An anthropologist's view of religion:

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
a creator doesn't dicate anything. Everyone has a free will to do whatever they want, example you. There is a reason you are in the VAST minority.

Please explain to me where the universe came from Mr. there is not creator. Please explain to me your delusion.

"Thou shalt not..."

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
a creator doesn't dicate anything. Everyone has a free will to do whatever they want, example you. There is a reason you are in the VAST minority.

Please explain to me where the universe came from Mr. there is not creator. Please explain to me your delusion.

We rather think you are the delusional one. Religion is a product of imagination, nothing more. Which still makes it a powerful attractor, don't get me wrong, Boss Nage, kinda pointed out the error of my ways. Which is not to say I am going to be a christian or anything else again. They are still as full of shyte as a christmas turkey IMHO.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
As to whether Newton would have been as good a scientist had he been an atheist (and therefore a completely different person) -- is it conceivable that you could ever provide empirical evidence for your claim? And if you can't, isn't your claim, strictly speaking, nonsensical?

Are you capable in principle of accepting that a scientist could ever be religiously motivated to carry out scientific works?

Actually since it is you making the more restrictive claims it is up to you to provide the burden of proof and not me. The lack of proof for my claims does not render them nonsensical - I fail to see what logic you used to arrive at such a conclusion.
I am sure that many scientists are religiously motivated to carry out scientific work and I am open to the possibility that Newton was. However I still feel it is wrong to give religion credit for Newtons science simply because he was religious. To give his religion credit you have to show that:
1. He was in-fact religiously motivated.
2. That without said motivation he was unlikely to have pursued a career in science or to have achieved as much.

I believe that some people have naturally inquiring minds and if the circumstances are right they will inquire whether they are brought up with a religious background or not. Further, I believe that if they are brought up with a religious background they will spend a lot of their effort on inquiring into religion. I consider that a waste.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually since it is you making the more restrictive claims it is up to you to provide the burden of proof and not me. The lack of proof for my claims does not render them nonsensical - I fail to see what logic you used to arrive at such a conclusion.

I think you're making a metaphysical claim, in that you're talking about something (a past hypothetical: what Newton might have achieved had he been an atheist) that is empirically impossible to verify. You might as well be talking about pink fairy unicorns on motorbikes ... Hence, nonsense. Hume said, ‘If a theory cannot be measured, and if there is no evidence for it, consign it to the flames.’ I'm sure you'd agree.

I've provided evidence of Newton's religious motivations in his own words ... I hope you found the article I put up interesting.

By the way, if I show it's likely he was indeed religiously motivated (as his own words strongly suggest), why do I need to show that he wouldn't have been a good scientist otherwise? That's immaterial to whether he was religiously motivated. He said he was; he might have been lying when he said that, but in light of the evidence that's very unlikely.

While I don't disagree with your last statement, I have to add that your belief that great minds wasted their time with religion is a matter of complete indifference.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I think you're making a metaphysical claim, in that you're talking about something (a past hypothetical: what Newton might have achieved had he been an atheist) that is empirically impossible to verify. You might as well be talking about pink fairy unicorns on motorbikes ... Hence, nonsense. Hume said, ‘If a theory cannot be measured, and if there is no evidence for it, consign it to the flames.’ I'm sure you'd agree.

Actually it is you and not me that is playing the what if scenario.
By giving religion credit for Newtons success you are in fact claiming that without religion Newton would have not achieved what he did. I on the other hand am merely claiming that we do not know that.
Further my theory that intelligent people with inquiring minds are capable of inquiry without the influence of religion can be measured and thus does not fit your quote from Hume.
In general it is incorrect to claim that all what-if scenarios are devoid of evidence and are therefore nonsensical. For example, if I had been runover by a car yesterday and died I would not be posting this now. Now tell me, is that empirically impossible to verify? Further, are you claiming that it is nonsense to make such a claim? Are you saying that even if I had died, I might possibly still have been here posting on the internet?

I've provided evidence of Newton's religious motivations in his own words ... I hope you found the article I put up interesting.
Thanks for the article. I am still reading it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually it is you and not me that is playing the what if scenario.
By giving religion credit for Newtons success you are in fact claiming that without religion Newton would have not achieved what he did. I on the other hand am merely claiming that we do not know that.
Further my theory that intelligent people with inquiring minds are capable of inquiry ...[text shortened]... ou found the article I put up interesting.
Thanks for the article. I am still reading it.[/b]

You misconstrue my position. I'm interested Newton as a person in history. It is clear that he believed in God from a young age. The nature of his belief was exceedingly personal and became more unorthodox with age. But he never stopped believing in God. Nor, it would appear, did he neatly divide his interests into 'science' and 'religion'. In fact he kept up his alchemical experiments his whole life (alchemy seeks to fuse matter and spirit). His work in natural philosophy (science) and theology can hardly be distinguished in terms of motivation if he regarded nature as the work of a creator. As his own words, which you refuse to attend to, make clear.

I'm not interested in alternative Newtons -- Newton the staunch Catholic; Newton the libertine; Newton the woman -- because you can't begin to imagine such an hypothetical person without writing a novel. The Newton available to us is more interesting and certainly stranger than fiction. Your line of enquiry -- that Newton, specifically, not just some 'intelligent person', would have been 'just as good' had he been an atheist -- simply cannot be verified.

I'm not claiming that all what-if scenarios are spurious. But some are plainly impossible to verify. 'What if I ate ten packets of chips?' I'd probably feel ill and bloated. 'What if Isaac Newton had been kidnapped and raised by gypsies?' Would have he been the Gypsy King?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
'What if Isaac Newton had been kidnapped and raised by gypsies?' Would have he been the Gypsy King?

Or would he have written the Principia, inspired by the swing of a gypsy's hips?

Originally posted by Palynka
Or would he have written the Principia, inspired by the swing of a gypsy's hips?

I find it personally unlikely he would have done much of anything on the level he did if he had been born under differant circumstances, like being born in an atheist society or such. Fate took his life path down such and such a road and you can be sure there have been other people just as brilliant and creative who did not get as far as newton because they did not live his lifeline.

Originally posted by leedsagain
Nice to see religion cast amongst the other fantasies that show the weakness of the human mind, such as ghosts, voodoo and loch ness monsters.
The power of the mind on the other hand never ceases to amaze me from the Cern experiments to scrapheap challenge!

Religion may or may not be shown to be false but Spirituality will not.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Religion may or may not be shown to be false but Spirituality will not.

I can sort of agree. However, with spirituality alone all you are left with are beliefs that have no factual basis - in my view this is a fantasy I would rather ignore. Instead I prefer discovering the truth ie facts.