patrick.net

You sir are an extremely respectable atheist, unlike some of the emotional evangelists around here. Thanks for sharing your wisdom and insights.

We need more atheists such as yourself, and less of the polarizing bs from the those atheists who allow their emotions and ego to give atheism a bad name.

The first step toward mutual respect between theists and atheists should be the recognition that most people on Earth live in two different worlds: material and spiritual. Methods of validation of claims made by theologians specializing in spiritual doctrines are very different from those used by scientists exploring our physical world. God is not a material entity, and attempts to refute God's existence by performing scientific experiments are not appropriate. The same is true for attempts to refute scientific claims, such as the age of the earth, on the basis of disagreements with holy books.

Theology is like mathematics, not science. Mathematicians start with axioms (initially accepted truths) and use logical derivation to justify consecutive claims, called theorems. Once proven, a theorem cannot be rejected, unless a logical error is found in the derivation.

Science is very different. Here, claims are justified, in the final analysis, by experimental observations, not by pure logic. A scientific claim becomes valid after it is confirmed in reproducible experiments. Furthermore, scientific validations are always tentative; scientists know that future experiments might result in rejection, or partial rejection, of what has already been accepted. Scientific truth is not claimed to be eternal.

The methods of validation and refutation used by scientists and theologians are sufficiently different to justify separation rather than cooperation. Separation will allow theists and atheists to rethink and reformulate basic ideas and methodologies. Until this happens, scientists should not participate in debates about the spiritual world, unless they happen to also be theologians. Likewise, theologians should not participate in debates about the material world, unless they happen to also be scientists. Debates about ways to eliminate existing conflicts might last decades, if not centuries. They are likely to be more productive if conducted separately.

Neil deGrasse Tyson gets it. http://bigthink.com/ideas/43539

Of course one cannot convinced a person, brainwashed from childhood, that his god is false. That's not the point. One cannot convince a person brainwashed from childhood to believe that blacks are an inferior, lazy race that this is wrong.

One can only try to prevent the virus of a bad idea from infecting future generations. This is true of racism, homophobia, and religion. Those three evils go hand in hand because they have the same route cause, brainwashing of children to prevent rational consideration of facts.

Religion relies on brainwashing children from an early age. But there is hope than when a child enters high school or college, he will open his mind and learn the truth. Perhaps then he won't infect his children with the virus. Religious indoctrination is the most prevalent form of child abuse in the world.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/q3mDLsyn6ns

Poor kids that have to witness that.

And if that's not enough...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/50r0CnKq7_k

Catchy tunes though...

Whee. The most pointless thing anybody could possibly argue over.

Faith trumps reason. Get. over. it.

"The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value."

Religion is not needed to have moral values. Morals are social memes developed over evolutionary time scales based upon their value for the individual and his tribe.

"many professional theologians and scientists usually respect each other. And they know which methodology of validation is applicable in each field."

There is only one valid method of validation - the scientific method.

Ah isn't that cute, your religion now has it's own Magazine.

Do you guys donate money to a guy that lives in a mansion and jets around the world, in a leer jet?

Sometimes I just think people are afraid of death, my girlfriend says she's going to live forever, I say when does that ever end?, she says never, so I say, you have fun in your never, never land, and lets drop it, but she won't. She got sucked into her church so deep god is all she talks about anymore.

marcus says

You sir are an extremely respectable atheist,

@marcus,
Did you read the article? He is not an atheist.

CaptainShuddup says

Ah isn't that cute, your religion now has it's own Magazine.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/f8U_JveHS8E

YesYNot says

@marcus,
Did you read the article? He is not an atheist.

I did read it, but I skimmed that paragraph (and missed) where he says that he used to be an atheist and is now a practicing jew. Oops.

I guess the enlightened reasonable atheist is more rare than I thought. I know they're out there though.