"God Bless America!"

[Fishteacher73]

People have had many differnt faiths that had huge implications on mankind that we now scoff at the idea of (but still many cling to the old man in the sky for some reasson). The religions of the ancient Egyptian, Romans, Greeks, etc. all had huge impacts on how and why mankind did what it did, yet the concept of a god that controls the rain is thought a bit foolish today. Historical relevance has no weight in a scientific dialogue. Earth centered universes and flat Earths had huge historical impact on society, but they were wrong and the affect on the population is of little use in determining their scientific merit.

[mother engine]

Originally Posted by Stargazer

You are telling me to read more books on critical thinking? Is that correct? Worst insult I've recieved in these boards so far. You're telling a skeptic to be more skeptical even though you seem to dislike my skepticism?

i think he was suggesting you read more about critical thinking because some of your arguments are quite weak yet you don't seem to be aware of this as you keep repeating them. critical thinking is a system concerning accuracy in reasoning which is not the same thing as having skepticism at all. when i pointed out what i saw as arrogance in your statement concerning religion as useless instead of responding specifically to what i had written you evaded it by turning the question in on itself:

1- 'religion is useless'

2- 'this is an arrogant and ignorance statement'

3- 'those who support religion are arrogant and ignorant'

do you see how number 3 has nothing to do with the statement in number 2? this is what could be called a critical thinking error. so is number 2 actually. a more critical and relevant answer for 2 would actually be 'religion has use if one person finds it useful and because many people have made the claim that religion is useful to them it can be (albiet unempirically but still with much probablity) inferred that religion is useful'. all of this has nothing to do with assuming a flaw and questioning but with calculating and addressing the terms of communication in a debate. critical thinking can be appied to skepticism and it can also be applied to support a belief (religious or otherwise).

[bumab]

I'd have to agree,

critical thinking does not equal skeptism.

Fishteacher is right, also- historical relevance has no bearing in a scientific dialog. Of course, this is hardly a scientific dialog at this point. It's more of a dialog on the usefullness of religion...

[mother engine]

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

People have had many differnt faiths that had huge implications on mankind that we now scoff at the idea of (but still many cling to the old man in the sky for some reasson). The religions of the ancient Egyptian, Romans, Greeks, etc. all had huge impacts on how and why mankind did what it did, yet the concept of a god that controls the rain is thought a bit foolish today. Historical relevance has no weight in a scientific dialogue. Earth centered universes and flat Earths had huge historical impact on society, but they were wrong and the affect on the population is of little use in determining their scientific merit.

actually what is thought to be 'foolish' today is far from as universal a thing as you are suggesting. believe it or not there are still scientists (not creationists) who are not atheistic fundamentalists. history is an important aspect of archeology which is a science and religions have cultural significance within as well as without that arena. and historical relevance has enormous weight because it is the basis from which we are talking now and religion is part of that weight because it has left impressions that effect PHILOSOPHY and philosophy is a fundemental aspect of the scientific process. and as this is a philosophy forum i wish people would stop demanding that everything said here be empirically based. but the main point i was trying to make is that purple unicorns and god are not the same thing. if they were we would not have freethinker condeming religion for causing atrocity. this is historical and relevant to the discussion. if you want to talk about historical relevance justifying religion feel free but i was not. i was reffering to it to point out the differance between two things that ARE different. or should we just generalize the hell out of anything in order to condem it?

[Fishteacher73]

It seems that most people dismiss the pantheology of many of the early civilizations as a bit missguided because we now understand the natural phenomenon that many of these gods were atributed to thier actions. We have over time consistantly found evidence that supports a naturalistic methodology in what is around us.

We have consistantly demonstrated the naivete of atributing phenomenon that mankind has yet to solve to devine action. It seems that accepting a creationist ideal that one would just as easily accept the origin myths of any other religion as possibly valid when much of the theology is obviously flawed. I know of no modern scientist that accepts the idea of Promytheus as the originator of fire, but I am sure there were many anciet thinkers that did accept this idea. One does not have to be universally corerect to have wise thoughts and insights into the woorkings of the natual world(Einstien refuted plate tectonics). I am unaware of any respected scientist that offers theological explanations inside the realm of science. What they do at home is their own buisness.

[mother engine]

fishthinker, are you talking to me? i am not a creationist or arguing to support creationism or even that the bible is based on truth so if you are debating my comments you are shadow boxing. just curious.

[Fishteacher73]

Originally Posted by mother engine

the main point i was trying to make is that purple unicorns and god are not the same thing.

I was simply pointing out that you seem to want to segregate "God" from other ideas of gods.

[orbsycli]

the concept of almost everybody worshiping god is almost as insane as a bunch of people worshiping a purple unicorn!
both things, well in my opinion, do not exist.
did anybody see that south park episode where the catholics were worshiping a giant spider?
ahh i love that show.

[mother engine]

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

I was simply pointing out that you seem to want to segregate "God" from other ideas of gods.

and i was simply pointing out that integrating the term god with santa clause and purple unicorns or turquoise flying monkeys for that matter is an irrelevant argument for dismissing religious belief.

[mother engine]

Originally Posted by orbsycli

the concept of almost everybody worshiping god is almost as insane as a bunch of people worshiping a purple unicorn!
both things, well in my opinion, do not exist.
did anybody see that south park episode where the catholics were worshiping a giant spider?
ahh i love that show.

ahh south park, what a fount of intellectual argumentation. insanity is not believing in what one cannot see or prove empirically but a severe mental break from reality. all jokes aside there is a big differance here. though i don't think almost everyone worships god.