Imperfectionist

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

I think all that first link does is validate what I said in my last post. Nothing is perfect, scientists are human, they do the best they can with what they've got, they can make mistakes, yada yada yada... The only reason this is news is because of the politics of the people on either side of the argument, including the scientists. Without that politics, they would have no reason to falsify such things. And, it's entirely possible that they did nothing wrong. We don't know. These kinds of problems with the system get worked out over time. I'm not saying that there aren't individuals who are bad scientists, I'm saying that their failings are not the failings of the scientific community as a whole.

Your generalizations, basically, are what I take issue with.

As for the hurricanes... Well, this is how science works. In that same Time article, there was a link to this dissenting article. And, this fact is proof that we don't treat scientists as "holy", we treat them with respect when they deserve it and ignore their findings when they don't. Until there is dissention and/or corraboration, people can believe whatever they want, but over time, the truth becomes apparent. I agree that science in the political ring is maimed, drawn, quartered, burned at the stake and maimed some more, but I honestly don't know what to do about that. The information gained through scientific inquiry has to be available, and in the U.S. we have the freedom of speech, which means we can use that information however we like, even if it is later proved to be false.

Once again, everyone does the best they can with what they have, but people are flawed, and that leads to flawed research. Flawed research is examined, and (generally) exposed as flawed research, and if there is no convincing rebuttal, we all move on. If there is a convincing rebuttal, the research is re-examined, and its flaws may become less or more apparent. Eventually, either it is considered flawed, it is considered significant, or it is simply considered irrelevant.

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

Hmm. Curiouser and curiouser. To be perfectly honest, I can't defend anything about any of that. For one, none of it is about the scientific community. Not directly, at least. It's 100% about the public policy of the United States.

In fact, the third link is to a political activism blog financed by a liberal think tank... x.x I can't think of anything less scientific. To construe that as a representation of scientists "marking and shaming" people who do not agree with them is... misguided. The problem here is not the scientific community, but the political community. And seriously, fuck those people. (And, events like the onset of the Spanish Inquisition were obviously not theological in nature either, but entirely political. Politics is truly the death of all that is holy, moral and just. Again, fuck. Those. People.)

It is definitely an interesting point, though, how fervently non-scientists will hold on to views presented to them in an unbiased, scientific manner... :( And how much scorn scientists get when they make mistakes. I don't know much about climate change, I don't know much about geology, but what I do know is that no experimentation is perfect, and any scientist or researcher or what have you will tell you the same. They get the best results they can based on the best equipment they are able to use and the best conditions they are able to experiment in... What pundits and activists do with that information afterwards can be regrettable, but that was the best information they had at the time. It's about progress, about learning from past mistakes, about not allowing paranoia and alarmism to color our perceptions of scientific research, and about always refining and gaining new techniques for learning about the world around us.

Eventually, and that is the keyword, we will be able to know without a shadow of a doubt how everything works, but we're a ways away from that kind of understanding, so for now we have to make due, and strive to get there.

Now then, what other examples do you have?

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

Alright, I think I understand... Um, give me an example of some of these contradictory attitudes, and I'll see what I can do to (perhaps) defend them.

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

So Boerd said
I didn't ask you to compare the justice of their causes, a thread unto itself, I asked you to compare their mutual hatred. You can disagree with someone, even fervently, and not hate them.

And my response was the simple "those people are assholes". You get them under every flag, in every place, following every creed. Some people are just not going to approach arguments and disagreements with mutual respect...

EDIT: That isn't the point, though. Those people are the exception, not the rule. You get a few sour grapes in every bunch, but the VAST majority of supporters and detractors of the VAST majority of issues don't hate each other at all, and are reasonable human beings.

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

If you found out your God didn't exist, would you now go out raping and murdering people? If not then you just proved that you don't need Religion to be a moral human being.

The question is biased to begin with, because it says nothing of the history of "you".

Here's a better one: If, in your life, there were no authority figures or peers of any sort who exposed you to the idea that certain actions harm others and that those actions are therefore bad, would you, as a rational adult, be able to assign that negative quality to those actions on your own?

To put it much more simply: is morality inherent, or learned from others, who in turn learned it from those before (EDIT: or even a mix of both?!)? And that has been discussed, experimented on and argued about for goodly while.

As a corollary, if a person lived in a social vaccuum for their entire life, meaning without contact from any other person, creature or object that they could form a sentimental bond with, and was at some point thrust suddenly into modern society, how many of our social interactions would they be able to instinctively adopt? Would they be a vegetable, would they be so disconnected they cannot even learn the fundaments of language? Would they have developed personal morality?

EDIT:

So Boerd said
As a point of general information, when I refer to "Science" in a religion debate, I don't mean what we typically call science. I mean the Holy Apostolic Ecumenical Church of Science, populated with all sorts of people who have generally rejected religion and replaced it with any number of causes, like anti-GMO, anti-"toxins", the evil of gluten, juice-cleanses, etc.

Ask a Catholic priest how he feels about people who are in favor of gay marriage. Ask one of the people I described how they feel about people who are against it. Compare their hatred of the other side.

What it sounds like you're talking about, Boerd, is "people being assholes". :) And that transcends all faiths and traditions.

EDIT 2: I'm not standing up for assholes who see such causes as reasons to hate and scorn, being generally against both things, BUT gay marriage is a bad example. Equality is pretty inalienable (unless you forfeit it by committing provable crimes), and because LGBTQ people have not inherently done anything to harm others, there is no reason to restrict the benefits of the legal process of marriage to said people. The Catholic Priest in this situation doesn't have to officiate for them if he doesn't want to (and should not be scorned and decried for such a choice), but if he actively campaigns for those benefits to be kept out of the hands of that group, he is actively being harmful...

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

mdk said
how dare you challenge the assumption?! It's almost like you're questioning perceptions, and we can't have that in an enlightened scientific community. I brand you a heretic and categorically reject your argument.

:/ This helps nothing, mdk. If it's a joke, it's not funny, and otherwise, mocking the scientific community for skepticism is like mocking Vatican city for being populated by Catholics. The interplay between experimentation and skepticism is science, and without it we'd believe even more stupid shit about ourselves and the universe than we do now.

Hogwarts: The Golden Era

ratites said
@ Damon & Imperfectionist Yes, I can see how the character has Slytherin-like qualities, but as it's Damon's character it's up to him. I definitely don't think that house sorting is a black-and-white thing. I like the idea of mixing it up a little, a more Syltherin-like person on the fringes of Gryffindor, for instance.

:) Yes, it could definitely be interesting. Similar, of course, to the Hermione-would-have-been-a-good-Ravenclaw thing. The Sorting is focused on other areas of his personality that push him enough in the Gryffindor direction that with a little prodding from Adele, the Hat would agree to it.

Anyway, what say you about my providing more teachers, to fill the school up? I already have several lessons planned, for several of the subjects...

Hogwarts: The Golden Era

xAsunaWolfx said
Hm, Is a dog/ mini dragon companion/ Any animal really ...legit :)? i mean it makes sense to have a cat, avian (or bird species, or maybe a snake haha), I'm sorry, i didn't know if there's some unseen rule that goes to this xD

Traditionally, Hogwarts students are only allowed owls, cats or toads (all being animals associated with "witches" in the real world), but I'm sure exceptions, if they aren't too strange, could be made. Dragons, like Liriia said, are a no-no, as the only known dragons are all very large and not very friendly, but other, smaller creatures (other birds, like ravens or falcons or some such, perhaps, or small mammals like rats and rabbits, ala Scabbers) would probably be fine... Dogs... Hmm.

Dogs are very different from owls and cats, the two familiars that most people seem to choose, in that they are very self-sufficient, and generally hunt on their own. Toads, as well, are for the most part much smaller than dogs, and less obtrusive. In the absense of canon to refer to, this is a decision that should just be left up to the GMs. If they will let you have a dog, then you can.

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

I think the implication is that an atheist would go through secular channels, such as informal counseling, organizations like AA and Al-Anon (just for examples), and if the need is severe, clinical therapy. Or, depending on the people the atheist knows, they might even point the needy person towards pastoral counselors, gurus or other combined spiritual and mental-health mentors. It all comes down to their individual experience.

(Just for reference, my grandfather is a devout Christian of the pastoral counselor variety, very knowledgeable about Psychology, of course, who has worked his whole life helping people in a secular manner, even though his background is religious. They aren't mutually exclusive.)

Hogwarts: The Golden Era

Have you (or anyone here) read the Alexandra Quick series? It's a very interesting followup to Rowling's books, set in America with a female protagonist... It expands on magic and presents a incredibly plausible interpretation of what Rowling's magical America might be, all while putting forward a deeply flawed (esp. compared to Harry) viewpoint character and detailing her struggles in the magical world... Honestly, in my opinion it can be considered the "Thrawn Trilogy" of Harry Potter.

(Here's a link to the first book, for anyone interested; four out of seven written so far, the fifth on its way)