Philosophically speaking, religion is a hoax

[m_levesque]

L Gilbert said: "I don't care why you think it's 15% so. I don't really care why they believe in fantasies either. BTW, the figure among scientists is about 4 in 10 that believe in gods n things."

Yes, that is about what my source says about scientists in general too. It is a lower % than the general population in the U.S. for instance which stands at about 90% I think. My source for the 15% is in the link which I provided at the beginning of this thread. Sound card ya know.

But tell me, do you disagree with the 15%? I don't really think so but you have decided to be contrary about the issue. And if you disagree then what % would you like us to agree on here for the world's top scientists and how would you like to define that term? I'm easy Mr. Gilbert but you have to let me know what pleases you. If you just keep this up for the sake of disagreement then I'm going to start thinking you aren't a nice man. ;-)

Who cares how many scientists do or do not believe in God? That has nothing to do with anything. The majority of the world's peoples believe in some sort of religion. True, that does not lend support to the religions, but it is just as valid a point as pointing out percentages of those who don't believe.And since you are the one supporting your claim with numbers of people who do not believe, by that argument you have lost-for the majority do.

 

[lieexpsr]

Who cares how many scientists do or do not believe in God? That has nothing to do with anything. The majority of the world's peoples believe in some sort of religion. True, that does not lend support to the religions, but it is just as valid a point as pointing out percentages of those who don't believe.And since you are the one supporting your claim with numbers of people who do not believe, by that argument you have lost-for the majority do.

Mr. levesque, splendid! You have decided to say something! If you don't think that the % of believers is important then I won't discuss the issue with YOU again. I do have t inform you though that being in the minority doesn't make me wrong. I can't imagine where you got that idea from! Maybe you have overdosed on pea soup? Before Darwins time nearly everyone believed in creation and they were foolish if they didn't. Now it is only the foolish who believe in creation. Was Darwin wrong? Work on that for a while there laveck because I discern a need to go slow with you. Discuss it with Jillbear perhaps and see if you can get him to agree with you.

 

[m_levesque]

Mr. levesque, splendid! You have decided to say something! If you don't think that the % of believers is important then I won't discuss the issue with YOU again. I do have t inform you though that being in the minority doesn't make me wrong. I can't imagine where you got that idea from! Maybe you have overdosed on pea soup? Before Darwins time nearly everyone believed in creation and they were foolish if they didn't. Now it is only the foolish who believe in creation. Was Darwin wrong? Work on that for a while there laveck because I discern a need to go slow with you. Discuss it with Jillbear perhaps and see if you can get him to agree with you.

Must have hit a nerve with you, for you resort, I see, to insults and name-calling. I'm a big boy now(have you told on me yet?) and I have no intention of having a "discussion" that becomes a series of insults and name-callings. After all, I have yet to call you what it seems obvious to most of us you are.

 

[lieexpsr]

Well then back we go again levesque. You either want a discussion or you don't. I'll just leave you with that decision until you decide.

 

[L Gilbert]

Should we encourage him and AJ to share a thread together--THAT would be amusing!

lol
Interesting hypothesis, M_.

 

[L Gilbert]

L Gilbert said: "I don't care why you think it's 15% so. I don't really care why they believe in fantasies either. BTW, the figure among scientists is about 4 in 10 that believe in gods n things."

If you don't care about why the 15% is so then you may find it strange that I care about your 4 in 10 figure. But I do.

Yes, that is about what my source says about scientists in general too. It is a lower % than the general population in the U.S. for instance which stands at about 90% I think. My source for the 15% is in the link which I provided at the beginning of this thread. Sound card ya know.

But tell me, do you disagree with the 15%? I don't really think so but you have decided to be contrary about the issue. And if you disagree then what % would you like us to agree on here for the world's top scientists and how would you like to define that term? I'm easy Mr. Gilbert but you have to let me know what pleases you. If you just keep this up for the sake of disagreement then I'm going to start thinking you aren't a nice man. ;-)

Watever.

Really, I think that you are smart enough to understand that as the intelligence level goes up the believers start disappearing. It's not a hard concept to understand.

It's an hypothesis I had thought of back when I was a teen, yes.

 

[L Gilbert]

Who cares how many scientists do or do not believe in God? That has nothing to do with anything. The majority of the world's peoples believe in some sort of religion. True, that does not lend support to the religions, but it is just as valid a point as pointing out percentages of those who don't believe.And since you are the one supporting your claim with numbers of people who do not believe, by that argument you have lost-for the majority do.

Yeah. Besides that, mentioning numbers is actually a fallacious argument called "appeal to authority". For example, just because GM product is the largest auto corp., full-line manufacturer, and have the highest sales doesn't make them the manufacturer of the best products.

 

[lieexpsr]

http://sniggle.net/godhoax.php

The vast majority of Americans, for instance, believe in (and occasionally talk to) a curiously anthropomorphic embodiment of good who is omniscient, omnipotent and responsible for every detail of reality. And then the ignorant bullies make fun of children for believing in Santa Claus.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Religion had its uses but these days it is dated.

 

[canadarocks]

Religion had its uses but these days it is dated.

Do you think so? I do not agree. I am not religious, but I find it a bit difficult to discount so readily something which obviously is a definate part of a great many peoples' daily lives. I respect, actually, those who choose to follow a spiritual path. It indicates, to me, committment to a higher ideal that maybe we should all search for.

 

[karrie]

Your point that some first nations beliefs are based on a reverence for nature may be worth considering but I think there is a logical reason why they needed to have that reverence. But I'm not so sure it even exists and I would need specific examples in order to believe. I think it is more likely that they evolved and learned to do what was necessary to survive. I would call that evolution as opposed to reverence. Don't try to complicate these primitive people's actions and reactions to nature any more than necessary.

Thank you for making my point. As I've said, religions are based on serving a need within the societies in which they exist. they serve a vital function.

 

[lieexpsr]

No 'canadarocks', religion is not a higher ideal and if you are not religious then you are selling yourself short by thinking that. Rising above the need for religion is a higher ideal. None of us need religion to be good and decent people. To not be religious allows us to protest against the bigotry and cruelty taking place in Africa where catholic priests tell people that condoms are no allowed by God. Those people are dying in the millions because of that evil message. Also, children are dying of starvation because the people have been taught by the catholic missionaries that condom use is wrong.

Can you perhaps give me an example of the evil in trying to convince people that religion is not good for us?

YOu see canadarocks, we musn't continue to ignore the truths about the evil influence of religions.

 

[karrie]

Recently, though, religion is either being modified or abandoned by many people as more information comes out. For example, evolution. How many people believe in evolution vs. how many people believe in creation as stated by the bible, koran etc.? I wouldn't call myself an "atheist", I'd call myself a "scientist", and I fully accept that my beliefs may change as science progresses.

I think it would be really odd to expect that humanity and science can evolve, but religion can't. Continued growth is key in all things.

 

[L Gilbert]

Also, children are dying of starvation because the people have been taught by the catholic missionaries that condom use is wrong.

rofl
I'd like to see you back that statement up. I have no doubt that's what the RCC did, but I highly doubt that this is the reason kids are starving in Africa.
Of course, you don't like backing up those outrageous assertions of yours, so I don't expect much in the way of support for them from you.

Can you perhaps give me an example of the evil in trying to convince people that religion is not good for us?

YOu see canadarocks, we musn't continue to ignore the truths about the evil influence of religions.

And again he blames the philosophy for the actions of the proponents of the philosophy. :roll:

 

[lieexpsr]

Thank you for making my point. As I've said, religions are based on serving a need within the societies in which they exist. they serve a vital function.

No Karrie, that's not what I am saying at all. Religious beliefs are only used as the excuse for doing what they needed to do to survive and are not necessary in the least. They did many things to survive that were not done for religious purposes. Surely you are aware that some tribes even sacrificed animals for religious reasons. Many primitive peoples sacrificed their own children for religious purposes, although I am not sure our N.American indians did or not. They certainly were capable of sacrificing tens of thousands of their own people who lined up in lines miles long to have their hearts cut out of their bodies. How can you possibly find any good in those primitive beliefs? Some would blame religion as being the main cause of their eventual downfall and near extinction in many cases. I think your romantic ideas can't stand alongside the horror of it all once you start to learn how terrible it really was.

 

[karrie]

It's good that you are pondering some questions and so now take the next step and find out the answers.

Oh, I hadn't realized that you think I've never pondered these issues or discussed them before. I find that kind of humorous to tell you the truth. That you would think you are some grand enlightener. Cute. Most of these issues I have had the unique opportunity to discuss at great length with anthropologists, biologists, physicists, priests, nuns, and many near and dear friends.

 

[gc]

I think it would be really odd to expect that humanity and science can evolve, but religion can't. Continued growth is key in all things.

Depends on what your religion is I guess. Many Christians, for example, are dogmatic in their beliefs that the word of the bible is correct. Others modify their beliefs (as I said earlier) and others abandon them all together. If you keep modifying your beliefs to fit with science, would you really call that religion?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I am the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Sliced bread's not really that great.

I haven't been able to get the link in your OP to load, and I doubt I'd sit through 15 hours of video anyway just to justify contributing to this thread. I'm quite familiar with Dawkins' works though, and I doubt that he's proven your claim. You haven't either. A hoax is a deliberate attempt to deceive others by people who know that what they're saying is not true. Most religious people aren't like that, they're quite firmly convinced that what they're saying *is* true, they're not knowingly trying to trick anybody. You can make a case that religion is false, a delusion--which is what Dawkins does--self-deception, wishful thinking, and all kinds of other things indicating it has nothing to do with reality, and I'd probably agree with most of it, but I don't think you can make the case that it's a hoax. The essential element of deliberate deception's not there.

 

[lieexpsr]

Mr. Gilbert- Here's one on condom use and Aids.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html

You are defending the undefendable just for the sake of being in disagreement with me. Now I know you are not a very nice man! ;-)

 

[karrie]

Taoism is a philosophy not based on gods. Confucianism is another. The majority, however, have a basis in fantasy.

"If Atheism is a religion, then health is a disease!" - Clark Adams

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Samuel Clemens

Robert G. Ingersoll - "In Nature, there are neither rewards nor punishments, there are consequences."

nice quotes Gilbert, but, you know posting a quote from someone who agrees with you doesn't make something true right? Especially when you post quotes that are as scientifically unsound as the last one. lol.