Will Religion or god(s) be the down fall of Humanity ?

[(Q)]

A lot of things are "conjured from the imagination" before their existence is known. That's the part of science that we call "forming a hypothesis". We can't test the hypothesis until we conjure it. We can't know if it's X or aX before we test it.

Sorry, but forming a hypothesis and conjuring things from the imagination are two different things. Look up "Scientific Method"

If/when you do conjure something from your imagination, what do you call it? If it doesn't exist, what do you call the absence of it?

You don't call it anything other than a notion.

Certainly, the terms are needed whether they use the prefix "a" or are formulated some other way:

My aunt could eat "abananas" - i.e. anything but bananas. (She was allergic to bananas.)​

In the seventeenth century there were "aautomobiles" - i.e. no automobiles.​

Living organisms can be divided into human and "ahuman" - i.e. non-human.​

Sorry, but you are not using those terms in the same way atheist is used. Try again.

 

[sideshowbob]

Sorry, but forming a hypothesis and conjuring things from the imagination are two different things.

If you think there's a difference, feel free to explain what it is.

You don't call it anything other than a notion.

How do you tell one "notion" from another? We have to have specific terms for the notion that god(s) exist(s) and for the separate notion that unicorns exist. And each of those specific terms comes with a built-in place to attach the prefix "a".

Sorry, but you are not using those terms in the same way atheist is used.

The way the terms are used has nothing to do with the fact that we need the terms whether the concepts expressed by the terms have any basis in reality or not.

 

[(Q)]

If you think there's a difference, feel free to explain what it is.

To form a hypothesis, one needs to gather as many observations about a particular phenomenon as possible (there are no observations of leprechauns or unicorns) look for causes and list out possible explanations (there are no causes or explanations for leprechauns and unicorns) and then make sure the hypothesis has the capacity to be falsified (leprechauns and unicorns do not have the capacity to be falsified). Does this help?

How do you tell one "notion" from another?

Whether or not it has the capacity to form a hypothesis.

We have to have specific terms for the notion that god(s) exist(s) and for the separate notion that unicorns exist. And each of those specific terms comes with a built-in place to attach the prefix "a".

Sorry, but whatever is conceived within a notion does not exist, hence there is no need for terms of non-existence, that would be redundant.

The way the terms are used has nothing to do with the fact that we need the terms whether the concepts expressed by the terms have any basis in reality or not.

There is no need to have term of non-existence for something that is non-existent. It simply is non-existent.

 

[wellwisher]

We have two sides of the brain with each side of the brain processing data in different ways. The left brain differentiates, while the right brain integrates. Science is based on the left brain, while religion is based on the right brain. The philosophy of science is not designed to develop the right brain, and if that was all we had, it would result in humans becoming half brainers. If you look at futuristic science fiction, people have the tech but act like a remnant of the past due to atrophied right brain.

Religion exercises the right brain and prevents half brained people. But on the other hand, pure religion since it primarily develops the right brain, would also result in half brainers, if there was no science. The age of enlightenment worked both sides.

For example, liberalism, which does not like religion, likes diversity, with is differential. They have lost their ability to integrate people via the old fashion melting pot which was an integrating process based on movement toward spatial commonality.

 

[Sorcerer]

We have two sides of the brain with each side of the brain processing data in different ways. The left brain differentiates, while the right brain integrates. Science is based on the left brain, while religion is based on the right brain. The philosophy of science is not designed to develop the right brain, and if that was all we had, it would result in humans becoming half brainers. If you look at futuristic science fiction, people have the tech but act like a remnant of the past due to atrophied right brain.

Religion exercises the right brain and prevents half brained people. But on the other hand, pure religion since it primarily develops the right brain, would also result in half brainers, if there was no science. The age of enlightenment worked both sides.

For example, liberalism, which does not like religion, likes diversity, with is differential. They have lost their ability to integrate people via the old fashion melting pot which was an integrating process based on movement toward spatial commonality.

So we could cure people of religious fundamentalism by frying the right side of their brains? That's a very neat idea. Now where's my laser....

 

[Mazulu]

So we could cure people of religious fundamentalism by frying the right side of their brains? That's a very neat idea. Now where's my laser....

You'll have to get past their guns first.

 

[Sorcerer]

You'll have to get past their guns first.

We'll get the Navy Seals to kidnap them...oh, wait, that doesn't always work, does it?

 

[Mazulu]

We'll get the Navy Seals to kidnap them...oh, wait, that doesn't always work, does it?

The Navy Seals are an outstanding fighting unit that can attack from the sea. But some of them are among the faithful.

 

[Sorcerer]

Maybe a better idea is to create a virus that attacks the right side of the brain, preventing religiousness, and spray it on certain areas of the world, like the Indian sub-continent, the Middle-East and Mississippi. And other places too, of course.

 

[Mazulu]

Maybe a better idea is to create a virus that attacks the right side of the brain, preventing religiousness, and spray it on certain areas of the world, like the Indian sub-continent, the Middle-East and Mississippi. And other places too, of course.

Viruses don't distinguish between believers and non-believers.

 

[Sorcerer]

Viruses don't distinguish between believers and non-believers.

But taking out the right-hand side of everyone's brain prevents religiousness across the board. And there aren't many non-believers in those places, so not much damage done.

 

[Mazulu]

But taking out the right-hand side of everyone's brain prevents religiousness across the board. And there aren't many non-believers in those places, so not much damage done.

Are you the reincarnation of Stalin?

 

[Sorcerer]

Are you the reincarnation of Stalin?

I never said we should touch Mother Russia.

 

[sideshowbob]

To form a hypothesis, one needs to gather as many observations about a particular phenomenon as possible (there are no observations of leprechauns or unicorns) look for causes and list out possible explanations (there are no causes or explanations for leprechauns and unicorns) and then make sure the hypothesis has the capacity to be falsified (leprechauns and unicorns do not have the capacity to be falsified).

Then what do you call something between the rigorous hypothesis that you suggest and a wild-eyed speculation? What if there are some plausible observations, like Bigfoot? What if there is a possible explanation (biological)? How do you distinguish the spectrum of ideas from wild-eyed to scientific?

There is no need to have term of non-existence for something that is non-existent. It simply is non-existent.

It's irrelevant whether or not there's a "need" for the term. Opposite terminologies are built into the language. If the idea of theism exists and the language has a term for it, then the opposite term, atheism, automatically exists.

 

[Mazulu]

I never said we should touch Mother Russia.

lol

 

[(Q)]

Then what do you call something between the rigorous hypothesis that you suggest and a wild-eyed speculation?

You tell me.

What if there are some plausible observations, like Bigfoot?

Yes, what if? What if unicorns and leprechauns existed? There is a huge range of 'what ifs'.

What if there is a possible explanation (biological)? How do you distinguish the spectrum of ideas from wild-eyed to scientific?

Again, you tell me.

It's irrelevant whether or not there's a "need" for the term. Opposite terminologies are built into the language. If the idea of theism exists and the language has a term for it, then the opposite term, atheism, automatically exists.

And yet, we will not find those "automatic" terms anywhere.

You see, theism is a "belief" that gods exist. The term unicorn and leprechaun is not a belief, it is a word describing a particular mythical creature. The term 'atheism' was coined to describe the lack of belief in gods.

 

[sideshowbob]

Then what do you call something between the rigorous hypothesis that you suggest and a wild-eyed speculation?

You tell me.

I did tell you. We make up a new term for it, whether it exists or not - a god or a unicorn or a flerbend.

Yes, what if? What if unicorns and leprechauns existed? There is a huge range of 'what ifs'.

Exactly - and we need terminology for those what-ifs, whether there turn out to be evidence supporting them or not.

How do you distinguish the spectrum of ideas from wild-eyed to scientific?

Again, you tell me.

Again, I did tell you. We make up new terminology for them, whether they exist or not.

And yet, we will not find those "automatic" terms anywhere.

Of course we do. Often we use "lack of" or something like that instead of a prefix like "a" or "non" but the terminology is still there. For every concept that might possibly exist there's an automatic negative concept that it doesn't exist.

You see, theism is a "belief" that gods exist. The term unicorn and leprechaun is not a belief, it is a word describing a particular mythical creature. The term 'atheism' was coined to describe the lack of belief in gods.

Duh.

We are not talking about the entities unicorns, leprechauns and gods. We are talking about the belief in any of those entities. The term "aunicornism" is the equivalent of "atheism", whether it is used or not.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

So will the down fall of Humanity be religion based ?

Thoughts

*************
M*W: Why must there be a downfall for Humanity? I don't think religion or gods will be the cause of a downfall. If anything, religion and gods are experiencing their own downfall. The deteriorization of Humanity will probably arise from man's inhumanity to man.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

If you have fear God you will respect humans. "The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God."

*************
M*W: Not so. The beginning of wisdom comes when one gets rid of all the man-made gods and religions and becomes his own higher power. (PS: All gods and religions are man-made and oppressive).

 

[Robittybob1]

*************
M*W: Not so. The beginning of wisdom comes when one gets rid of all the man-made gods and religions and becomes his own higher power. (PS: All gods and religions are man-made and oppressive).

@ M*W: I'm waiting for you to come onto the beautiful Christian Music thread so I'll have someone to practice on.