Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Macsen

The Builders And Iran

Recommended Posts

Yes you have been saying that "that throughout history the opposite has usually been the case."

But you are wrong. " I think you look at religion and see the inquisition as if it was a bad thing. i say it weeded out those who wouldn’t follow the rules. those who wouldn’t conform to the needed structure. Religious beliefs are the backbone of culture and the structure upon witch all civilization can occur. With out common beliefs you don’t even have a nation. Religion (to anthropologist) evolved to serve a purpose. That purpose is to get us all on the same sheet of music. The proof of this is we are still here.

You can sight this act and that act and say look see I told you so religious war this religious war that. Lending or sighting one historical event over another is pointless because all history proves is we are still here.

Don’t try and say history proves otherwise because you don’t know the unknowable history. That unknowable history is that history that is unknowable. Look, all history sucks its all death and destruction. So you can sight some event or another that is related to the RELIGIOUS PROBLEM big deal you find exactly what you where looking for conflicts. I can do the same thing in a secular way. What is history but the record of conflict.? History doesn’t record the mundane.

You are saying curing some particular disease is useful but I say if there is no purpose in life then who cares if we all die or all live forever. no one does. The point is useful is a very relative term. You really need to reexamine your definition of useful. If there is no god then you are as useful as an atom sitting next to you. Your life is as important and as unimportant as the universe in its entirety.

 

By the way I don’t think atheist kick puppies but I do think they are lacking in the love department, as are many SO CALLED Christians. Most Christians are not true Christians they are facsimiles. I never said that a particular religious group actually had loved their neighbors only that at least they have such tenements. It is at least good that they hope for goodness or hope for kindness. It is good that they hope for change. I wouldn’t say most people who claim to be Christians follow the tenements of their faith. What I would say is that it is wrong to blame the religion as if it is the book or the tenements that are evil. It’s not the rules or the tenements that are evil but the people who say I follow this or I follow that and then they walk the other way.

I was saying that people shouldn’t blame religion for the problems of the world. Its not the religions fault people misuse it. Or why blame it on the religion blame it on the evil people. I am not a Christian because I say so, I may simply be a facsimile you must test me.

I hope upon hope with all my heart that violence will end and that mankind will be a brotherhood; men will treat men with dignity.

 

A man goes to far when he says I don’t want to be a part of the collective because “I have views that are out of bounds.” How selfish have we become when we say my personal satisfaction my personal truth is more important than the collective.

 

As far as evolution I don’t know is the best I can give. Neither can you. I don’t believe a hypothesis simply because it seems to fit. Look at Einstein’s theory it seems to be proven. If it works at all it should work everywhere even in small stuff. But we all know his theory doesn’t work in small stuff. So they came up with quantum physics. Then you go look at things with huge masses but are really small spaces and find neither work alone and they do not both work together. There must be a third answer that defines what is really going on. My point is evolution is one of those things that looks right but most likely isn’t. So I defer to religion and that is ok. Religion will not ruin my small insignificant time. So I go with it and I find it reminds me to be the best I can be. If me being the best I can be is good than good for the collective.

 

What evolved first sex drive or sex parts?

 

Besides I have noted earlier that I had miss read ORB WEAVERS comment. This conversation debating the validity status of religion doesn’t belong here and I am not sure I want to keep it up. So post what you want here if it so pleases you but as for me I think it is as pointless as our existence.

 

 

Maybe strings theory hmm I don’t know can we stop thinking so hard. It hurts my small brain.

 

Even on PBS they try and teach children how to treat others with respect. So its ok to come form TV but not the BOOKS. it is absurd to say children and grown ups to know from birth how to be a good person. Have you ever seen a child with all the toys take a toy from the kid who has one. BE HONEST AT LEAT TO YOUR SELF do you know good from evil because you are not a sociopath. Then why have parents or teachers. Why pass down knowledge.

Why teach children to be good heck they aren’t sociopath right. People aren’t born with right and wrong imprinted in their brain it comes from teaching and teacher use BOOKS Christian teachers teach Christian values with a Christian book. It is absurd totally on its biases to say only a sociopath will not instinctively know how to treat people. Your wrong.

People need to be taught how to be empathetic how to love how to be honest how to acceptably express feelings how to not lye how to not steel. Man you are wrong and the sad thing is you probably know you are wrong but you hate the idea of god so much you lye to cover your self.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God does what he lists. Evil is not a definition created by mankind but by god. Basically what he does is what good is. It is not what you think good is or what you would want god to do but what he does and what he says that are what good is. Good is not a thing we created and god lives up to but good rather a thing god IS and we should live up too.

 

So say all the things you want about how you think god is evil for shock value or whatever I am not shocked if he does this or that. Realize that it s not up to you to decide what is good and what is not.

 

Don’t assume that you can out bible me just because I pronounce my faith unequivocally. Your tone Is one of superiority. You speak as if you where schooling me or shocking me with details that are written in my book. Why do you feel that you can surprise me with oh so horrible details from the testaments of the bible. Why do want to try and put me in my place. How wonderful it must be to speak to those who disagree with you as they must not have any sense. How dare you exalt yourself so high as to attempt to give me a lesson. That is arrogance at its best. When you assume you know more about my faith than I do. When you point out this or that detail do you really think so little of me that you think I am an average Christian. Maybe you think I can be surprised with a psalm or two. If you had read the bible as you claim you have maybe you skipped the part about Jesus and the new deal? Or maybe you didn’t understand it. We fear what we don’t understand. When you can read it in Greek then come to me you naïve. But don’t interrupt my Hebrew lesson or I will have to forgive you.

I would say you shouldn’t make those kind of assumptions about people of faith being truly ignorant about there holy book (maybe some really are ignorant followers) but I guess you already know that and that you meant to put yourself in a position of superiority. ((( some are not as ignorant as you think and we follow still)))

 

Lets talk about your inferiority complex next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes you have been saying that "that throughout history the opposite has usually been the case."

But you are wrong. " I think you look at religion and see the inquisition as if it was a bad thing. i say it weeded out those who wouldn’t follow the rules. those who wouldn’t conform to the needed structure.

 

So, let me get this straight: You extol the Christian ideals of "love thy neighbour" and "thove thine enemy as thy brother", but you think it was a good thing for the Catholic church to go on a rampage of torture and murder in the name of conformity and social order? You think following rules based on ignorance, superstition and blind faith is worth murdering for?

 

 

If there is no god then you are as useful as an atom sitting next to you. Your life is as important and as unimportant as the universe in its entirety.

 

How does the presence or absence of a God make your life any more or less meaningful? I mean really, it make no difference in the sense of your life having "meaning" if you are the pawn of a deity or a transient lump of space-time. If there is a God, how am I suddenly more useful than the nearest atom? If God is all-powerfull, all-knowing, then your only possible function would be as a toy to relieve the boredom of that God. So you are either a meaningless plaything of a bored deity, or you are a meaningless bag of water and proteins - either way, you are meaningless in any cosmic sense.

 

...It is good that they hope for change. I wouldn’t say most people who claim to be Christians follow the tenements of their faith. What I would say is that it is wrong to blame the religion as if it is the book or the tenements that are evil. It’s not the rules or the tenements that are evil but the people who say I follow this or I follow that and then they walk the other way....

Hope is a pathetic and useless vice. hope does nothing, achieves nothing. If you want something to happen, you do something about it or accept that you cannot change it and move on.

 

I hope upon hope with all my heart that violence will end and that mankind will be a brotherhood; men will treat men with dignity.

 

Oh, please, give me a break. You can hope all you like, but we are what we are. People will treat each other with kindness as long as times are good, but when the chips are down, we generally look after our own skins. Religion explots this facet of human nature to artificially put people in a state of fear, so that they can more easily be coerced into doing nasty things to each other.

 

A man goes to far when he says I don’t want to be a part of the collective because “I have views that are out of bounds.” How selfish have we become when we say my personal satisfaction my personal truth is more important than the collective.

 

Riiight... Most people who profess to serve God and do nice charitable things only do so out of fear that they will spend eternity in hell if they don't, not because they genuinely want to help people. Religion explotis this selfishness to further its growth, and to justify its greed.

 

 

As far as evolution I don’t know is the best I can give. Neither can you. I don’t believe a hypothesis simply because it seems to fit. Look at Einstein’s theory it seems to be proven. If it works at all it should work everywhere even in small stuff. But we all know his theory doesn’t work in small stuff. So they came up with quantum physics. Then you go look at things with huge masses but are really small spaces and find neither work alone and they do not both work together. There must be a third answer that defines what is really going on. My point is evolution is one of those things that looks right but most likely isn’t.

 

Look, you really don't understand how science works, do you. Science is not about belief. A scientist does not believe in evolution, or quantum physics, because a scientist knows full well that nothing is certain. A scientists uses the most accurate model to understand the world with. Now, evolution is an observable phenomenon. You can watch it happen in real time, and you can observe it in the fossil record, and in the DNA of living things, and in the anatomy of living things. Evolutionary theory deals with modelling the mechanism by which evolution is driven. One such theory is Natural Selection, but, there are numerous other processes that are more accurately modelled by other theories, such as genetic drift, sexual selection etc. Creationism is not a theory, it is a fairy tale. Get the difference?

 

So I defer to religion and that is ok.

 

No, it is not OK, you should never defer to anything other than reason, common sense and logic, and certainly not to tall tales told by dubious people who were either on drugs or schizophrenic.

 

 

What evolved first sex drive or sex parts?

Sex drive - sex parts came later, they were a more sophisticated layer on top of single celled organism DNA exchange.

 

 

Have you ever seen a child with all the toys take a toy from the kid who has one. BE HONEST AT LEAT TO YOUR SELF do you know good from evil because you are not a sociopath. Then why have parents or teachers. Why pass down knowledge.

Why teach children to be good heck they aren’t sociopath right. People aren’t born with right and wrong imprinted in their brain it comes from teaching and teacher use BOOKS Christian teachers teach Christian values with a Christian book. It is absurd totally on its biases to say only a sociopath will not instinctively know how to treat people. Your wrong....

 

 

Not the case at all. There is a big difference between passing down knowledge, and a persons personality and attitude towards others, which has nothing to do with knowledge, but everything to do with genetic predisposition and emotional experiences. People need to learn how to be really nasty, although it is normal and natural (even healthy) for humans to lie and cheat, up to a point.

Edited by obscurus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are saying curing some particular disease is useful but I say if there is no purpose in life then who cares if we all die or all live forever. no one does.
Do you truly hate life so much that it's not worth living without an officially ordained purpose? Regardless of whether or not God exists, we are here on Earth, so we might as well make the best of it. We ought to do what we can to ease people's suffering and improve people's lives, and hopefully have some fun while we're at it. Studying how the universe behaves is an important tool for all of the above.

 

The point is useful is a very relative term. You really need to reexamine your definition of useful. If there is no god then you are as useful as an atom sitting next to you. Your life is as important and as unimportant as the universe in its entirety.
But I can be happy, and I can feel pain. I believe other people and animals can too, because of their behavior. On the other hand, I have not found any reasons to believe an atom cares what happens to it. It makes sense to work with others to minimize pain and maximize happiness of those that we think can feel it.

 

Regardless of whether or not I have a noticable effect on the grand scheme of things, I'm important to those around me, and they're important to me. Isn't that enough? Does the whole universe really have to revolve around us for anything to matter?

 

What I would say is that it is wrong to blame the religion as if it is the book or the tenements that are evil. It’s not the rules or the tenements that are evil but the people who say I follow this or I follow that and then they walk the other way.
Does a god that commands his followers to rip out unborn children from the wombs of their mothers and smash them on rocks and leave the women to die sound like a kind, loving being to you? Worth worshipping?
God does what he lists. Evil is not a definition created by mankind but by god. Basically what he does is what good is. It is not what you think good is or what you would want god to do but what he does and what he says that are what good is. Good is not a thing we created and god lives up to but good rather a thing god IS and we should live up too.
In response to statements like the first quote, Obscurus was pointing out that in fact the tenements are evil. The third quote sounds like the sort of sinister reasoning a Satanist could use to defend their beliefs. If a Satanist were to use that argument to defend infanticide, surely you would be as appalled as the rest of us? Then why shouldn't we be appalled when you do so?

 

A man goes to far when he says I don’t want to be a part of the collective because “I have views that are out of bounds.” How selfish have we become when we say my personal satisfaction my personal truth is more important than the collective.
Would you still feel that way if a majority of people were Athiests? If the majority believes in evolution?

 

What evolved first sex drive or sex parts?
Sexual reproduction is not a prerequisite for evolution. Asexual life can still evolve through mutation, albeit at a much slower pace. And certain kinds of asexual bacteria can gain the benefits of sexual preproduction via bacterial conjugation, though it's not required for them to reproduce. Perhaps something like that was a precursor to sexual reproduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you look at religion and see the inquisition as if it was a bad thing. i say it weeded out those who wouldn’t follow the rules. those who wouldn’t conform to the needed structure. Religious beliefs are the backbone of culture and the structure upon witch all civilization can occur. With out common beliefs you don’t even have a nation.

 

You do realise, don't you, that if science had advanced at the rate desired by the perpetrators of the Inquisition, the computer you are using to read this message wouldn't even exist, neither would your car, you phone, your television or anything else you take for granted?

 

The conformist worldview espoused by religious organisations is the very antithesis of progress and an enemy of the advancement of knowledge. You cannot seriously support such a position unless you would rather be living in a cave eating raw mammoth meat.

 

By the way, it is exactly this kind of attitude that makes people dislike religion -- one minute you are protesting that it is all about peace and love, and the next minute you are supporting murder and torture in the name of some vacuous "social structure" crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God does what he lists. Evil is not a definition created by mankind but by god. Basically what he does is what good is. It is not what you think good is or what you would want god to do but what he does and what he says that are what good is. Good is not a thing we created and god lives up to but good rather a thing god IS and we should live up too.

 

Ahh, so in that case, murder, infanticide, rape, genocide, torture and destruction are all good things, and we should do them, because according to the Bible, God likes to see this sort of stuff go on a lot.

 

Yet that seems rather strange compared to the message of love and kindness you seemed to be promoting earlier. So, basically, the word "good" is rendered meaningless, and anything goes. Hang on, doesn't that sound a lot like typical representations of Satan?

 

Now, how do you know the Bible is the word of God? After all, it was written by men. Perhaps you should consider the motives and mental state of those men before you dive headlong into believing them. Would you believe me if I claimed to be speaking for God? Probably not, I'd venture. But do you really think that, for example, Moses (if he really existed), wasn't hallucinating due to extreme starvation in the hot desert sun, rather than actually talking to God?

 

So say all the things you want about how you think god is evil for shock value or whatever I am not shocked if he does this or that. Realize that it s not up to you to decide what is good and what is not.

 

Really? You aren't shocked by genocide? Or rape? Sorry, but it is up to me (and my fellow citizens

) to decide what is good and what is not, not some fictitious character in a fairytale.

 

Don’t assume that you can out bible me just because I pronounce my faith unequivocally.

 

That is the only reasonable assumption I can make on the basis of your peculiar babbling. One minute you are claiming your religion is the basis for treating people with kindness and compassion, the next you are using it to claim that unspeakable crimes are really good, because God does it or endorses it.

 

Your tone Is one of superiority. You speak as if you where schooling me or shocking me with details that are written in my book.

 

Well, I make no excuse for feeling a little superior to someone who is so quick to change their mind about what their religion represents. And you have offered nothing to suggest that you have either read the Bible in any detail, or fully comprehended the implications of your beliefs.

 

Why do you feel that you can surprise me with oh so horrible details from the testaments of the bible. Why do want to try and put me in my place. How wonderful it must be to speak to those who disagree with you as they must not have any sense. How dare you exalt yourself so high as to attempt to give me a lesson. That is arrogance at its best.

Because you are propounding an untenable belief system that has no basis in reality, and trying to justify the unspeakable crimes commited by Christians (and other religions).

And Christians forcing a beleif system based on nothing more than hearsay and idle fantasy on other people isn't arrogant? If you seemed to have any sense, I would converse with you accordingly.

 

When you assume you know more about my faith than I do. When you point out this or that detail do you really think so little of me that you think I am an average Christian.

 

In my experience, the "average Christian" knows next to nothing about their own faith, other than the tiny spoonfed fragments they receive in Church and Sunday School. And you really haven't stated anything to convince me that you are anything other than an "average Christian".

 

 

Maybe you think I can be surprised with a psalm or two. If you had read the bible as you claim you have maybe you skipped the part about Jesus and the new deal? Or maybe you didn’t understand it.

 

That is the problem with the Bible, sooo many contradictions. It is no surprise that you seem to be unsure what God's position is on say, murder.

 

We fear what we don’t understand. When you can read it in Greek then come to me you naïve. But don’t interrupt my Hebrew lesson or I will have to forgive you.

 

You might fear what you don't understand, I only fear things I know will hurt me if I am not careful. I don't fear things I have no control over, and I certainly don't fear the unknown or things I don't understand, on the contrary, I seek to understand it, hence why I chose a career in science. Actually, you are the one who has interrrupted your Hebrew lesson, since you are the one reading and writing on this forum.

I would say you shouldn’t make those kind of assumptions about people of faith being truly ignorant about there holy book (maybe some really are ignorant followers) but I guess you already know that and that you meant to put yourself in a position of superiority. ((( some are not as ignorant as you think and we follow still)))

 

Lets talk about your inferiority complex next.

 

 

Why not? In my experience, the average Vicar/Priest/Reverend/etc is as ignorant of their own religion as their followers, and I have had ample enough exposure to Christians during my life to make some very accurate assumptions about Christians in general. Oh, and I have a superiority complex, not an inferiority complex, BTW ;)

Edited by obscurus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hey dude its not STRAW MAN argument its an example of some fact or other that would for some dissolve the reasoning behind there religious belief.

It is a straw man argument. You are erroneously simplifying evolutionary theory down to the single statement "Evolution is the idea that I am descended from a monkey", and then shooting down that statement because it's easier than actually mounting an attack on evolution itself. That's the very definition of a straw man argument.

 

this example was given to simply say that religious belief can often have more benefit than harm.

Um, dude. The statement "knowing I'm a monkey has no benefit to me" does not imply "religious belief has more benefit than harm". They are not logically related statements, and if you think they are then I suggest you go take a good philosophy course.

 

Gildoran, Orbweaver and obscurus have already "0wned" your other arguments, so I won't take the time to refute them again. :)

 

You're just babbling incoherently and backsliding by this point. Your belief structure is full of holes - and I'm not just saying this because I disagree with you. There are people I disagree with, many of them religious, who have quite valid belief structures. You, however, are not one of them.

 

In short: I have absolutely nothing against you believing in God and Creationism and whatever else. But please try to make sure that your beliefs are consistent. You'll be doing yourself and us a big favour.


My games | Public Service Announcement: TDM is not set in the Thief universe. The city in which it takes place is not the City from Thief. The player character is not called Garrett. Any person who contradicts these facts will be subjected to disapproving stares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don’t assume that you can out bible me just because I pronounce my faith unequivocally.

 

There is no need to "out bible" anybody. There is a simple argument against god and the stories associated with it. God and the stories that you can read in the bible are easy solutions. It's exactly the kind of arguments anybody can come up with because they are obvious. These are the kind of answers anybody would come up with, who doesn't want to invest time to really think about the world and it's relationsships. And this solution is also a typical anthropocentric approach, which is no coincidence. History has shown that such "obvious" and anthropocentric views are usually false for a simple reason. The universe is NOT anthropocentric. Earth is NOT the center of the universe, and also the sun is not, for a simple reason. Because we humans are utterly unimportant to the universe. Why is the universe so big? Do you have a notion HOW big it really is? You know why it is so big? Because we are not important. We are a statistical happenstance and probably there is life on millions of other planets as well.

It is no coincidence that people believed that the earth is the center of the universe. Because this kind of view is anthropocentric as well. We see our earth and we see stars, and the way you can observer them has to mean that everything is arranged around us. And why would a god look human like? Just look in our very nature and see the diversity of shapes. So why exactly whould a god need to be humanshaped? And why did he need to create such a big universe if WE were the center of his concern? The answer is simple. This god doesn't exist and we are NOT so important as religions want us make to believe. There is no heaven waiting for the "good" people because the universe that you can see out there is everything there is. And one other thing. Why can the universe be described by mathematics?


Gerhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here, Here!!!

 

Logic and reason, unlike FAITH and HOPE, helps methodically explain away everything I don't see or understand into something more pallatable.

 

I start with a hypothesis, and work to prove it, no matter the cost, even if it's just a theory. Who cares that evolution is actually called the "theory of evolution", there's hard factual evidence to prove it unequivically, right?

 

I mean, hell, after inertia, physics is a science based entirely on theories!! I bet the fact that Newton was a deeply spiritual man had nothing to do with his very scientific discoveries!!

 

Spar's right..."religion" thinks we are the center of the universe, and even at one time thought were we LITERALLY the center of the universe!!

 

Granted, science thought that we couldn't break the sound barrier, or split the atom, or that evolution was a relay-race from ape to man, or....but we'll get it right eventually, right?

 

That's why I don't believe in wisconsin or europe....because I've never seen it. And, I've done the math, it's statistically impossible that it even exists or ever will.

 

And THAT'S why science out-guns religion everytime!!

 

 

 

This is completely unrelated, but does anybody know the definition of irony?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is also completed unrelated, but does anybody know the definition of "scientific theory"? Because evidently you don't.


My games | Public Service Announcement: TDM is not set in the Thief universe. The city in which it takes place is not the City from Thief. The player character is not called Garrett. Any person who contradicts these facts will be subjected to disapproving stares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read all this thread, but I just wanted to say that I'm Christian and I believe faith and science can co-exist just fine


shadowdark50.gif keep50.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Logic and reason, unlike FAITH and HOPE, helps methodically explain away everything I don't see or understand into something more pallatable.

 

That's a matter of subjective opinion -- many people find hope and faith give meaning to their lives, although to me they are just worthless wishful-thinking emotions.

 

I start with a hypothesis, and work to prove it, no matter the cost, even if it's just a theory. Who cares that evolution is actually called the "theory of evolution", there's hard factual evidence to prove it unequivically, right?

 

Correct.

 

I mean, hell, after inertia, physics is a science based entirely on theories!! I bet the fact that Newton was a deeply spiritual man had nothing to do with his very scientific discoveries!!

 

Both correct.

 

Spar's right..."religion" thinks we are the center of the universe, and even at one time thought were we LITERALLY the center of the universe!!

 

Correct -- many religions take this view. I can't speak for all of them though, maybe some of the more "intellectual" religions like Buddhism have a less anthropocentric view.

 

Granted, science thought that we couldn't break the sound barrier, or split the atom, or that evolution was a relay-race from ape to man, or....but we'll get it right eventually, right?

 

Scientific theories change all the time, which is how early views of atomic indivisibility can be replaced by later discoveries of subatomic particles. It is only religious ignorants that claim that science tries to be unchanging, and therefore examples of "incorrect" science undermine the entire field.

 

That's why I don't believe in wisconsin or europe....because I've never seen it. And, I've done the math, it's statistically impossible that it even exists or ever will.

 

A very good parody of the Creationist argument - "nobody has ever seen evolution take place and it is statistically improbable that life evolved this way".

 

This is completely unrelated, but does anybody know the definition of irony?

 

Yes I do. A particularly good example of it is your post, which attempts to attack science while in fact completely supporting it and parodying the religious ignorance which it (presumably) is supposed to defend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't read all this thread, but I just wanted to say that I'm Christian and I believe faith and science can co-exist just fine
I don't think the Athiests in this thread have problems with all religious people; there are plenty of smart, caring Christians. We just have problems with people like UnskilledLaborer...

 

After misunderstanding the meaning of "religiopolitical organization", he started the argument by being morally condescending to Orbweaver. He claimed that his religion was all about love and peace, then not long after supported the torture and murder of the inquisition, and said that infanticide and genocide could technically be considered "good". He asked what use evolution theory could possibly be, and when I pointed out a couple of medical uses such as combatting drug-resistant diseases and finding a potential cure to HIV, he then said that everything would be useless if his view of the world was false.

 

As Crispy so well described UnskilledLaborer's arguments:

You're just babbling incoherently and backsliding by this point. Your belief structure is full of holes - and I'm not just saying this because I disagree with you. There are people I disagree with, many of them religious, who have quite valid belief structures. You, however, are not one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Granted, science thought that we couldn't break the sound barrier, or split the atom, or that evolution was a relay-race from ape to man, or....but we'll get it right eventually, right?
Yes... that's the difference between science and many religions. Science goes with the models that best depict the world given our current knowledge, but is perfectly happy to update them given new information. Most religions like to cling tenaciously to the first understanding of the universe they came up with, no matter what new information is learned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A very good parody of the Creationist argument - "nobody has ever seen evolution take place and it is statistically improbable that life evolved this way".

 

If you take statistic into account and consider the second law of thermodynamics, then it is even more unlikely that we existed just a split second before. From this it logically follows that the universe was just a chance statistical freak occurence that brought the universe into existence, only a split second before, as we know it, then assuming that it already existed for billions of years.


Gerhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Granted, science thought that we couldn't break the sound barrier, or split the atom, or that evolution was a relay-race from ape to man, or....but we'll get it right eventually, right?

 

Actually that's a good differentation between science and religion.

 

Science starts with knowing that we know nothing, but it is of the belioeve, that, by observation and experimentation, we can gain more and more understanding of our universe.

 

Religion starts with the opposite. It assumes we already know everything because the first-best guesses had to be correct, and this has to be fundamentally correct, because everybody can see it with his own eyes. Experimentation and and understanding just gets into the way.


Gerhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that it's impossible for science and religion of co-exist. If you try to use science as a belief model (as science tends to be taught in schools), or if you try to use religion to explain the universe, sure - you run into trouble.

Science is about asking how things work - or more precisely about creating models to help understand how certain elements of said things work. Religion is about asking why things work. Why are we here, why are we not off over there to the left or worse still French, etc...

Of course its perfectly posssible to live without relying on religion for meaning. Meaning doesen't have to be bestowed by a higher power to give it validity. But if you get a sense of enlightenment and of community from believing in God, Buddha or the Tooth Fairy - good for you! The problem comes when people decide that their view - their Why, is more valid than others and should be imposed on everyone else.

Hence, I am right, you are wrong (especially if you agree with me) and you all have to hold your breath until you die, or start to see Elvis. For your own good of course.

Edited by Bob Obo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only question the religion MIGHT have a saying in was asked by Leibnitz. "Why does SOMETHING exist instead of nothing?" I'm not sure that this question can be answered by religion, or rather by science, but this is one where religion MIGHT have some validity.


Gerhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is fun - but you all need to be more succinct, or it's going to dry up. :)

 

Here are some major points I'd like to see debated;

 

UnskilledLaborer:

"Religion is just asking us to be nice to everyone, but the inquisition was good because it killed all the people who didn't want to be nice to everyone."

 

"Religion gives society structure and rules to follow." But are any laws based on religion anymore? I thought they were based on past experience, and the local society's general idea of what is morally acceptable.

 

(Okay that's enough procrastinating - back to my uni assignment...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Science is about asking how things work - or more precisely about creating models to help understand how certain elements of said things work. Religion is about asking why things work. Why are we here, why are we not off over there to the left or worse still French, etc...

 

 

The problem here is one of anthropomorphism. It is a natural human tendency to attribute motives to other people - it is part of our cognitive toolkit that allows us to guess what out fellow man is thinking, and also to a lesser degree, to understand the thought processes of our prey animals. This is fine and good, after all it is critical to developing a sophisticated civilisation, but the problem is, we have a tendency to apply this inappropriately to things like inanimate objects, or the universe at large.

 

So people invent the idea of an anthropomorphic God that can be reasoned with, bribed (with sacrifices) placated with prayers and worship etc, because they have made an error of transferring the Theory of Mind from people to something that has no mind (the universe).

 

Science does not seek to ask the question "Why?", becasue science starts out with the quite reasonable assumption that inanimate objects and the universe as a whole have no mind until demonstrated otherwise by sound evidence, and can therefore have no motives, will, purpose or intentions.

 

Religion is asking an invalid question, much like a mathematician wondering what one divided by zero is, as there is no mind, no motive no intent, no purpose to the universe, it just is (at least there is no evidence that has yet presented itself that would invalidate this assumption in the slightest). And you can seek to understand how it works, or you can make up fairy tales to your heart's content, but the suggestion that science and religion are somehow able to coexist at the same level of thought is ludicrous - they are fundamentally opposite. Religion creates and invents, then seeks to maintain a stasis, while science seeks to question, investigate and explain, and then develop, refine, and change as required.

 

 

Two completely opposite goals, that are not compatible, especially when religion tries to pretend it can explain things.

 

And you must also remember - science can only ever result in a more refined body of knowledge - it is impossible to know everything (I snigger a bit when I hear physicists talk about a Grand Unified Theory of Everything), and there are some things that we simply, as humans, lack the cognitive ability to comprehend, although we will probably make computers that can think in ways we can't imagine one day.

 

But not knowing something is no excuse for making any old stories up to fill the gaps, and if you don't know something, you should say so, rather than just fobbing it off as "God did it", and not investigating further.

 

To put the above more succinctly, there is no why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To put the above more succinctly, there is no why.

Very Zen. Which is somewhat ironic. ;)


My games | Public Service Announcement: TDM is not set in the Thief universe. The city in which it takes place is not the City from Thief. The player character is not called Garrett. Any person who contradicts these facts will be subjected to disapproving stares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very Zen. Which is somewhat ironic. ;)

 

 

I like irony.

 

Although, Zen is an offshoot of Bhuddism that is more a philosophy than a religion (many would argue that it is not a religion at all). While Bhuddism has had it's share of violent theocracies, it is unusual among religions in that it is atheistic - there is no god to worship, and it sees the world as a balance of opposites, rather than anthropomorphising everything and pretending that it all has a purpose. The aim of Bhuddism is to acheive nirvana, which is a state of absolute purposelessness, ignorance and oneness with the universe, obtained by voiding oneself of all selfishness and achieving perfect balance. It is about abandoning the self, the personal identity, individual desires, and becoming nothing and everything all at once. The complete opposite of all the Western religions, where the focus is on personal immortality and sycophantic self-preservation in the face of a fairly unpredictable and violent deity, so I often find it amusing when people try to claim that all major religions promote the idea of a personal God, when the majority of them don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So people invent the idea of an anthropomorphic God that can be reasoned with, bribed (with sacrifices) placated with prayers and worship etc, because they have made an error of transferring the Theory of Mind from people to something that has no mind (the universe).

 

I wonder if other animals believe in a god? I think humans are inclined to believe in a god because we build things. We look at a car, a house, a beer tin, and know that it was created by someone. We look at the world and assume the same relationship. Of course, the logic is flawed, as the effect is only superficially similar, there is no reason to assume the same cause.

 

To clarify - I'm an athiest, but I've known some very intelligent scientists (certainly more intelligient than me, although thats no great achievement ;) ), who believe in God. They can never quite rationalise it though - it seems like people have a blind spot in their brains when it comes to religion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To clarify - I'm an athiest, but I've known some very intelligent scientists (certainly more intelligient than me, although thats no great achievement ;) ), who believe in God. They can never quite rationalise it though - it seems like people have a blind spot in their brains when it comes to religion...

 

That reminds a bit of Roger Penrose. When you read his book they are full of scientific words. But when you get down to it's basics, it god dressed up in science. I wouldn't be surprised, if Penrose himself believes that he doesn't believe in god or that his book are purely about science, without any gods, while the opposite is true. And the funniest thing is that people often rationalize it with the argument that Penrose must know what he is talking about because he is a brilliant mathematican. :)


Gerhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Penrose and Hawking...I liked the idea of getting energy from black holes.


ZylonBane's confession about himself:

"What can I say, I'm a jerk. A three times all American Jerk, from Jerksville, Kentucky. Yee Haw"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...