Religion--yay or nay?

[Guest KANE]

As a Catholic, I get harassed by many people in our generation that think people who believe in religion are "unintelligent" because they believe in fairy-tales based on ancient myths with no evidence to support them.  

 

The argument of "faith" has no meaning for them, as they're dead-set on having concrete evidence of the existence of a higher power.  Their egos then take over based on the assumption that they "have risen above the foolish need for a creator to explain the existence of the universe."  Any attempts of mine to find a middle ground with them fall on deaf, un-negotiable ears.      

 

What do the people of this board think in disproving or defending religion?

[Guest J*ingus]

I've always been leery of religion in general.  I'm not an atheist, I've seen and experienced things for which there is no rational answer, but I've never had any one religion that jumped out at me and seemed like it was The Right One.  Call me agnostic, I guess, but even that seems too narrowly defined.  

 

The argument of "faith" has never made any sense to me.  If there's not a whole lot of proof that something exists, and sometimes more proof that it didn't happen that way, I fail to see why someone would blindly believe in it anyway.  When a Christian insists that they're right because that's what the Bible says, I wonder to myself, why do you trust a rather arbitrary collection of stories and parables, all written at least two thousand years ago, by unknown authors, to be the Word of God?  (And I'm not just Christian-bashing, I've gotten this attitude from everyone, from smug atheists to infuriating Wiccans.)  

 

I've had the fun experience of dealing with various people who insisted that I was wrong, or even going to be punished for not believing as they did.  I always think "fuck you", but my verbal response is, "I refuse to let a HUMAN tell me what GOD thinks."

[Guest Mystery Eskimo]

I was raised as a Catholic but never actually developed any faith or interest in it. If people want to believe in a notion rather than a fact, that's fine. I just think religion has done a hell of a lot of harm and will continue to do so.

 

But then, I don't have "faith". If I did I guess I would see things differently.

[Guest DragonflyKid]

Here's a site with some great quotes on religion: http://www.angelfire.com/md2/simianline/QuotesReligion.html

 

Personally I'm an agnostic, but am an atheist when it regards the religious ideas of God.

 

It seems believer's are creatures who need some sense of purpose so badly that they'll resort to living in the sanctuary of a fantasy world. It is not about intelligence as many believers are inteligence, it is about fear and hopelessness and transcending that by any means even if they are absurd to the brink of insanity.

 

I have no problems with religion, God has never talked to me so even if he does exist I owe him nothing of to be "moral" or worship him.

 

As ridiculous as religion is the alternatives are just as ridiculous. Existentialism accepts the purposelessness of life and seeks to transcend that by earthly means, believer's I think see the purposelessness of life and seek to transcend that by unearthly means. At the end of the day life remains absurd and everyone gives in to this absurdity, so anyone who judges is a hypocrite.

 

It is my opinion that religion has had a negative impact on earth and mankind, religion(despite their condemnation of homosexuality) is anti-natural. They look to something supernatural and sacrifce natural, healthy human instincts. Religions basically condemn sex and promote unity but have been the most violently-divisive tool in history.

[Guest Frank Zappa Mask]

Science is a religion, and religion is a science.......

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

I've been booted out of many churches and have had more than one religous person tell me i'm the devils spawn (i'm only 17).

 

And all I really said was that i don't think that anyone has the authority to tell me what god wants. I say that priests are just as corrupt and human as the rest of us and claiming otherwise is an insult to the faith they represent.

 

I remember the first time i was asked to leave church, I was 13 and it was time to go for confession and I refused because "it's not a priests place to forgive people for the things they did and who are they to say what's wrong and what's right?". dead silence. and then i was "escorted" out.

[Guest Hayabusa Moleman]

I remember the first time i was asked to leave church, I was 13 and it was time to go for confession and I refused because "it's not a priests place to forgive people for the things they did and who are they to say what's wrong and what's right?". dead silence. and then i was "escorted" out.

Haha, that reminds me of an incident I had in church.  I was at some church basketball function and we all had to attend church together.  On the way to be let out, you are supposed to go up and kiss the cross, or priest's hand, or something.  I was never very fond of this practice and usually avoided it, but since we were in a group, I had to go up.  So, I respectfully bow towards the cross, but do not kiss it.  Normally, at the church I regularly attend, the priest doesn't say anything.  Well, this priest actually stopped the line, came towards me, cross extended and demanded I kiss the cross.  I laughed and waved him off and said no.  I was so shocked that he had the nerve to do this that I really couldn't think what to do.  I definaltely got the huge heel heat for the incident though......hahaha  I've also never been to confession for the reasons you mentioned.  Actually, I have been twice...but that was when I was about 7 and forced to go during Sunday School....Shame they were trying to guilt me that young.  I just stood there while he suggested stuff and I said ok and then he blessed me, yeeeeeehawwwwwww Inner Peace at last!

[Guest PlatypusFool]

I am nothing... I refuse to be known as an 'athiest' because it makes others perceive you as someone who thinks all religions are foolish.

 

My opinion is that, although 'god' doesn't exist, he might have done at one point. Say some being came along at some moment in history and started our creation... then either died or went away. Creation would have started, and we would go on to evolve into what we are today. This theory seems the most plausible to me because it explains evolution and the existence of evil and suffering, as well as the miraculous nature of the rarity of creation.

 

AnyHOO, I digress, I think at this point in time, to follow a religion is more of a life-style choice than anything else. To say you are a 'christian' means you think that the things it says in the bible are correct, and you live your life by them. 'God' becomes a figure, an image of this belief system, providing a tangible thing which represents this life style. Like all life-style choices, I believe it's up to the individual to chose his or her life-style, and therefore I have no problem with religion.

 

Unless of course they start religious wars or attempt to force their beliefs on someone else, in which case religion is BAD. My favourite religion, therefore, has to be Buddhism, they never get in peoples ways and just go about their business in as good a way as possible. Their entire belief system revolves around being happy, which is just great if you ask me.

[Guest DrTom]

"The argument of "faith" has no meaning for them, as they're dead-set on having concrete evidence of the existence of a higher power.  Their egos then take over based on the assumption that they "have risen above the foolish need for a creator to explain the existence of the universe."  Any attempts of mine to find a middle ground with them fall on deaf, un-negotiable ears."

 

As an atheist who knows numerous other people with similar beliefs, I have never said nor heard anyone say anything as ridiculous as what you claim.  If people you know are talking about rising above foolish needs and things like that, then I suggest you stop associating with self-important windbags.

 

Anyway, I was raised Catholic, and even went to Catholic school for twelve years.  I've seen the other side, so to speak.  I evolved into an atheist (it took a few years) for reasons that are entirely my own, and I can't see myself going back, ever.

 

You must know a different breed of atheist than I do, because no one I know goes around demanding scientific prrof for God's existence.  I can use logical arguments to refute many Biblical claims, but I don't go around asking for proof of anything.  Faith doesn't require proof, so the believers will never seek it out, even if it is out there.  I think religion is an interesting topic to debate with someone, but I go into it with the mindset that I'm not going to change their opinion, and they're not going to change mine.

 

I don't begrudge anyone their religion, or the requisite faith that goes along with it.  To each his own.  It's not my cup of tea, but I'm not going to tell someone what's right for them.  As long as people don't get all preachy and shit, I can generally deal with it.

[Guest DrTom]

"Science is a religion, and religion is a science..."

 

You'll be amazed, Chris, but I actually agree with you on something.  Science and religion, while in opposition often thruout history, are indeed simply opposite sides of the same coin.

[Guest]

I strongly disagree with you both, if you're saying what you appear to be saying. Science and religion are profoundly different. Religion is usually revelatory (but vide the Dalai Lama's comments on mahayana Buddhism, rendering it explicitly subject to science) and not open to correction. Science is self-correcting and changes constantly in response to observable phenomena. It's not the flip side of the same coin; it's a different currency. Without a fixed exchange rate.

 

Funny, Tom. I expected this kind of ignorant meaningless bullshit from a liberal arts film fucko (which is why I didn't bother to reply to him), but not from you. Tell me I misinterpeted your post. I'd love to believe you.

[Guest El Satanico]

Now i know this may sound like what the original poster was talking about. But it's kinda hard to not believe in Religion and not sound like you're saying people who believe in it are foolish. If you want to believe go ahead and do it...i'll just never understand why you do.

 

Oh yeah and why do you act like only non believers won't listen to anything? The believers are just as bad if not worse at not listening to anything that differs from their beliefs. But i always like watching arguments between a non believer who has read the bible in detail and a believer who only knows whatever is covered by the preacher each sunday.

 

I never bought into the whole religion thing even as a kid. The whole thing is absurd and "faith" only goes so far. It's not much more then a crutch for people who need to believe that there is "something after death". No one wants to believe that when you die that's the end...it's too depressing for the majority of people to think about.

 

I just don't understand what humans get from Religion. Other then being afraid of the unknown or they actually fear "God" who has been a rather vindictive prick in "the book".  

 

I don't see why anyone would want to follow instructions on how to live in the hopes that there is some big magical place in the sky. I'd think people would like to live life to it's fullest without the restraints of some supposed magical being in the sky. You should live your life like it's the only one you have...which it is most likely.

 

Oh yeah and about Faith. You can only use faith to explain so much. The Bible reads like a Stephen King book if King took massive amounts of acid before writing it. I don't know how Faith explains the absurdities that are in "the book". Speaking of King...i could bury one of his books deep in the earth and who knows in 2000 years they may be worshiping the kid from the Shining as the lord and savior. Laugh at that notion but look at what Religion is based from...books that are thousands of years old supposedly from the mouth of "God". So if people believe in this book as the gospel truth then there is nothing stopping them from believing a book from the 20th century is the "truth" in the distant future.

 

Also if you read that book it shows that God is a vindictive asshole that doesn't think twice about killing women and animals for little to no reason. So i ask you why do people believe in such a prick? It would be like making Vince McMahon into a "god" and worshiping him. The Old Testament god would be considered a monster if he lived on earth. And seeing how the Old Testament would naturally be the original word of "god" why do people usaully ignore it and only discuss the new testament. Also if you notice the religous leaders make changes to the bible when the bible doesn't fit with the new times or new technoligy. "God" says that science is evil yet most of the Religous forgot this rather quickly as soon as science became accepted. And the Religions that still reject science are the ignorant freaks that allow kids to die because of some ancient belief. Speaking of those assholes...parents that allow kids to die because of their religion deserve the death penalty just like if they beat their kid to death. Religion is no god damn reason to allow your kids to die and the courts need to start sending a message to these "people". If something you do(that isn't an accident) leads to your kids dying you deserve prison time and/or death and if they have other kids that aren't dead they shouldn't be able to EVER see them again...PERIOD no matter what.  

 

And another thing is that Religion has led to more violence and bloodshed in History then probably anything else. The world would most likely be a better place without Religion. I mean look at current events just about all of it comes back to Religion. 9/11 happened because the leader used Religion to brainwash others into doing his bidding. The whole Israel Palestine thing is over Religous land. And in history alot of blood has been shed and alot of people persecuted over Religion.

 

I fail to see why Religion is a good thing.

 

Oh and just to clear it up i don't call myself an atheist i just don't believe in Religion. I'm sure some people will see my name and think "satanic freak" but in all honestly i don't believe in the devil either...i just like the imagery associated with him.

 

Oh yeah...put me down for nay...

 

thank you and goodnight

[Guest]

To belatedly address the original question: yes, science and religion can co-exist, but religion has to learn some manners.

 

Science is actually very nice. Science doesn't make statements it can't back up. Science freely admits that it cannot answer theological questions, and it polices itself fairly well when its practitioners cross the line. Science concerns itself with its own problems, and has never tried to place itself above the law.

 

Religion, on the other hand, is very mean. Most of religion consists of two kinds of statements: those for which there is no proof whatsoever, and those which are directly contradicted by observable phenomena, recorded history, physical theory, or all three. Religions have a marked tendency to pontificate about things they don't know a damn thing about, and to prescribe and proscribe countless things, equally without reason. Worst of all, religion tries to bully science (and everyone else) whenever it can. When was the last time you saw geologists calling for the execution or exile of everyone who says the world began in 4000 BC? Can you conceive of Galileo Galilei as a geocentric theologist, being jailed, threatened, and beaten by a Copernican Inquisition of professors and astronomers, and finally forced to recant his heresies in writing? How often do you hear of Moslem clerics having death sentences pronounced on them by Koranic scholars for daring to assert dogmatic creeds that fly in the face of all recorded Middle Eastern history? And can you imagine a college dean trying to protect one of his professors from prosecution for child abuse by saying that he's a "pillar of the academic community," and that his students "trust" him?

 

If religion were willing to follow some of the same codes as science, yes; they could co-exist. Their spheres of interest don't even have to come into contact, much less conflict. All religion has to do is admit that it doesn't have all the answers. It must confine itself to a moral role of guidance, not coercion, and it must abide by the rule of law.

 

Of course, all of that is pretty fucking unlikely. It presumes that doing the right thing is more important to religious people than doing the profitable thing, and that would be a rather sharp about-face for most religions.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

I don't mind that people want to have philosophical discussions that extend beyond the reaches of science, as long as they don't start trying to parade it around as science. For instance, I have no problem if someone wants to discuss Big Bang Theory and claim that God set it in motion and then let it run its course, since that's a religious or philosophical idea that doesn't contradict or blatantly oppose scientific facts. It's these idiots that refuse to accept the Earth isn't 6000 years old that grate on my nerves.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

And seeing how the Old Testament would naturally be the original word of "god" why do people usaully ignore it and only discuss the new testament.

 

Because the New Testament, by and large, was written by people who actually witnessed the events.  It is far more accurate from a historical perspective than the Old Testament.

 

As an Anglican, most of us don't believe in the literal meaning of the Old Testament, other than vague events that occurred.  For example, there is archaelogical evidence of both the flood, and the Exodus, but they probably occurred differently than in the Old Testament.  Most of the Old Testament is metaphors for things that we should be doing in order to improve our lives, and generally be good people.  

 

Of course it varies depending on what religion we are referring too.  The basis of the Protestant Religions, is that it shouldn't be up for the Church to decide what is right and wrong.  The Church is made up of human beings, who can make mistake just as easily as you and I.  Most of your complaints seem to be directed at the few fanatics out there that don't understand what they are being taught.

 

As an aside, I am both an Anglican and a Science student, so I do believe that they can co-exist.

[Guest DrTom]

"Tell me I misinterpeted your post. I'd love to believe you."

 

Ok, you misinterpreted my post.   There, that was easy.

 

I think the basic sentiment Chris expressed was accurate, but looking at it now, I don't think it's phrased very well.  

 

This is how I mean it: science and religion have more in common than devotees of either would like to admit.  Yes, science deals in proveable theories, gathering evidence, etc, while religion is based on a mix of folklore and blind faith, but they're still similar in a lot of ways.  

 

Religious fundamentalists and hard-core scientists (for lack of a better term) sound a lot alike: close-minded, often belligerent to opposing ideas, and absolutely certain that they're right.  (Yes, the scientist is far more likely to actually be right, but I'm talking about their attirudes.)

 

This is a better way to express the sentiment I think Chris was getting at: while different, religion and science are used in similar manners to similar ends by many people.

[Guest]

True enough in that (limited) sense, although I think belligerence and absolute certainty is much more common as a characteristic of religion than it is as one of science. The essence of the scientific method is doubt. Somewhat in the same way that church officials argue that blood, death, and sexual abuse are not the hallmarks of Christianity, I would argue that certainty is not a hallmark of science.

[Guest Vyce]

Dr. Tom:

 

As an atheist who knows numerous other people with similar beliefs, I have never said nor heard anyone say anything as ridiculous as what you claim.  If people you know are talking about rising above foolish needs and things like that, then I suggest you stop associating with self-important windbags.

 

I have stumbled across these kind of people before too (the type that KANE refers too).  They utterly infuriate me.  I consider myself a religious person, although I am not affiliated with any sect or organization.  I have my own beliefs, which I almost exclusively keep to myself, and it's very upsetting to here them so completely trivialized by this particular viewpoint.

 

Occasionally you'll find an intellectual take up that point of view as well.  For example, Joseph Campbell.  

 

I can see where people accept religion over science.  Science, whether it is the real "truth" or not, can be cold and inhumanistic, leaving us humans without a sense of connection with ourselves and our world.  Religion fills the void.  I don't see this necessarily as a bad thing.

 

In my opinion, religion itself is a "good" thing.  Whether you believe in it or not, it can offer you hope, faith, understanding, purporse, and salvation of a sort.  I believe that *organized* religion is where the real trouble starts.  Once a religion begins to be organized, it often ceases to teach the pure doctrines & principles of the faith and degenerates into a social institution run by men, often greatly damaging the "message" of the religion.  

 

I don't know if I'm really giving a good presentation of my opinion.  If I could sum it all up in simple words, it would be this:  religion itself is good, but it is we humans who mess it up.  Fundamentalists, extremists, cults.....they all twist and turn doctrine which may have been inherently harmless to begin with into something horrible.  Some people fault religion for this, I don't; I fault those who interpret the religion to fit their own means and prejudices.

[Guest Ripper]

I really do like discussing religion and all but I really hate ready statements that basically say "People that believe in relgion are weak minded and too afraid to come up with their own beliefs, are ignorant to the facts of science and basically stupid people....but if you are religious, thats fine."

 

Grouping people together leads to really dumb steriotypes sometimes.  If you consider all atheist as violently anti-God because that one you met that time was, then you are really mistaken.  Most of the atheist that I know were presented with basically the same information that I was and chose to believe in something different.  That doesn't make someone completely anti-religion or any of the other stigmas attached to atheist.  But for some reason, all those that say they are Christian, or religious for that matter are always associated with the most religious extreme person that has ever been seen. The people that are basically too lazy to read up and form their own opinions and just follow another, these are usually the extremist.  

 

The Bible never says that the earth is 6000 years old(or 4000 as some people claim all Christians believe)  The Bible itself pretty much says that the world existed, was destroyed and in darkness and rebuilt again.  If God created heaven and Earth in Genisis, then when exactly did the whole war and casting out of Lucifer and his rouge angels which is mentioned in the bible so many time occur.

See this is something that those that actually look into what they want to believe in would notice and want to know more about.  I am a person that believes only by knowing all sides of a argument can you truly form a opinion. And my opinion on life is that everything is a bit too complicated to have all just happened by chance.  To steal a line from this dude on Politically Incorrect, if they found a computer on Jupiter, they would assume that a computer maker/designer made it and put it there, so why is it so riduculous to assume that humans, which are a thousand times more complicatied, were all just made by chance?  I belive in a higher power, and by no means does it make me a weaker person because I do.  In the same way, it doesn't make me any stronger than someone who doesn't.  And it doesn't make you stronger mentally because you belive something different.

[Guest]

Amusing, the way you spent your first paragraph saying that religious people aren't necessarily stupid and ignorant (a statement with which I agree) and your last proving that you fit the stereotype perfectly. Your naive, uninformed, and unoriginal opinion ("everything is a bit too complicated to have all just happened by chance") illustrates precisely why the stereotype exists in the first place.

[Guest Ripper]

"Amusing, the way you spent your first paragraph saying that religious people aren't necessarily stupid and ignorant (a statement with which I agree) and your last proving that you fit the stereotype perfectly. Your naive, uninformed, and unoriginal opinion ("everything is a bit too complicated to have all just happened by chance") illustrates precisely why the stereotype exists in the first place."

 

Well, I could write a 500 page thesis on my beliefs concering religion, why I believe each point, where I can support it and such, but I think that it would be alot more useful to SUMMERIZE.  My over all opinion is that everything is too complicated to have happend by chance, how this is a ignorant belief is beyoud me. How is it naive not to believe that it happened by chance, just because certain conditions became correct for the single celled organizms to under go evolution that eventually lead to where we are today.  I belive someone, something made it happen.  But I am naive I guess. Next time you want to post something pertaining to me, at least have a point and not just blind bashing. You basically wrote a paragraph saying nothing.  I'm naive and ignorant and just like other religious types just because...good argument there...dick.

[Guest]

"Dick?" Heh. That has to be the least appropriate name I've ever been called...

 

Anyway, of course it's beyond you, because you're pontificating about biology, which is something about which you seem to have very little information beyond what you've picked up from Paley and Morris and Whitcombe and the rest of the submoronic "intelligent design" crowd. I'm sure you could write a 500 page thesis on this. I'm also quite sure that all 500 pages would be full of the same ignorant bullshit you've put on display here.

 

Biology is imperfect. There are countless examples I can cite off the top of my head. The panda's thumb is actually a modified wrist bone. If an intelligent being had created the panda, don't you think it would have been a digit? And why do whales need hipbones? Why do snakes? Humans have several totally useless body parts. Ever heard of the appendix? What about tonsils? Are you aware that our eyes have quite possibly one of the most ridiculously inefficient structures in the natural world? Why the hell would anyone design a retina backwards? If your God deliberately designed the creatures of the world this way, he must be completely retarded, fantastically incompetent, or both.

 

Your contention that highly complex systems (such as humans) cannot arise out of simple elements (such as the one-celled creatures you cited) really made me laugh. Do you know anything about chaos theory? A complex and totally unpredictable iterative model can be created from relatively few variables, and there are a lot of variables in DNA.

 

I belive someone, something made it happen.  But I am naive I guess.

Yes, you are. You "belive." This is the crux of my problem with religion, and this is where I draw the line between smart religious people and dumb religious people. You fall squarely in the second category. Why? Because dumb religious people have a marked tendency to talk about subjects in which they have no background, and they make absolutely idiotic claims about the world. When you say that complexity cannot arise without divine guidance, I (and anyone else who has actually studied biology and mathematics, even at an undergraduate level) hear the equivalent of "the sky is green." You're talking nonsense and you're too dumb, uneducated, and yes, naive, to even realise it.

 

Is that a better argument, "dick?"

 

"It very often happens that there is some question as to the earth or the sky, or the other elements of this world - respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain reasoning or observation, and it is very disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard by an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide of the mark as east from west, can hardly restrain himself from laughing."

- St Augustine, De Genese ad litteram

[Guest Frank Zappa Mask]

<<<I expected this kind of ignorant meaningless bullshit from a liberal arts film fucko (which is why I didn't bother to reply to him), but not from you. Tell me I misinterpeted your post. I'd love to believe you.>>>

 

-Marney, if your are going to insist on acting like a child, then I'm going to treat you like a child.  Respect is a two-way street.  Start showing my opinions a little respect, and I'll be more than happy to send some your way.  I'd much rather be a "liberal arts film fucko" than some 6-year old in an "adult" body who resorts to name-calling whenever somebody doesn't agree with him.  Grow up.

 

<<<I think the basic sentiment Chris expressed was accurate, but looking at it now, I don't think it's phrased very well.  

 

This is how I mean it: science and religion have more in common than devotees of either would like to admit.  Yes, science deals in proveable theories, gathering evidence, etc, while religion is based on a mix of folklore and blind faith, but they're still similar in a lot of ways.  

 

Religious fundamentalists and hard-core scientists (for lack of a better term) sound a lot alike: close-minded, often belligerent to opposing ideas, and absolutely certain that they're right.  (Yes, the scientist is far more likely to actually be right, but I'm talking about their attirudes.)

 

This is a better way to express the sentiment I think Chris was getting at: while different, religion and science are used in similar manners to similar ends by many people.>>>

 

-Thank you Doc for fleshing out my original idea.  Very simply, both religion and science are concerned with finding the truth.  The methods may be different, but the idea is the same.  By saying that science is a religion, I mean that some people literally worship the discoveries and ideas that science represents in place of the blind faith usually required by a religion, and with good reason, because a scientific discovery is something that can usually be directly perceived and explained.  On the other hand, science has yet to present us with that oh-so elusive definite truth that we all seek, so there is still a place for religion.  If some mad scientist were to discover the secret of the universe, or if Jesus were to ride in suddenly one day, shouting "I'm back", well, there wouldn't be much of a need for science or religion.  The purpose of both would be served.  Peace.....

[Guest]

Marney, if your are going to insist on acting like a child, then I'm going to treat you like a child.

"You're," you cretin.

 

Start showing my opinions a little respect, and I'll be more than happy to send some your way.

Why on earth do you imagine I'd care about the "respect" of a neurotic, guilt-ridden liberal arts film fucko who thinks that all he has to do is slap together a whiny little tract on any subject proclaiming AMERICA-EVIL-OPPRESSED-PEOPLE-GOOD and hey presto! he's Noam fucking Chomsky? Just curious. Because I don't.

 

I'd much rather be a "liberal arts film fucko" than some 6-year old in an "adult" body who resorts to name-calling whenever somebody doesn't agree with him.  Grow up.

Yes, you're right; your retaliatory name-calling is ever so much more mature than mine, and that makes you perfectly correct and me absolutely wrong.

 

...no, wait, it doesn't; does it? Hmm, were you born with this gift for brazen, shameless hypocrisy, cfici, or did you have to cultivate it?

 

As for your facile equivocation of religion and science - congratulations slugger, you have basically demonstrated that they're "the same" after all - well, on the most trivial of levels. They're about the pursuit of truth? Christ, I haven't read anything that pompous in a while. You know, you could say the same thing about literature, painting, music - hell, practically any human endeavour - and it would be just as empty and sophomoric.

 

And this is really the main reason I dislike you, cfici. Every one of your posts ends up looking like a desperate attempt by an overeager junior in high school to impress a teacher he has a crush on. You rarely have anything substantive to say; you just trot out the biggest words you know, plagiarise a couple of flaming leftist screeds, wrap it up in a white male guilt complex and hope that it all sounds profound when it comes together. But it never does. It would be pitiful if it weren't so amusing.

 

Peace.....

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

[Guest Frank Zappa Mask]

Fine, Marney.  I'll be your evil.  You'll be mine.  Happy happy, joy joy........

[Guest]

I don't think you're evil. Just pathetic.

[Guest Anteater]

Science and religion are very close to each other. Both are fundamentally "top-down" structures, where the textbook tradition (Kuhn) are very important in defining and regulating the sort of questions and answers allowed in the certain paradigm. You can't really discuss atoms and infinite space in the framework of Thomas Aquinas' intepretation of Aristotle.

 

And here is where things differ: That which is presented by science in the textbooks is subject to violent, lurching changes of reference (they can be smooth transistions, it just depends on the degree), whereas that which is presented by varying religions is not subject to change. It may have taken nearly 200 years for Copernicus to be modified enough by Kepler and Newton for it to be accepted, and Newton still is taught and worked with in basic physics nearly 100 years after 1905. However, I don't see Jesus and the Trinity being modified much, and the Brahmins are much the same as they have been for 3000 years. The "Truth" remains the same for those religions, while that of sciene is gradually and violently changed and shifted in radical cognitive leaps, perhaps for non-rational reasons which include religion and mysticism.

 

Science and religion are both practiced by people. They are uniquely human constructs, a product of history (there has  been some interesting observations made of chimps who sit and continue to clean and groom their dead). And people cannot just be "scientists" or "religious mystics". The two threads of interest drive each other: study the natural world to better understand the mind of God or vice-versa. Galileo refered to it as the "Books of Nature and Scripture;" each invaluable to understanding God and the World. (It's important to remember that Galileo remained a devout Catholic his whole life.) Newton was obsessed by biblical history and phropecy, and many alchemists, including Newton, thought they could comprehend God by understanding transmutation. Modern scientists like Einstein, Sagan, and Hawking can by outright mystical at times. And Kepler, one of the greatest genius ever, was absolutely obsessed with Platonic mysticism and religion. He cast horiscopes, constructed whole theories to explain the solar system using Platonic solids, and thought that by crafting his laws, specifically the Third (Harmonic) Law, he could actually hear God. This guy, whose work led to a complete revolution in astronomy and by extension science and thus the West, was a mystical crazy mathematician.

 

So are religion and the sciene one and the same? I don't believe so, but their great influence on one another has been invaluable to the development of each and the West.

[Guest]

I've been booted out of many churches and have had more than one religous person tell me i'm the devils spawn (i'm only 17).

 

And all I really said was that i don't think that anyone has the authority to tell me what god wants. I say that priests are just as corrupt and human as the rest of us and claiming otherwise is an insult to the faith they represent.

 

I remember the first time i was asked to leave church, I was 13 and it was time to go for confession and I refused because "it's not a priests place to forgive people for the things they did and who are they to say what's wrong and what's right?". dead silence. and then i was "escorted" out.

Cobain man...sometimes you try a little too hard to look cool here it seems to me.

 

I always figured the reason the Bible contradicted itself is that the writers were human and that means imperfect. Also couldnt it be misinterpreted in alot of parts?

 

There will probably never be scientific proof of God because humans arent a species advanced enough to find it out. I have toruble beleiving there isnt a God. Its always been a little funny how life could begin from nothing. But then again its always funny to think of how God began. Its all too confusing for us...especially me.

 

Christianity gets a lot of shit though, but at least people arent perverting it so they can go out and bomb people. They just really complain about censoring stuff and protecting our children and stuff. I know alot of Christians and even with the ones that go to church every week I dont see them acting like conservative pyschos who want to censor everything.

[Guest]

I don't know if I'm really giving a good presentation of my opinion.  If I could sum it all up in simple words, it would be this:  religion itself is good, but it is we humans who mess it up.  Fundamentalists, extremists, cults.....they all twist and turn doctrine which may have been inherently harmless to begin with into something horrible.  Some people fault religion for this, I don't; I fault those who interpret the religion to fit their own means and prejudices.

You said it better than I could. Its not like most priests or reverends or whoveer tell their followers to murder everyone who goes to another church. They usually preach respect and encourage qualities that are good for people to have. Religion helps some people become better people.

 

Also if you read that book it shows that God is a vindictive asshole that doesn't think twice about killing women and animals for little to no reason.

Yah I know. I never understood that. Like he killed all of Egyptians first born and even the first born of animals. How did the animals deserve this? The pharoh of Egypt was an asshole but why did everyone have to suffer because of him?

 

I think Christians only beleive in the New testamant and Jewish people believe in the Old Testamant. Is that right? Does anyone here know if it is?

[Guest Anteater]

"Christianity gets a lot of shit though, but at least people arent perverting it so they can go out and bomb people"

 

And what exactly was the Crusades, the HRE, the Inquisition, the 30 years war, or much of European history till the 7 years war? A result, at least in part, of Christianity and the Roman Church's desire for power in and over society. And fundamental christianity is just as insidious and evil as fundemental Muslisms and Hindi nationalists.

 

One question of semantics: Can something be "perverted" when a truth may not actually exist?