Aaaaaargh Its a RELIGION!!! [Archive]

synthesizer-patel

05-23-08, 09:26 AM

S.A.M.

05-23-08, 09:28 AM

Its because religion is a bad word. Its like calling anyone who is Muslim a terrorist, even when you are the one occupying his country and bombing the shit out of his people.

clusteringflux

05-23-08, 09:34 AM

http://www.bpnews.net/ImageServerDB.asp?ID=21899&height=299.925&quality=70

This is not a political issue," Gore told a crowd of approximately 2,500 paying attendees. "It is a moral issue. It is an ethical issue. It is a spiritual issue."

synthesizer-patel

05-23-08, 10:13 AM

This is not a political issue," Gore told a crowd of approximately 2,500 paying attendees. "It is a moral issue. It is an ethical issue. It is a spiritual issue."

Sure Gore said that - but do you really beleive a politcian when they say its not political ? His lips were moving afterall
Or do you think that the reason he said it was to cross some political boundaries?

And besides that - whatever his motivations and reasons for saying it - Gore is something of a twat - even if he really genuinely means what he says, why does that make this a religious issue for everyone else?
For example I see tremendous business opportunites arising from aspects of environmentalism / conservationsim - as do many others? Does that make me a religio-capitalist-environmentalist????

See what I mean? - take one spokesperson from an extremely diverse group and then apply their values to everyone in an effort to discredit the lot of them - its a bit thin frankly

CutsieMarie89

05-23-08, 03:57 PM

is it because their authorities wish to scare their minions away from examining these concepts, and the easiest way to do this is to brand it with a "false religion" Label?

This seems very plausible. If you are a true fundamentalist then christianity is the only real religion that one may worship without having to fear the wrath of God, so I think its almost natural to place ideas that are a threat to this type of faith up on the same level as false idols which would naturally make you and people like you dislike it all the more.

iceaura

05-23-08, 04:04 PM

Its because religion is a bad word. When religious fundies use it as a pejorative, in particular - accusing their enemies of being just as bad as they themselves are is one of the more peculiar standard arguments coming from that crowd these days.

"It is a moral issue. It is an ethical issue. It is a spiritual issue." A reasonable thing to say - note that I edited out the "It's not a political issue", which is silly and false out of context, and contrary to Gore's expressed beliefs and efforts elsewhere.

Fundie religious people can't tell morals, ethics, and spirituality from religion - often, they can't tell these things from their own particular religion.

So anything involving morals, ethics, and spirituality is religious, to them. And there is no cure.

synthesizer-patel

05-23-08, 04:45 PM

Its because religion is a bad word. Its like calling anyone who is Muslim a terrorist, even when you are the one occupying his country and bombing the shit out of his people.

Yeah - that one always gets a chuckle from me

lightgigantic

05-23-08, 06:04 PM

I noticed a post the other day which gives a link to an article describing environmentalism as a religion

( http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=81170)

It seems that every fucking thing that Fundaligionsists don't like these days is being likened to a religion.

Atheism - Aaaaaargh Its a RELIGION!!!

Science - Aaaaaargh Its a RELIGION!!!

Evolution - Aaaaaargh Its a RELIGION!!!

Environmentalism - Aaaaaargh Its a RELIGION!!!

Communism - Aaaaaargh Its a RELIGION!!!

I'm not certain why this is, is it because there is a certain brand of Fundaligionists who are just only able to see things in such simplistic terms?

Or is it because their authorities wish to scare their minions away from examining these concepts, and the easiest way to do this is to brand it with a "false religion" Label?

Any predictions as to the next thing that gets likened to a pseudo-religion?

the situation commonly arises because persons critical of religion on specific grounds seem to be unaware that their favoured ideology operates on practically identical general principles

synthesizer-patel

05-23-08, 06:13 PM

generally the situation arises because persons critical of religion on specific grounds seem to be unaware that their favoured ideology operates on practically general principles

not sure that made sense (it could be the ale of course) - explain

Fraggle Rocker

05-23-08, 06:17 PM

Its like calling anyone who is Muslim a terrorist, even when you are the one occupying his country and bombing the shit out of his people.Our president had to do something to make them start acting like terrorists. Otherwise eventually Americans would have figured out that 9/11 was brought to us by his buddies, the Saudis. Then they would have started wondering why he wasn't occupying THAT country and bombing the shit out of THOSE people.

When a friend of yours attacks your country and you lie about it to keep your people from finding out, that's a textbook case of treason. If you're a private citizen you might conceivably be excused for putting personal loyalty over patriotism. But not if you're the president.

lightgigantic

05-23-08, 06:34 PM

not sure that made sense (it could be the ale of course) - explain
ok
eg

As many have observed, modern science has become a religion, at least for Western man. Like other religions, it has a priesthood, roughly organized on hierarchical lines. It has temples, shrines, and rituals and it has a body of canons. And. like other religions, it has its own mythology. One myth in particular states that if, say, by experiment a scientific theory is confronted in reality with a single contradiction, one piece of discontinuing evidence, then that theory is automatically set aside and a new theory that takes the contradiction into account is adopted. This is not the way science actually works.

from

Computerized Gods by J. Weizenbaum Ph.D. (http://www.rationalvedanta.net/node/83)

lightgigantic

05-23-08, 06:36 PM

not sure that made sense (it could be the ale of course) - explain
sorry - my bad
(it's not the ale)
see edit for essential missing word

synthesizer-patel

05-23-08, 06:52 PM

iceaura

05-23-08, 06:57 PM

generally the situation arises because persons critical of religion on specific grounds seem to be unaware that their favoured ideology operates on practically general principles
”
not sure that made sense Once the basics are established - that "general principles" and "religious fundamentals" are the same things - it all falls into place.

clusteringflux

05-23-08, 07:24 PM

Our president had to do something to make them start acting like terrorists. Otherwise eventually Americans would have figured out that 9/11 was brought to us by his buddies, the Saudis. Then they would have started wondering why he wasn't occupying THAT country and bombing the shit out of THOSE people.

When a friend of yours attacks your country and you lie about it to keep your people from finding out, that's a textbook case of treason. If you're a private citizen you might conceivably be excused for putting personal loyalty over patriotism. But not if you're the president.
Well, this is an uncharacteristic loss of composure, Fraggle.....And damn it, I'm proud of you.

But, truth be told, it's not fair to insinuate that the royal family was aware of the plans for 9/11 unless your going to take it right off the deep end of full blown conspiracy (which is easy sometimes).Had there never been a Kuwait attack and response and KNOWN chemical warfare etc. Iraq could've been more easily overlooked.

Or have you given in to the "Blood for Oil" movement,too.:D

synthesizer-patel

05-23-08, 07:35 PM

But, truth be told, it's not fair to insinuate that the royal family was aware of the plans for 9/11 unless your going to take it right off the deep end of full blown conspiracy (which is easy sometimes).

Indeed it would be uinfair to say that - but then it would be equally unfair to suggest that the Saudi Royal family were unaware that Saudi is the global hub of funding for islamist terrorist groups - it would be equally unfair on the Suadi royals if we suggested that they did not turn a blind eye to this.

with that in mind - and going on the assumption that high altitude bombing is an effective counter terrorist strategy, which out of iraq and saudi was most deserving of having the shit bombed out if it?

clusteringflux

05-23-08, 07:43 PM

I'm holding SAM responsible for derailing this thread, God love'er. :p

synthesizer-patel

05-23-08, 07:46 PM

I'm holding SAM responsible for derailing this thread, God love'er. :p

Typical bloody american - when in doubt blame a muslim :D

superluminal

05-23-08, 08:20 PM

Sam's a muslim?! All this time I thought she was just a terrorist. :shrug:

clusteringflux

05-23-08, 08:21 PM

Sam's a muslim?! All this time I thought she was just a terrorist. :shrug:

ooooooooh

lightgigantic

05-23-08, 10:07 PM

Nope its either the post or the ale - sorry :)

seems like you are saying that people who are critical of religion describe environmentalism, science, atheism as akin to a religion -I've never heard them do that.

The only people I have heard do that are those most unsophisticated of theists - you know - the fundie spacecadets
well I just provided you with a link that suggests otherwise .... and as far as I am aware Weizenbaum is not big on the christian circuit ....
(exactly how much have you drunk?)
;)

iceaura

05-23-08, 11:54 PM

well I just provided you with a link that suggests otherwise .... and as far as I am aware Weizenbaum is not big on the christian circuit .... Weizenbaum doesn't strike me as someone who spends much time criticizing religion.

His thesis seems to be that science has become a degenerate religion, and is adopting the computer as its idol.

Which is two kinds of goofy, to start with - he seems to have little contact with field research in the physical sciences, and to be projecting from some oddly perceived sociological properties of the MIT artificial intelligence crowd to "science" in general. Field biologists, for example, are in no danger of idolizing their computers.

I have heard philosophers of science debate the question of whether the computer investigations Weizenbaum is using as examples of all of science are even "science" at all, properly speaking (the tendency is to conclude that they are, but with unique features).

I tend to agree, "computer science" is a science despite including the word "science" in its name - normally a sign that something is not a science. But if it comes to having to call modern science a religion if we include the more mystical AI aggrandizements as a subfield of it, the better response would be to re-categorize the AI.

lightgigantic

05-24-08, 01:08 AM

Weizenbaum doesn't strike me as someone who spends much time criticizing religion.

His thesis seems to be that science has become a degenerate religion, and is adopting the computer as its idol.

Which is two kinds of goofy, to start with - he seems to have little contact with field research in the physical sciences, and to be projecting from some oddly perceived sociological properties of the MIT artificial intelligence crowd to "science" in general. Field biologists, for example, are in no danger of idolizing their computers.
he is talking about other issues too -like mythology and a hierarchy.

I have heard philosophers of science debate the question of whether the computer investigations Weizenbaum is using as examples of all of science are even "science" at all, properly speaking (the tendency is to conclude that they are, but with unique features).

I tend to agree, "computer science" is a science despite including the word "science" in its name - normally a sign that something is not a science. But if it comes to having to call modern science a religion if we include the more mystical AI aggrandizements as a subfield of it, the better response would be to re-categorize the AI.
Maybe you should read the article linked

ronan

05-24-08, 01:32 AM

I think this quotation from a famous scientist (who was a Christian believer) fit well with the topic of the thread:

The cornerstone of science’s own structure [is] the direct perception by consciousness of the existence of
external reality. As Einstein has said, you could not be a scientist if you did not know that the external world existed in reality; but that knowledge is not gained by any process of reasonning. It is a direct perception and therefore in its nature akin to what we call Faith. It is a metaphysical belief. Now that is something which the skeptic questions in regard to religion; but it is the same in
regard to science.

Planck, M. (1931) Where is Science Going?, Ox Bow Press: Woodbridge, CT p. 218

it is being discussed in another thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=81139

iceaura

05-24-08, 01:49 AM

he is talking about other issues too -like mythology and a hierarchy. Particular forms of which he has projected unto all of science from his odd take on his odd corner of it, and then mistaken for symptoms of religion.

Maybe you should read the article linked I did. For the third or fourth time in my apparently empty life.

Am I supposed to respect it? Find relevance in it ? What ? Beyond possibly a few AI nutjobs I have never heard from, who in real science regards the invention of AI and its embodiment in a computer as the pinnacle and justifying achievement of the human species ? And what does that have to do with religion ?
I think this quotation from a famous scientist (who was a Christian believer) fit well with the topic of the thread: It does, actually: with a couple more examples of how scientists out of their field are just ordinary goofballs, we have a prayer of putting the "science is a religion" assertion back in line with the others, and maybe get the discussion on a track of some kind.

ronan

05-24-08, 02:37 AM

iceaura, what the point of attacking the persons and not the arguments.

Please give argument if you want to deny that science relies on a belief of the existence of a unconscious reality behind our senses while they in fact only study what is perceivable.
and that science believe in the power of induction.

I agree science predict events (in a certain extent) and build objects (in a certain extent) but if it did not it would not be followed by anyone and would not stand as a religion.

lightgigantic

05-24-08, 03:10 AM

Particular forms of which he has projected unto all of science from his odd take on his odd corner of it, and then mistaken for symptoms of religion.
you don't see any correlation between mechanistic theories of consciousness and AI/computer science?

I did. For the third or fourth time in my apparently empty life.

Am I supposed to respect it? Find relevance in it ? What ? Beyond possibly a few AI nutjobs I have never heard from, who in real science regards the invention of AI and its embodiment in a computer as the pinnacle and justifying achievement of the human species ?
You've never encountered an explanation of the mind drawn as being analogous to a computer?

And what does that have to do with religion ?
mythologies, hierarchies, etc

iceaura

05-24-08, 04:43 AM

you don't see any correlation between mechanistic theories of consciousness and AI/computer science? I've never seen them justifiably projected unto all of science as a religion, no.
You've never encountered an explanation of the mind drawn as being analogous to a computer? The brain, yes - and vice versa. I've also seen consciousness pictured as analogous to a movie screen. So ?
And what does that have to do with religion ?
”
mythologies, hierarchies, etc So what does myth and hierarchy have to do with religion ? I mean aside from the fact that religions often incorporate myths and organize themselves using hierarchy, as human institutions tend to. Is the presence of myth and hierarchy supposed to indicate the presence of religion, somehow ? That's the only take I can fit into the article, but that seems a bit obtuse even for a computer scientist doing philosophy.
iceaura, what the point of attacking the persons and not the arguments. When someone tries to argue from authority, they are including the person as part of the argument. And especially in a case like this, where there isn't much argument left after the person is subtracted, subtracting the person is step one.

ronan

05-24-08, 09:09 AM

When someone tries to argue from authority, they are including the person as part of the argument. And especially in a case like this, where there isn't much argument left after the person is subtracted, subtracting the person is step one.
At least give argument to why we should discard these persons,
just calling them ordinary goofballs is not enough. At least they have knowledge that most people don't have.

Please note that usually we quote someone not because of him/her but because of his/her quote. Then by respect we have to write his/her name as well.

Zephyr

05-26-08, 03:55 AM

I noticed a post the other day which gives a link to an article describing environmentalism as a religion

( http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=81170)

It seems that every fucking thing that Fundaligionsists don't like these days is being likened to a religion.

Atheism - Aaaaaargh Its a RELIGION!!!

Science - Aaaaaargh Its a RELIGION!!!

Evolution - Aaaaaargh Its a RELIGION!!!

Environmentalism - Aaaaaargh Its a RELIGION!!!

Communism - Aaaaaargh Its a RELIGION!!!

I'm not certain why this is, is it because there is a certain brand of Fundaligionists who are just only able to see things in such simplistic terms?

Or is it because their authorities wish to scare their minions away from examining these concepts, and the easiest way to do this is to brand it with a "false religion" Label?

Any predictions as to the next thing that gets likened to a pseudo-religion?

What they mean is that people can become fundamentalists about any ideology. Christian fundamentalists, for example, believe every word of the bible is perfect and that it's the most important thing in their lives.

But people can just as easily become environmental fundamentalists ("human activity and technology is the source of all evil!") or communism fundamentalists ("Marx was a prophet!") This is like making environmentalism or communism your religion, and following that religion with fundamentalist fervour.

stretched

05-27-08, 09:05 PM

This religion debunked!

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda
'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'
(http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734)

Were all gonna DIE! .... quick, pay HUGE tax on carbon emissions before you do...

synthesizer-patel

05-28-08, 05:17 AM

What they mean is that people can become fundamentalists about any ideology. Christian fundamentalists, for example, believe every word of the bible is perfect and that it's the most important thing in their lives.

But people can just as easily become environmental fundamentalists ("human activity and technology is the source of all evil!") or communism fundamentalists ("Marx was a prophet!") This is like making environmentalism or communism your religion, and following that religion with fundamentalist fervour.

Sure but no matter how mundane the subject matter might be, there will always be individuals who wax evangelical at the extreme end of the point of view - for example I'm sure those of us who have at some point worked in the computer industry have met that guy who is insanely and rabidly anti-microsoft, pro-linux or whatever - does he worship at the church of Torvalds?

The point I'm making is that if you have the mindset to think of everything from a religious perspective, then it's possible to view anything at all that one could have a point of view on as a religion.
And that's not only divisive and counter productive, its also a hairy sack of large fetid donkey bollocks.
Most marxists will pick and choose from marxist philosophy, interpret it in different ways, and disgree over any real-world implementation of it, and environmentalists have a similar broad-based spectrum of viewpoints within their ranks.
There's only one thing that's like religion - religion

synthesizer-patel

05-28-08, 06:18 AM

This religion debunked!

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda

(http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734)

Were all gonna DIE! .... quick, pay HUGE tax on carbon emissions before you do...

Well only a third are ACTUAL scientists in a relevant field - secondly there doesn't appear to be any genuine verification of the signatory's credentials - so it could be even less - I could sign it saying I had a Phd in climatology, but I don't. Finally if these guys were actually conducting research in the field of climate change, then there would be a wealth of peer-review that debunks it - there isn't (there is some but not much) - so this is just an opinion peice and as such its of little intrinsic value.
I welcome research and discussion of its implications from both sides of argument - its what keeps science vital - but that's as far from a religious perspective as you can get.

Zephyr

05-29-08, 10:11 PM

Finally if these guys were actually conducting research in the field of climate change, then there would be a wealth of peer-review that debunks it - there isn't (there is some but not much) - so this is just an opinion peice and as such its of little intrinsic value.
They're being oppressed by the establishment! Just like the psychics and 9/11 truthers!