MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
Religion is like modern art to me. I don't get it but I know other people do.
I think it's time to call religion a failure
- Thread starter LesCanadiens
- Start date
Ancient Grudge
Its all in this life
hmmmmm doughnutism 
Perfection
The Great Head.
Sorry that doesn't apply here, you weren't banned because you didn't insult other peoples viewpoints.Originally posted by Cecasander
Oh yeah freedom of speech (which is the)
Switch625
I don't care.
Originally posted by Cecasander
I am an atheist, i believe in science and the big bang theory.
I disaprove capitalism and aprove socialism.
I don't like America.
Why aren't I banned from the forum yet?
.....
Oh yeah freedom of speech (which is the
As Perfection said, freedom of speech does not apply here.
You haven't been banned yet because you still seem to be flying under the radar.
When that changes, you'll know.
De Lorimier
North American Scum
I think it's time to call this thread a failure... 
Leonel
Breakfast Connoisseur
Originally posted by De Lorimier
I think it's time to call this thread a failure...
I feel that that statement was a blatent attack against this thread!
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
I have to go with Franklin on this one...we'll all find out eventually.
Personally, I prefer to play it safe. If you do believe in God and there is no God, what's the worst that can happen? On the other hand, if you don't believe in God and he does indeed exist, well, better bring your suntan lotion.
At any rate, I find it exceedingly uncool to slam Jesus. Even if there was no God, his messages of love and forgiveness, and that personal salvation can be found within, should be adopted by all men. There can be no harm in that.
Personally, I prefer to play it safe. If you do believe in God and there is no God, what's the worst that can happen? On the other hand, if you don't believe in God and he does indeed exist, well, better bring your suntan lotion.
At any rate, I find it exceedingly uncool to slam Jesus. Even if there was no God, his messages of love and forgiveness, and that personal salvation can be found within, should be adopted by all men. There can be no harm in that.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
I'm a ardent defender of science but I'm not all that harsh. I hate it when people try to convert me though(keep your god to yourself please).
I believe religion is just an attempt to explain what science hasn't explained yet. Scientific theories can always to molded and modified, religious text can't, that, in my opinion, is what makes science superior.
In my opinion, humans created gods and not the other way around. Polytheism outdates monotheism in any way you look at it. The belief in spirits was actually the first real religion or belief, not Judiasm , Christianity or any of these religions we belief today. What dictates what religion is dominant today is what people want to believe. In another 2000 years, Christianity may only be a memory and some other unheard of religion nowdays may reign supreme. 2000 years ago, it was the olympian Gods that everyone believed in.
The thing about religion is no solid proof of all. At least in physics I can say "What goes up must come down" and show you an example by dropping a book. Or say "The earth revolves around the sun" because its a proven and satellite images can prove it. Religion can't do that, it can't prove the existence of God. And yes, religion has many times tried to stop the advancement of science(The earth is not the center of the universe is only one example) because it would contridict their beliefs.
Science has proven religion wrong on points throughout history but religion has never proved science wrong, why? Because religion is unproovable in itself.
I believe religion is just an attempt to explain what science hasn't explained yet. Scientific theories can always to molded and modified, religious text can't, that, in my opinion, is what makes science superior.
In my opinion, humans created gods and not the other way around. Polytheism outdates monotheism in any way you look at it. The belief in spirits was actually the first real religion or belief, not Judiasm , Christianity or any of these religions we belief today. What dictates what religion is dominant today is what people want to believe. In another 2000 years, Christianity may only be a memory and some other unheard of religion nowdays may reign supreme. 2000 years ago, it was the olympian Gods that everyone believed in.
The thing about religion is no solid proof of all. At least in physics I can say "What goes up must come down" and show you an example by dropping a book. Or say "The earth revolves around the sun" because its a proven and satellite images can prove it. Religion can't do that, it can't prove the existence of God. And yes, religion has many times tried to stop the advancement of science(The earth is not the center of the universe is only one example) because it would contridict their beliefs.
Science has proven religion wrong on points throughout history but religion has never proved science wrong, why? Because religion is unproovable in itself.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
No good scientist will ignore significant empirical evidence simply because he cannot detect a cause. The persistence and pervasiveness of religion is strong evidence that there is SOMETHING behind it. You can get more specific than that, but that alone suffices to defeat the claim that there is NO evidence.
J
J
Perfection
The Great Head.
There's no evidence that says god caused things things to come into motion
Leonel
Breakfast Connoisseur
The Bible doesn't tell you what the world is, it tells you how to live so that you can be in favor of the lord.
And refering to the sun-revolving-around-the-earth thing, it was not a battle between science and religion as many people would like to believe. Galileo claimed to be a devout Christian. Why the Pope didn't like Galileo was that because in a publication Galileo made, the dialogue between two characters was between the theory of the heliocentric and the geocentric theories of the solar system had a slow witted and basically dumb person that had the same idea about the universe as the Pope. The Pope saw that as an insult to his personage and got pissed of at Galileo, considering that the Pope admired Galileo's work. So it was a battle of egos or a battle between the Churches high authority and the personal individualism that Galileo displayed in his defiance against the monopoly of religion.
And refering to the sun-revolving-around-the-earth thing, it was not a battle between science and religion as many people would like to believe. Galileo claimed to be a devout Christian. Why the Pope didn't like Galileo was that because in a publication Galileo made, the dialogue between two characters was between the theory of the heliocentric and the geocentric theories of the solar system had a slow witted and basically dumb person that had the same idea about the universe as the Pope. The Pope saw that as an insult to his personage and got pissed of at Galileo, considering that the Pope admired Galileo's work. So it was a battle of egos or a battle between the Churches high authority and the personal individualism that Galileo displayed in his defiance against the monopoly of religion.
Small minded arguments. It always comes back to what the pope done, or what someone else did in europe, or the crusades.
Basically these are polital arguments that are man made.
Religion is a belief in a god or gods. Not what man has used it for.
I think a proper arugument on this topic should go way past your religious/political conditioning. If you are pro religous, you should argue a case that should encompase the religions in human history and not just the last 2000 years. Since god has always been there, then an explaination of religions past and present on a global scale should be included in any argument for the existance of god. We are all his creation, any sort of localised argument for god just sounds like tribalism other wise.
Basically these are polital arguments that are man made.
Religion is a belief in a god or gods. Not what man has used it for.
I think a proper arugument on this topic should go way past your religious/political conditioning. If you are pro religous, you should argue a case that should encompase the religions in human history and not just the last 2000 years. Since god has always been there, then an explaination of religions past and present on a global scale should be included in any argument for the existance of god. We are all his creation, any sort of localised argument for god just sounds like tribalism other wise.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Lets look religion up at dictionary.com
re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
So that seems that just spirtuality counts as some religion, although it is your own personal one
re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
So that seems that just spirtuality counts as some religion, although it is your own personal one
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
I always chuckle when some hot-headed atheist takes a bunch of Bible quotes, and some of the populist trash that passes itself off as tenets of the Christian faith, and weaves it all into a tapestry that somehow proves that all religion is bad, because several dozen varieties of one religion are bad.
Science modifies itself to accomodate the observations that belie its theories, we know this, and the originator states it in his magum opus assault on faith. The many flavors of Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism, Taoism, Hinduism, etc... prove that religion is similar to science in this regard. Many people searching for answers about the universe.
In all honesty, I can no longer even understand the desire to contrast science and religion. The two are branches of study that are trying to answer two completely different questions. Religion asks: 'What are we supposed to do?' Science asks: 'How did we get here?' The two do not overlap in any significant arena of thought, and the insignificant areas where they do overlap are always grey areas in science.
Wasting time, as a faithful person, arguing about these inconsequential overlaps, is foolishness. One's time could be far better spent doing what one's faith tells one to do. As a result, one would be serving as an example of the peace and harmony a faithful life can enjoy and share with neighbors.
As a man of science, butting one's head against the walls of time and fragmentary evidence that are the glaring realities of the paleo-sciences (anthropology, evolutionary biology, etc...), should be dismissed out-of-hand as wastes of resources better spent on useful research like cleaner energy, eco-friendly farming, combatting urban sprawl, and maybe developing a way to move large groups of humans off-world and keeping them alive and thriving. Imagine how much more usefully Darwin's life could have been spent in the Industrial Age if he had been researching less polluting energy sources than the coal that practically deforested Europe in that time.
Someone explain to me how being both a peaceable man of faith, and a researcher of ways to make the world a cleaner, more efficient place, is in any way a bad thing. Please.
Science modifies itself to accomodate the observations that belie its theories, we know this, and the originator states it in his magum opus assault on faith. The many flavors of Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism, Taoism, Hinduism, etc... prove that religion is similar to science in this regard. Many people searching for answers about the universe.
In all honesty, I can no longer even understand the desire to contrast science and religion. The two are branches of study that are trying to answer two completely different questions. Religion asks: 'What are we supposed to do?' Science asks: 'How did we get here?' The two do not overlap in any significant arena of thought, and the insignificant areas where they do overlap are always grey areas in science.
Wasting time, as a faithful person, arguing about these inconsequential overlaps, is foolishness. One's time could be far better spent doing what one's faith tells one to do. As a result, one would be serving as an example of the peace and harmony a faithful life can enjoy and share with neighbors.
As a man of science, butting one's head against the walls of time and fragmentary evidence that are the glaring realities of the paleo-sciences (anthropology, evolutionary biology, etc...), should be dismissed out-of-hand as wastes of resources better spent on useful research like cleaner energy, eco-friendly farming, combatting urban sprawl, and maybe developing a way to move large groups of humans off-world and keeping them alive and thriving. Imagine how much more usefully Darwin's life could have been spent in the Industrial Age if he had been researching less polluting energy sources than the coal that practically deforested Europe in that time.
Someone explain to me how being both a peaceable man of faith, and a researcher of ways to make the world a cleaner, more efficient place, is in any way a bad thing. Please.
The Troquelet
Conscious
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 1,950
A Philosopher says, I think.
A Believer says, I know.
An Agnostic says, I don't know.
A Scientist says, I'm going to find out.
A Believer says, I know.
An Agnostic says, I don't know.
A Scientist says, I'm going to find out.
The Troquelet
Conscious
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 1,950
Reply to Fl2: Conviction and curiosity do not go together. If you already think the world is one way, even with your eyes shut, what's the point in opening them to check, or maybe even make a different assessment?
ozscott75
Groper of Sand
You have a valid point. Science is just another religion to many, they blindly put their faith in Science and it's ability to provide the answers to all Man's questions.
However, your proposal that paleo-sciences are wasteful of time and resources is flawed. The ability to study what came before and learn from it has and will continue to enhance our ability to move forward.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Paleo Science is very important, by studying the past we better understand the principles of science and can work twords the future. Take evolution for example, that is being combined with computer programming to design complex cicuits that will aid in future technology.
joespaniel
Unescorted Settler
Is it safe to post in this thread yet?
Ive been staying back, waiting for all the landmines to go off first.
Ive been staying back, waiting for all the landmines to go off first.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Unfortunately science is backed by observational and experimental proof, religion is not.
There are many things that all scientists agree upon(and most of society for that matter) such as all things are composed of atoms, the earth goes around the sun, what goes up must come down, for every action there is a equal but opposite reaction. You can't say that for religions. Not every religious person agrees that 'God' created the universe. In the realm of religion, nothing is constant. Things are never agreed upon by different sects.
You can't debate that the Earth is round, but you can debate whether God of Allah created the world. You can debate wether Hinduism or Christianity is the "correct belief" because it just can't be proven.
Religion is based solely on faith. Much of science is not(as much as religious people like to believe it is), it is indeed hard, factual and proven evidence.
There are many things that all scientists agree upon(and most of society for that matter) such as all things are composed of atoms, the earth goes around the sun, what goes up must come down, for every action there is a equal but opposite reaction. You can't say that for religions. Not every religious person agrees that 'God' created the universe. In the realm of religion, nothing is constant. Things are never agreed upon by different sects.
You can't debate that the Earth is round, but you can debate whether God of Allah created the world. You can debate wether Hinduism or Christianity is the "correct belief" because it just can't be proven.
Religion is based solely on faith. Much of science is not(as much as religious people like to believe it is), it is indeed hard, factual and proven evidence.
