Religious argument doesn't need to be replicated.
And as for your bit about competing religions, you're straw manning now. What religion you believe in has nothing to do with the argument of religion versus science. Either the argument inherently names a religion (i.e. Christianity versus Science) or it means religion in general versus science, in which case the religion doesn't matter unless Religion wins the bout.
Initially you said that Religion deserves no more respect than any other idea. Now you're saying it deserves LESS respect than any other idea.
Religion deserves no more or less respect than any other idea that lacks evidence. It (and all other ideas that lack evidence) deserve much, much less respect than ideas that have the backing of evidence in one form or another.
And your saying that science has testable evidence is automatically biased against Religion. Religion says 'God did so and so'. For this to be testable, we have to somehow force God to do it again. This, by definition, isn't possible. And even if it was, it still wouldn't be in our control, and you would argue against it. Your entire argument is biased for Science because you can easily recreate a scientific experiment while the Religious argument can't be replicated. But, relative to the argument, the Religious argument doesn't need to be replicated.
Scientific tests are not the only means of demonstrating things. Historical evidence (and no, the bible is no more historical evidence than the Odyssey is) would suffice also. Interestingly, the Egyptians do not have records of the Jews being kept as slaves; the Roman records don't match up very well with many aspects of the New Testament; and so forth. The corrobating evidence for the bible is practically nonexistent.
Requiring actual evidence is hardly a bias. In fact, requiring actual evidence is the only way there is of removing bias. That's why the scientific method requires experimentation to confirm hypotheses.
The scientific method is inherently unbiased. So are mathematical proofs. So is formal logic. The legal system attempts to be unbiased.
The "layman" as you put it, is horrendously biased and not to be trusted.
Truth is not something to be democratically voted on.
And as for your bit about competing religions, you're straw manning now. What religion you believe in has nothing to do with the argument of religion versus science.
It's a perfectly valid objection. If you reject scientific evidence on the grounds that "these religions all say something else!" then you've got the clear problem that there's a mess of different claims with no evidence for any of them.
Religion deserves no more or less respect than any other idea that lacks evidence. It (and all other ideas that lack evidence) deserve much, much less respect than ideas that have the backing of evidence in one form or another.
Qualifiedly, yes. But this does not give people license to start shooting their mouths off. And it is not up to the mods to determine the standards of evidence for a debate; we're here to facilitate civilized discussion, not to declare winners. End of story.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
A "debate forum" should require evidence (whether logical, mathematical, historical, forensic, or scientific depends on the subject matter in question) and failing to do so gives the debate forum an inherent bias.
The problem I have with this kinda thinking is that LOTS of people that use science in their debates does not even realize what science is, or what goes into it.
I had someone argue me for pages that heisenberg's uncertainty principle could be applied to EVERYTHING. And he held it up in my face as fanatically as any religious person would hold their believes. He had NO understanding AT ALL about what it really meant, or the math behind it, but he felt he could apply it to what we were debating.
The fact is that people now a days 'believe' in science just as fanatically as any religious person believes in religion. They do so without real knowledge or without real understanding. They use sound clips as truths, when the truth is always so much deeper.
I would much rather debate with someone about religious if they had a TRUE understanding of said religion than someone that is going to shove a sound bits they heard in science class at me without any understanding of the science.
Knowledge of ANY kind is better than ignorance in my book.
The problem I have with this kinda thinking is that LOTS of people that use science in their debates does not even realize what science is, or what goes into it.
I had someone argue me for pages that heisenberg's uncertainty principle could be applied to EVERYTHING. And he held it up in my face as fanatically as any religious person would hold their believes. He had NO understanding AT ALL about what it really meant, or the math behind it, but he felt he could apply it to what we were debating.
*facepalm*
I don't think it would involve going very far out on a limb if I blamed sci-fi for that one, considering how many bad sci-fi authors have savagely misused that principle.
Knowledge of ANY kind is better than ignorance in my book.
The contents of your typical religious book are not "knowledge", they are mythology. Trivia. Worthless in the real world. Arguments based on the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, etc; are no more valid than arguments based on Tolkien's Silmarillion; unless the person arguing thereby can present evidence that indicates the truth of their specific ancient book.
Just because many people who attempt to debate the scientific side of things have next-to-nil understanding of the underlying science doesn't mean that all of a sudden arguing from mythology is any more credible. It's not.
The contents of your typical religious book are not "knowledge", they are mythology. Trivia. Worthless in the real world.
Oh, indeed. Knowledge of the Koran, for example, is totally worthless, and surely has no relevance to the real world task of fostering positive diplomatic relations with Islamic countries.
Arguments based on the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, etc; are no more valid than arguments based on Tolkien's Silmarillion; unless the person arguing thereby can present evidence that indicates the truth of their specific ancient book.
The provision of evidence is what the theological field of apologetics is all about. If you ever bother to read some of the better Christian apologetics, you may just find that they do make a strong and well-reasoned case. Also:
Just because many people who attempt to debate the scientific side of things have next-to-nil understanding of the underlying science doesn't mean that all of a sudden arguing from mythology is any more credible. It's not.
Apologists do not argue from mythology. They argue from the available evidence for the historical actuality of that which you call mythology. To the extent that they do so with sound methodology and intellectual integrity, their voice is as valid and important in debate as any other.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
Oh, indeed. Knowledge of the Koran, for example, is totally worthless, and surely has no relevance to the real world task of fostering positive diplomatic relations with Islamic countries.
It's worthless with regards to understanding of natural phenomena (in other words, science). Certainly knowing the contents of the book has value when you're dealing with groups of fanatics who treat the book as absolute truth regardless of evidence. That's true of any book.
The provision of evidence is what the theological field of apologetics is all about. If you ever bother to read some of the better Christian apologetics, you may just find that they do make a strong and well-reasoned case. Also:
I've read plenty of apologetics. They don't make a "well-reasoned" case because they do one of the following:
1- Start with the assumption that their holy book is true.
2- Start with the assumption that their god exists.
3- Argue from what they wish were true (things like "A world without a god would not be a world worth living in", etc).
4- (this one applies mostly to the amateurs on internet forums etc) Are mostly clueless with regards to the subject material and can't really go anywhere with the argument. Granted, this possibility exists with arguments on any subject, anywhere.
Apologists do not argue from mythology. They argue from the available evidence for the historical actuality of that which you call mythology. To the extent that they do so with sound methodology and intellectual integrity, their voice is as valid and important in debate as any other.
I've yet to see any that succeeded with the bolded restrictions. Most of the historical apologetics I've read start with either assumption 1 or 2 above; a few insisted on #3. Almost all of them were ignorant of the scientific reality (of course, at the time so were the scientists).
Modern apologetics, by and large, has become nothing more than a field of charlatans like Dinesh d'Souza. The religious leaders are far more interested in converting people via fear and indoctrination of children, not by logical persuasion.
I reiterate, there is no reason why people should be holding up their holy book as "evidence" of anything in a debate without first providing evidence that their holy book is factual. This societal bias towards religion is utterly ridiculous. There are scientific hypotheses that lack evidence and should be treated similarly- the misnamed String Theory comes to mind. Scientific theories that have evidence backing them up should not be treated as "equal" to religions which are devoid of evidence.
When a Scientist is working on his new experiment, he works on it with the assumption that his hypothesis is true. If your hypothesis is that water is edible, you will act as though it is edible in your experiments until it is proven otherwise. If your hypothesis is that there is a subatomic particle smaller than the atom, you work as though it is true.
Your argument sounds largely as if its coming with someone with a chip on their shoulder aimed towards religion. Scientists, which you hold in high regard, do all the same things.
Oh, and your misnamed 'String Theory'? You say yourself it lacks evidence (which I believe is actually untrue), yet I know quite a few people I'd classify as scientists (and one or two engineers) that treat it as close to fact as someone does religion.
Oh, and your misnamed 'String Theory'? You say yourself it lacks evidence (which I believe is actually untrue), yet I know quite a few people I'd classify as scientists (and one or two engineers) that treat it as close to fact as someone does religion.
There is only theoretical evidence, not experimental (or not enough anyway).
Scientist approach EVERYTHING, even there OWN ideas, as something that needs to be proven. You have to keep asking questions if you want to learn anything.
I don't think it would involve going very far out on a limb if I blamed sci-fi for that one, considering how many bad sci-fi authors have savagely misused that principle.
And I had someone claiming to be a chemist tell me that fire was made of "unknown pure energy" and that we "did not know what light really was," for a few other pages on another thread.
The contents of your typical religious book are not "knowledge", they are mythology. Trivia. Worthless in the real world.
Really? What are you, Borg? You feel some information is 'irrelevant' or something? I find lots of useful tidbits in the Bible, like Matthew 7:3-5.
______________________________________
Alright. Everyone, even me, listen up. I am going to only say this once, and not back it up. So either take it or leave it. And at any point you think to yourself "I know someone that is like that" you're WRONG. I am talking about YOU(and me). That's right, the MORE you feel like I am talking about someone else, the MORE its true I am talking about YOU.
The problem is NOT with religion, its with ignorance. Those of you that think that ignorance goes with religion are, simple put, wrong. Any time anyone believes anything without question there is a problem. There is ignorance. Over the years people have started to link this 'unquestioning' faith with religion, and its true that religion does lend itself to that kind of thinking, but not always, and not exclusively.
There are lots of misconceptions that start getting thrown around. This idea that "all" religious people think like "X" or believe "Y" is one of them. As soon as you start lumping things to gather you, yourself, become ignorant and blind. Some religious people have thought VERY hard about their faith, and have asked lots of questions, and only after a long rational decision have decided to be what they are. Its INCREDIBLY unfair of anyone to think or feel that all religious people shun science or logic or something.
The problem too comes with atheist and people that 'believe only in science.' You start getting some of these people that are JUST as self righteous as the people they are 'fighting against.' Some are JUST as unwilling to question their own beliefs and to try to understand the beliefs of others. They feel like they have it 'all figured out' and that ANYONE that disagrees with them must be wrong.
One of the key problems is this idea that that 'religion' and 'science' are opposites or something. As if 'faith' and 'logic' could not exist together in the same mind or something. This is simply wrong. MANY of the BEST scientist we have EVER had were VERY religious. Sir Isaac Newton comes to mind. Also raise you hand if you knew that the Catholic church accepts evolution now? And the idea that there might be life on other planets? You should realize these things before you go pointing fingers.
The problem with ignorant people is that they are ignorant, that's it. I do no care if you feel like religious people are MORE ignorant or something. Not ALL are, and your just making yourself look stupid if you start assuming that someone is dumb just because they believe in Jesus or something.
As soon as you stop asking questions, or start thinking you know someone else, you're WRONG. And I don't care WHO you are, theist; atheist; agnostic; me; or you, YOU'RE WRONG.
The same goes for my cesspool statement which was horribly misquoted and then misinterpreted by many simply to accuse me of things I hadn't committed.
techoverrated.I just quoted you on what you said, sir, "If you want to be truly fair and moral, then take away the bible... when debating." This means: (truly fair and moral in debate) -> (take away bible)
Which is what I said it meant(I cut off 'in debating' because its implied in the context of this thread), and that your trying to state that as a "fact." YOUR not being careful with your statements.
And if you want people to stop 'twisting' your words, you should choose them more carefully. That is the main point I am trying to drive home here. Being 'fast and loose' with what you say will do nothing but hurt your point.
Tarmogoyf, you were out of line. Man up and face the facts. You cannot hide behind the excuse that "the truth hurts" because by the time of your infraction, what you were saying had nothing to do with the truth, and everything to do with your anger and frustration. You say religious arguments hide behind fallacies, but rather than expose those fallacies in a calm and civil tone, you went off on a contentless rant.
The only person saying that people have to respect the authority of the Bible in Debate is you. The only reason you think this is that you chose not to question that authority in a manner befitting a debater. Your unwillingness to believe that you could possibly have done anything genuinely wrong has led you to the patently ridiculous conclusion that there is some pro-fundamentalist bias in the forum. But the simple truth is that whatever respect the Bible deserves in terms of ideas, those on the Debate board deserve a respectful tone. Most posters can understand the difference. Once you can manage it, you're welcome to come back.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
A "debate forum" should require evidence (whether logical, mathematical, historical, forensic, or scientific depends on the subject matter in question) and failing to do so gives the debate forum an inherent bias.
The idea that "religion deserves respect" is a pro-religion idea and enforcement of it inherently generates a pro-religion bias. Religion deserves no more respect than any other idea- it should have to earn it, the same as any other worldview.
If you actually look at it after getting off your high horse, religion has its proof. Its holy book (most religions have one) has its proof. For Christianity, it's the Bible. And the proof are all the events that happen in the Bible. The Bible is Christianity's scientific paper, with the conclusion being "There is a God, and this is the true religion." The paper convinced the people. Just like the paper on (insert scientific theory here) convinced others.
When referring to 'respect' as 'holding in high esteem', then yes, Religion should have to earn it. But we're not talking about that.
My helpdesk should you need me.
You show here an extremely fundamental misunderstanding of how logical debate works. If you make an assertion "X", I do not have to disprove it if I disagree. You have the obligation to prove your own assertion. My job if I rebut it is to find errors in your proof (or find evidence that one of the initial statements is wrong; for instance if you cite a study that claims that tobacco does not cause lung cancer as a reason not to ban smoking in bars, one of the possible rebuttals to that would be to find flaws in that study and/or more expansive studies with other results).
The Bible is hardly a "proof" of anything. In order to use the Bible as evidence that something is true, you have to first prove that the Bible is true. Scientific papers are "true" because they are backed by experiments (in fact, scientific papers are usually descriptive of the experiments) and peer-reviewed. Laws are "true" because of court precedents. Mathematical proofs are "true" because every statement follows from the previous, back to some fundamental set of axioms. The Bible meets none of these standards.
(To put it another way, if you are going to offer the Bible up as proof of some assertion, you must give me a valid reason why I should accept the Bible and not, say, the Koran.)
First of all, yes, I have to prove my side of the argument if I make an assertion. But disagreeing is making the assertion that my argument is wrong, so you have an obligation to prove YOUR assertion. It's something our debaters seem to miss.
'True' and 'fact' are two completely different things. As for the Bible, for the sake of argument (which doesn't even belong here): The evidence from the Bible is said to be taken from Observation, which is one form of scientific experiment. It is peer-reviewed (ever heard of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?). And the reason you use the Bible instead of the Koran is because, in this instance, we were talking of Christianity, and the Koran isn't the Christian holy book.
However, that argument doesn't belong in this thread.
The point is, you respect your opponent's argument so he respects yours. If you toss his argument out for no reason, tossing it out out of hand, he has every right to do the exact same thing to you. No, it's not fact until proven so. But it's not fiction until proven so.
My helpdesk should you need me.
The fact that you decree the Bible to be "peer-reviewed" and "scientific" indicates that either you are absurdly biased in favor of Christianity (and/or religion in general) or that you have absolutely no understanding of what the words "peer-reviewed" actually mean.
There are plenty of ancient works that claim to be real stories, using any them in a modern debate without some sort of basis as to why you pick that specific one to be declared "factual" is laughable.
Frankly, based on what I've seen you say here, you have no real understanding of modern scientific procedures or logical debate, just stuff that "sounds good" and a general idea that "all ideas should be respected".
The former is clearly non-rigorous and the latter is patently absurd- if someone declares that the earth is flat simply because some 4000 year old mythology says it is, his ideas don't deserve respect because it clearly goes against scientific evidence. He doesn't deserve equal time on a TV debate or even "respect" on an internet forum. It's a ridiculous idea. A thousands-year-old text that predates the scientific method cannot possibly be scientific without modern verification of its contents. The ancient Greeks did math involving shadows that declared the earth to be round. We don't use their texts as evidence of the earth's roundness today for a multitude of reasons.
Frankly, you've seen me make two posts. That's not enough for you to have any idea on me. If I were to follow your form there: "From what I've seen of you, frankly, I'd say you're one of the hard scientific worshipers that treat Science as its own religion and won't allow for anything that science cannot explain. You also don't understand the concept of a philosophical debate." But I don't make assumptions about people, especially off of two posts.
Third: If someone declares that the Earth is flat and comes up with good evidence that it is so, it's only fair to argue against him without dismissing him. Otherwise, he can simply dismiss your idea that the Earth is round without looking at -your- evidence.
Furthermore, since we're bringing up the ancient Greeks? Their result was correct, though their methods may be archaic. Just because it's old and predates your oh-so-precious scientific method doesn't mean its incorrect.
I also love that sentence in there about the scientific method, where you bolded it. It covers your rear while making an absurd statement. "Something before the scientific method cannot be scientific unless science has looked at it again." It could be read two ways, depending on which phrase you take to be the main phrase. Either "Something before the scientific method cannot be scientific", or "Something cannot be scientific without being verified by modern methods." Both are false. For the former, I point out Galileo and leave it at that. For the latter? I -still- point out Galileo. It was scientific before science verified it, and it was scientific afterwards.
You -can- have debate about non-scientific facts. Philosophy is a great example. How about the debates of 'Should we still be at war'? That doesn't follow your scientific method. It doesn't -have- to be scientific in order to be a debate, and you should stop arguing as such.
You also -do- need to respect your opponent and your opponent's argument in order to hold a reasonable debate. You can laugh at this all you like. But if I don't respect you, I'm not going to bother coming up with a post (like this one) in order to argue with anything you say. And if I don't respect your argument, I'm not going to come up with a post (like this one) in order to counter your argument before presenting my own. Lack of respect in the first leads to ad hominem, and lack of respect int he second leads to "I'm right, you're wrong" statements.
These debates don't belong here, however. I'm pointing them out because, to be honest, they point out a certain closed-mindedness that makes debate a struggle to contain annoyance rather than a fun past time to discern truth from a non-scientific discussion.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Funny that, my first post in this thread said:
The issue of creationism/evolution is, in fact, one where the debate requires scientific evidence.
Actually, the ancient Greeks were wrong on the diameter of the Earth, which is something we would not know had we simply accepted their ancient texts as fact on the surface of things (or even with the barest minimum confirmation that the earth is in fact round), which is precisely what the typical Creationist demands we do with the Bible (which you have declared is valid "proof").
Oh, and by the way, as the -creator- of that Creationism/Evolution debate, I can tell you it didn't need any Scientific evidence in the first place. The debate wasn't asking if either was right. It was asking if the two ideas could be reconciled with each other, and why they couldn't if not.
And in this argument, it doesn't -matter- that the Greeks were wrong about the diameter of the Earth. The point was that the Greeks got the answer right even though not all the details were correct.
And you're incorrect about the 'typical Creationist'. From what I understand, Creationism doesn't include Flat Earth. More so, I was talking about Christianity, not Creationists, which are not the same thing. And the typical Christian doesn't say that the Bible is exact proof.
Moreover, I hope you actually read my post when I said 'for the sake of argument'. "For the sake of argument" means "I'm going to take something as true in order to continue this debate, because not taking it as true makes the debate worthless". I didn't say it initially, because I thought it was an unneeded statement. I continually overestimate how much people on this forum are willing to debate for the sake of debate rather than debate to shut down the debate.
In addition, I didn't say 'valid' proof. I said proof. Their proof may be incorrect. But the Bible can be offered as proof that a religion is true.
Oh, and so you're aware? I'm Agnostic. I don't like religion at all. I believe in God, but not for the reasons that any religion that I"ve looked at so far has said. I'm not defending Religion because I'm a religious fanatic, or even because I like religion. I'm defending it because you're trying to exclude religion from arguments for ALL the wrong reasons.
My helpdesk should you need me.
You are incapable of understanding the concept of an "example"? I deliberately chose something else to make my point.
That is not at all what the word proof means. You cannot "prove" something and have it turn out to be incorrect. The Bible cannot be offered as "proof" that Christianity is true unless you first prove that the Bible is true.
You may make a logically valid sequence of assertions based on a false principle and have a sequence of logically sound statements that nonetheless come to a false (or undefined-truth) conclusion. For example:
It rained on Tuesday. (false premise)
If it rains, I carry an umbrella. (true premise)
"Because it rained on Tuesday, I carried an umbrella" -> this statement is false as written because it is based on a false premise, even though it has sound logic.
Have you ever taken a course in formal logic?
The two bolded parts are a direct contradiction in terms. If you believe in god, you are by definition not an agnostic. I suspect you simply haven't read enough on this issue to have a good grasp on the terminology.
And I am not trying to "exclude religion from the debate". I am trying to get people to realize that the cultural bias of treating religion with "respect" and accepting the religion's holy book as evidence towards the validity of that religion is clearly unacceptable. If religious individuals are willing to argue from first principles (whether of math or of science) in a scientific context then that's fine; but this whole "<some book> is true because I believe it's true and <that book> proves my religion right which means <that book> is right!" thing is nothing more than an exercise in circular logic and has no room in logical debate.
And if we're going to have to prove every step of our argument, then there's no way to argue it at all. For instance, every observation you make is using 'we exist' as an established fact. But by your logic, we must PROVE we exist before we can use the observation.
If the argument is 'Christianity is true', I submit my proof of the Bible, saying the Bible says its true. I am assuming the Bible is correct when I use it. If you hold issue with my evidence, the Bible, you may say 'the bible is not true' and I'll be forced to say the Bible is true. But until you say my evidence is false, my evidence is held to be true.
Agnostic, noun.
2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
In this case, I'm unwilling to commit to an opinion about a religion. Please don't tell me I haven't read enough or that I don't know terminology. I'm very well read, have a large vocabulary, and am generally correct about the words I use. There are cases I am wrong, but they aren't incredibly abundant.
Bolding is mine, of course. Now, your first statement there says that the debate should require evidence. But you've also said there's no evidence for Religion. This adds up to "until religion gets evidence, it doesn't belong in the debate forum". The second bolding is a double standard on your part. You seem to want to compensate for society's automatic give to religion (something I notice and I agree it shouldn't exist) by automatically giving the automatic high ground to science and kicking Religion to the curb. Your attitude comes across as 'because its science, it's automatically more credible', which is just what you're arguing against but on the other side of the argument.
My helpdesk should you need me.
You have committed to the opinion "(a) god exists", which is by definition a theistic position. You are likely irreligious, possibly a Deist of some sort; but certainly not an agnostic.
Let's see... Religion asserts non-evident things as true. Science requires evidence to be examined, reviewed, and corrobated before declaring something a theory. You're damn straight science is automatically more credible than religion. The mere fact that a claim is "scientific" means that there has already been tested evidence in favor of it.
If religious scholars can actually come up with evidence supporting their wild claims, then they can have equal footing. Not before. They certainly haven't done so yet.
The idea that religion should be given "equal footing" with science is preposterous. Where science and religion conflict, religion should give way for the simple fact that the science has testable evidence behind it and the religion does not. Furthermore, no religion has any more evidence for it than any other religion, and they often conflict with each other. If we reject evolution on the grounds that "religion says evolution is wrong" then we somehow (without evidence!) have to choose between the claims of many competing religions. This is an untenable position, and the only reason anyone advocates it is because they are the followers of some specific religion. (Curiously, they always declare that we should accept that specific religion's claims, and no other.)
So, basically, you're changing your argument. Initially you said that Religion deserves no more respect than any other idea. Now you're saying it deserves LESS respect than any other idea. They aren't the same. And Science should not be more credible automatically. Credibility means 'reasonable ground for being believed'. In many cases, the Scientific argument isn't reasonable to the layman, while religion is. So to them, religion is more reasonable. To you, Science is more credible. Credibility is a very personal word, and is not an absolute.
And your saying that science has testable evidence is automatically biased against Religion. Religion says 'God did so and so'. For this to be testable, we have to somehow force God to do it again. This, by definition, isn't possible. And even if it was, it still wouldn't be in our control, and you would argue against it. Your entire argument is biased for Science because you can easily recreate a scientific experiment while the Religious argument can't be replicated. But, relative to the argument, the Religious argument doesn't need to be replicated.
And as for your bit about competing religions, you're straw manning now. What religion you believe in has nothing to do with the argument of religion versus science. Either the argument inherently names a religion (i.e. Christianity versus Science) or it means religion in general versus science, in which case the religion doesn't matter unless Religion wins the bout.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Religion deserves no more or less respect than any other idea that lacks evidence. It (and all other ideas that lack evidence) deserve much, much less respect than ideas that have the backing of evidence in one form or another.
Scientific tests are not the only means of demonstrating things. Historical evidence (and no, the bible is no more historical evidence than the Odyssey is) would suffice also. Interestingly, the Egyptians do not have records of the Jews being kept as slaves; the Roman records don't match up very well with many aspects of the New Testament; and so forth. The corrobating evidence for the bible is practically nonexistent.
Requiring actual evidence is hardly a bias. In fact, requiring actual evidence is the only way there is of removing bias. That's why the scientific method requires experimentation to confirm hypotheses.
The scientific method is inherently unbiased. So are mathematical proofs. So is formal logic. The legal system attempts to be unbiased.
The "layman" as you put it, is horrendously biased and not to be trusted.
Truth is not something to be democratically voted on.
It's a perfectly valid objection. If you reject scientific evidence on the grounds that "these religions all say something else!" then you've got the clear problem that there's a mess of different claims with no evidence for any of them.
Qualifiedly, yes. But this does not give people license to start shooting their mouths off. And it is not up to the mods to determine the standards of evidence for a debate; we're here to facilitate civilized discussion, not to declare winners. End of story.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The problem I have with this kinda thinking is that LOTS of people that use science in their debates does not even realize what science is, or what goes into it.
I had someone argue me for pages that heisenberg's uncertainty principle could be applied to EVERYTHING. And he held it up in my face as fanatically as any religious person would hold their believes. He had NO understanding AT ALL about what it really meant, or the math behind it, but he felt he could apply it to what we were debating.
The fact is that people now a days 'believe' in science just as fanatically as any religious person believes in religion. They do so without real knowledge or without real understanding. They use sound clips as truths, when the truth is always so much deeper.
I would much rather debate with someone about religious if they had a TRUE understanding of said religion than someone that is going to shove a sound bits they heard in science class at me without any understanding of the science.
Knowledge of ANY kind is better than ignorance in my book.
*facepalm*
I don't think it would involve going very far out on a limb if I blamed sci-fi for that one, considering how many bad sci-fi authors have savagely misused that principle.
The contents of your typical religious book are not "knowledge", they are mythology. Trivia. Worthless in the real world. Arguments based on the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, etc; are no more valid than arguments based on Tolkien's Silmarillion; unless the person arguing thereby can present evidence that indicates the truth of their specific ancient book.
Just because many people who attempt to debate the scientific side of things have next-to-nil understanding of the underlying science doesn't mean that all of a sudden arguing from mythology is any more credible. It's not.
Oh, indeed. Knowledge of the Koran, for example, is totally worthless, and surely has no relevance to the real world task of fostering positive diplomatic relations with Islamic countries.
The provision of evidence is what the theological field of apologetics is all about. If you ever bother to read some of the better Christian apologetics, you may just find that they do make a strong and well-reasoned case. Also:
Apologists do not argue from mythology. They argue from the available evidence for the historical actuality of that which you call mythology. To the extent that they do so with sound methodology and intellectual integrity, their voice is as valid and important in debate as any other.
It's worthless with regards to understanding of natural phenomena (in other words, science). Certainly knowing the contents of the book has value when you're dealing with groups of fanatics who treat the book as absolute truth regardless of evidence. That's true of any book.
I've read plenty of apologetics. They don't make a "well-reasoned" case because they do one of the following:
1- Start with the assumption that their holy book is true.
2- Start with the assumption that their god exists.
3- Argue from what they wish were true (things like "A world without a god would not be a world worth living in", etc).
4- (this one applies mostly to the amateurs on internet forums etc) Are mostly clueless with regards to the subject material and can't really go anywhere with the argument. Granted, this possibility exists with arguments on any subject, anywhere.
I've yet to see any that succeeded with the bolded restrictions. Most of the historical apologetics I've read start with either assumption 1 or 2 above; a few insisted on #3. Almost all of them were ignorant of the scientific reality (of course, at the time so were the scientists).
Modern apologetics, by and large, has become nothing more than a field of charlatans like Dinesh d'Souza. The religious leaders are far more interested in converting people via fear and indoctrination of children, not by logical persuasion.
I reiterate, there is no reason why people should be holding up their holy book as "evidence" of anything in a debate without first providing evidence that their holy book is factual. This societal bias towards religion is utterly ridiculous. There are scientific hypotheses that lack evidence and should be treated similarly- the misnamed String Theory comes to mind. Scientific theories that have evidence backing them up should not be treated as "equal" to religions which are devoid of evidence.
When a Scientist is working on his new experiment, he works on it with the assumption that his hypothesis is true. If your hypothesis is that water is edible, you will act as though it is edible in your experiments until it is proven otherwise. If your hypothesis is that there is a subatomic particle smaller than the atom, you work as though it is true.
Your argument sounds largely as if its coming with someone with a chip on their shoulder aimed towards religion. Scientists, which you hold in high regard, do all the same things.
Oh, and your misnamed 'String Theory'? You say yourself it lacks evidence (which I believe is actually untrue), yet I know quite a few people I'd classify as scientists (and one or two engineers) that treat it as close to fact as someone does religion.
My helpdesk should you need me.
We're not talking about treating someone's ideas with respect. We're talking about treating people with respect.
Look at Tarmogoyf's posts and you'll see pretty quickly why he got infracted.
You can disrespect an argument without being a complete and utter jackass (although this news may come as a surprise to you...)
Scientist approach EVERYTHING, even there OWN ideas, as something that needs to be proven. You have to keep asking questions if you want to learn anything. And I had someone claiming to be a chemist tell me that fire was made of "unknown pure energy" and that we "did not know what light really was," for a few other pages on another thread.
Really? What are you, Borg? You feel some information is 'irrelevant' or something? I find lots of useful tidbits in the Bible, like Matthew 7:3-5.
______________________________________
Alright. Everyone, even me, listen up. I am going to only say this once, and not back it up. So either take it or leave it. And at any point you think to yourself "I know someone that is like that" you're WRONG. I am talking about YOU(and me). That's right, the MORE you feel like I am talking about someone else, the MORE its true I am talking about YOU.
The problem is NOT with religion, its with ignorance. Those of you that think that ignorance goes with religion are, simple put, wrong. Any time anyone believes anything without question there is a problem. There is ignorance. Over the years people have started to link this 'unquestioning' faith with religion, and its true that religion does lend itself to that kind of thinking, but not always, and not exclusively.
There are lots of misconceptions that start getting thrown around. This idea that "all" religious people think like "X" or believe "Y" is one of them. As soon as you start lumping things to gather you, yourself, become ignorant and blind. Some religious people have thought VERY hard about their faith, and have asked lots of questions, and only after a long rational decision have decided to be what they are. Its INCREDIBLY unfair of anyone to think or feel that all religious people shun science or logic or something.
The problem too comes with atheist and people that 'believe only in science.' You start getting some of these people that are JUST as self righteous as the people they are 'fighting against.' Some are JUST as unwilling to question their own beliefs and to try to understand the beliefs of others. They feel like they have it 'all figured out' and that ANYONE that disagrees with them must be wrong.
One of the key problems is this idea that that 'religion' and 'science' are opposites or something. As if 'faith' and 'logic' could not exist together in the same mind or something. This is simply wrong. MANY of the BEST scientist we have EVER had were VERY religious. Sir Isaac Newton comes to mind. Also raise you hand if you knew that the Catholic church accepts evolution now? And the idea that there might be life on other planets? You should realize these things before you go pointing fingers.
The problem with ignorant people is that they are ignorant, that's it. I do no care if you feel like religious people are MORE ignorant or something. Not ALL are, and your just making yourself look stupid if you start assuming that someone is dumb just because they believe in Jesus or something.
As soon as you stop asking questions, or start thinking you know someone else, you're WRONG. And I don't care WHO you are, theist; atheist; agnostic; me; or you, YOU'RE WRONG.