When science and religion are compatable.

[cleanhippie]

[longship]

1. I find the characterizations provocative

and more than a bit odious.

I am an atheist who holds next to nothing back when it comes to religious beliefs. But this cartoonish characterization is not good. I don't mean to malign the art or the satire, but although I dislike religion and will not stand for its rubbish claims, I respect that people have a right to worship or not as they please.

However, I do not condone mischaracterization of the sort exhibited in this cartoon, in spite of the fact that I fully endorse the message.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Please elaborate on exactly how this cartoon is odious.

I'm fascinated.

[SamG]

3. Just a guess ...I have no idea, but MY guess would be...

something about the odious nature of how people's perceptions of their god always agrees with their own prejudices and biases.

[longship]

4. I chose my words very carefully

I do not think I need to reiterate what I wrote.

We here don't need to characature an Arab against an apparent Jesus. I am all for blasphemy, but this is below even that. It doesn't tell any truth. I think we should leave that to our Republican brethren who are more than happy to do these things.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. It's Jesus and Mohammad and they are having an ongoing discussion

about religion. It isn't Jesus and "an Arab".

"it doesn't tell any truth"? What? Is this the new standard for "what is odious"? How strange. And on who's authority is it that there is none of this "truth"? Looks to me like there might just be a wee bit of truthiness in that cartoon, something about opportunistic hypocrisy among the leaders of the god-bothererers.

So other than you don't get the cartoon, what precisely is it that is odious? I remain fascinated.

[longship]

6. This is a good discussion

As one educated in science, and an atheist, I have a lot to say about the confluence between science and religion, often here a bit provocative.

But there is no way to tell that the figure in the cartoon is Muhammed since there are no "iconic" images of him. To me, and to many it would just look like a generic Arabic guy.

I am becoming increasingly sensitive to people's religious sensitivities. All the moreso because of recent discussions here at DU. As an atheist activist I have long since realized that we need our fellow liberal theists on our side. It doesn't hurt to show a little sensitivity.

Note that I draw the line at thir professed beliefs, where I give little ground. But I am quite uncomfortable with stereotypes which this seems to be to me.

That's all I can say about it.
Sorry.

[mr blur]

10. Well, the cartoon strip is called "Jesus and Mo", which is a bit of a giveaway.

We're abviously different, though - I'm becoming increasingly insensitive to people's religious sensitivities. As for getting "our fellow liberal theists" on your side - well, good luck wth that.

[cbayer]

11. Never mind,. Changed my mind about asking this question. Sorry.

[longship]

14. My vision isn't very good, missed that

Plus, all I have is an iPhone here.

But if you frequent the Religion forum here, I expect you will be shortly disabused of being unwilling to break bread with liberal theists, so to speak.

I am as fiercely militant as any atheist. But ya gotta have heart. Love the religious, but challenge the pastors, priests, etc. and give no ground when they make falsifiable claims, or those outright against demonstrable facts.

But there aren't enough atheists, no matter what they call themselves, to do this without liberal theists who are our natural allies. As Phil Plait said, Don't be a dick!

I try to get along with folks here at DU. Not every issue is worth getting the whole room into chair throwing. Getting along with the religious is one of those issues here. I know I've had my knuckles smacked more than once. Ouch!

However, I sympathize with your sentiments.

[laconicsax]

7. Actually, it's a body double for Muhammad.

This was established very early on.

[cleanhippie]

30. I couldn't agree more.

[rug]

8. You do realize that science, at its core, has nothing to do with atheism, at its core, don't you?

[SamG]

9. How so? They both employ the same techniques for finding...

a truth, do they not?

"Nothing to do" with atheism?

This would beg the question, how does a belief system based upon faith have anything to do with science?

But I bet you have a million ways of equating the two, or maybe not.

[rug]

12. The answer to your first question is no.

Atheism is simply a disbelief in god(s). It doesn't require any technique, let alone a scientific technique, to come to that conclusion. Nor does it seek truth. It simply denies god(s).

The answer to your second question is nothing. The converse is also true; science has nothing to do with religious belief.

[SamG]

13. Obviously you do not have a good grasp upon ..

what Atheism is.

"Nor does it seek truth" your statement there, quite inaccurate. Atheists most frequently, (more than theists) as for evidence to prove any and all assertions about a deity. Believers, it turns out, seldom ask, nor wish to have any such evidence shown to them, one way or the other. Atheists, by contrast, constantly ask.

"Atheism is simply a disbelief in god(s). It doesn't require any technique, let alone a scientific technique"

Obviously,you have not grasped what Atheisim does and does not do. You seem to have made up another kind of anti-theism based upon your own fantasies. Don't worry, most theists do the same thing about both theism and anti-theism. They make it all up, never bother with the facts, and just go on from there to post hundreds of thousands of posts on a message board, being sure to keep their eyes and ears closed to any reality that might leak in.


Atheism is simply a lack of belief, based upon the absence of logical and factual evidence. Just as a scientist might not believe in angels turning ice to water, without any evidence or logic for that happening, the same simple scientific principle of looking for evidence applies for both scientists and atheists.

Sorry you are so misinformed about Atheism. Do you still think Atheism is a system of belief similar to religion? Do you still think science needs to bow down to your religious beliefs, too? Unfortunately, all that fantastic dreamy thinking has nothing to do with Atheism, and is regrettably very misinformed and wrong.

[rug]

15. This will be good.

You assert atheism is more than simple disbelief in god(s) and that it must be "based upon the absence of logical and factual evidence." Further, atheism uses "the same simple scientific principle" as science.

Does this apply to Buddhist atheists? To Hindu atheists? To pagan and Christian atheists?

What else do you claim atheism to be?

Do tell. I'm all ears.

[darkstar3]

21. Be careful that you don't overreach.

I see what you're trying to do, and I understand it, but be careful to remember that atheism begins and ends with a lack of belief in gods, and anything else that follows is simply the personal prerogative of the individual atheist.

[Silent3]

48. While atheism is quite often a consequence...

...of a scientific world view, atheism itself is just a lack of belief in god, full stop.

You can arrive at atheism via multiple paths, and don't necessarily have to leave behind irrational or superstitious thinking. I suspect that some atheists are atheists for purely emotional reasons -- perhaps rebellion against strict religious parents, perhaps bad things have happened in their lives that make them leaps to a bitterness-fueled conclusion that no god can exist if these terrible things can happen, etc.

That said, all the atheists I personally know are the skeptically and scientifically-minded sort, and to the extent that there's an "atheist movement", skepticism and science are central to that movement.

[humblebum]

17. You are right in saying that "they both employ the same techniques" in that

they both utilize a narrowly-focused methodology specifically designed to assess a narrowly-focused conclusion, excluding anything that cannot be observed or experienced by the five senses. Nothing broad-minded or freethinking about atheism.

[darkstar3]

18. There's that lie again.

[humblebum]

19. You have a very bad habit of making such accusations and

have yet to provide any evidence. Your assertions are generally biased by your overtly anti-religious disorientation.

[humblebum]

22. True to form, you rely on ad homs and bad-mouthing to avoid giving

a straight answer. If science and atheism have so little in common, then why do scientists as a group have such a higher percentage of atheists within their number than any other discipline? This "old man" probably has a much more solid background on the subject of atheism and religion than your rookie status would ever enable you to possess. Not only anti-religious bias, but anti-age also. Pathetic.

[darkstar3]

23. Those straws you're grasping at, they won't break your fall.

Answers are given when questions are asked. Since you haven't asked any questions, you again show yourself disingenuous. I said nothing about science and atheism, and you know it, because I've called you out on your lie several times by now.

Learn to recognize a quote when you see it.

And stop lying. Stop lying about lying in order to cover your lies. And remember that if you knew fuck-all about atheism you wouldn't have lied in post #17, as you have so many times before.

[humblebum]

24. Still avoiding and insulting. I'll stand by my statement. If, in fact, many atheists

do deny that anything exists beyond that which is physical, empirical, and objective, or deny that there is any reason to believe in such an existence, then indeed my assertions are well-founded. I think you are being called on your lie.

[cleanhippie]

42. .

[eqfan592]

28. Ok, now I see what you're getting at.

So you're arguing that because somebody won't believe in something until they see evidence for it that person is not capable of being broad-minded or free-thinking?

broad-minded
adj
1. tolerant of opposing viewpoints; not prejudiced; liberal

free-thinking
adj.
1. unwilling to accept authority or dogma (especially in religion)

Not only can atheists easily be both of these things, but in the case of free-thinking, it's damn near a requirement.

So I have to ask....

[humblebum]

29. Nope. Dead wrong. nt

[eqfan592]

31. Wait, wrong about your point, or wrong in my counter-point?

You gotta really work on being clearer with this stuff.

[humblebum]

32. Well, let's see. You said, "Ok, now I see what you're getting at."

And I replied, "Nope, dead wrong." I think you are confusing yourself.

[eqfan592]

33. I also made a counter-point to the assertion that I thought you were getting at.

So your statement could have been directed at either.

I'm not confusing myself, you're just really bad at making yourself clear.

EDIT: I will admit tho that I'm home sick and on some meds that are somewhat impairing my cognitive functions, so it is entirely possible that I AM confusing myself, i just don't think that's the case here. lol

[laconicsax]

44. I'm so stealing that!

[cleanhippie]

34. !

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[SamG]

35. There is NOTHING more broad-focused (NOT "narrowly-focused") than scientific and free-thinking

techniques. But, of course, I think some posters here, perhaps you, refuse to see the breadth of inquiry, and insist upon a method of inquiry that is less than professionally scientific, a method based upon fantasy and based upon a very limited and milleniums old ancient mythology.

You may choose those techniques, but I bet when you need a heart transplant, you'll opt for the doctor trained in science over the Shaman or the priest to fix your heart.

[humblebum]

36. The modern Scientific Method itself is based on the epistemology of Logical Positivism, which

by its own admission is limited to that which is observable, empirical, and objective. It automatically excludes anything to do with metaphysics, intuition, a priori knowledge, etc. Therefore it's "breadth of inquiry" is by design quite narrow, which is necessary for its intended purpose but is totally incapable of addressing religion or any number of other more subjective types of inquiry.

[cleanhippie]

37. You know, humblebum, you have finally convinced me. You are right.

No, wait. It's still just as asinine a response as the last million times you posted it.

[humblebum]

38. No more asinine than the assertions that triggered the response the last million times, but

nonetheless a true response.

[cleanhippie]

41. .

[laconicsax]

45. You should understand something:

To humblebum, science is the narrowest "epistemology" because it excludes magical explanations.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

46. It's just a variation on the old whine

"why won't you tolerate my intolerance?"

[EvolveOrConvolve]

43. And right on cue

Here's humblebum implying that atheists are stupid. Again...

It's like a broken record, only more shrill.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. Yes we struggle to limit our claims of knowledge to that which we

Can be reasonably certain we actually know, and are open to that knowledge being critically examined and refuted at any time. Poor stupid us.