The Big DebateIf you feel the need to get your teeth stuck right into a heavy debate on a subject you feel really passionate about, then this is the place to do so. Post about religion, politics, laws and all things juicy like that here.
I found myself brave enough to start a topic about religion again.
Now, I want to hear you who accept sience and/or religion about why you only accept science or why you can mix science with religion. I want this to be a proper debate so please refrain of straight insults.
Actually I want to refrain the right to really insult a person to me.
I don't believe in god, some superior being, that there is someone watching over us, or anything like that, but I have faith and follow it, in the exact same fashion that those that do believe in a god, so what is the difference? Is it that people are following something that can not be proven scientifically, that doesn't take a physical manifestation, that is an ideal and, rather than a real physical power? I see nothing wrong in people choosing to follow faiths that embody their values and beliefs in the ideal that a god, an overseer of the universe has passed to them, for guidance.
So what does science say? It says that we are nothing more than flesh and blood, evolved from monkeys, essentially nothing more than animals that have crawled up the food chain, nothing better than any other organism on the planet, basically with the sole purpose of pro-creation and survival of the species, yet due to chemical reactions in the brain, we have developed a massive superiority complex that makes us feel we have the right to dictate whether every other species on the planet gets to live or not, we have developed skills that instead of being used for management of our habitat, have been used to destroy the vast majority of our planet, making large area's uninhabitable, etc, etc, etc.
What I would personally ask, is why such an insistance in putting down people who don't share your views, people who do follow religion, who believe in a god, who want to believe that life after death is a place in heaven if they live a good life, what is wrong with people wanting to believe that relatives who die are going to a nice peaceful resting place, rather than simply being burned or fed to worms. What is wrong with people following a set of guidelines in the form of the bible, Qur'an or any of the other holy scriptures, after all, their purpose is to get people to live a rightious life, for people to follow a good path and not be evil, bad, destructive, immoral, etc. What in science teaches people to live in a morally correct life, to be honest, to not harm other living creatures, etc?
The question for me isn't whether god exists, it is in what is wrong with something that wants people to not be bad to each other, for people to not murder, steal, rape, destroy, be glutons, etc, etc....
Me, I have faith in myself, I take what I need from what ever source, to make me learn by mistakes, so that I live as honest life as I can, it's not a faith in god, it's not a faith in science, it's a faith in myself and those around me that I trust. I believe in myself, I believe in my friends, I believe in those that live a life that my mind says is good.
So what if science can or does prove religion to be fiction, what does proving such thing do? Besides making the person doing the insulting feel smug for a bit. To me all it says, is that it makes billions of people on the planet suddenly not have a sense of guidance that they have spent their lives following, it says that people suddenly feel they don't have anything to say what is right or wrong as it is all lies.
I really don't get what the end goal is, in constantly knocking down people who follow a religion, all it does, is makes those into science as bigoted as those who constantly pimp/force religion onto others. Forcing opinion on either to the extent of aggression, is wrong and self defeatist.
It's easy to simply state things like, "where are the dinosaurs in the bible", etc, etc, "where is neanderthal man pre-dating the bible, by thousands of years", etc. Yet in simply doing so, it's not actually addressing the actual meaning, which is almost exclusively that people don't want to feel alone, insignificant, meaningless, in exactly the same way as those into science feel when they number crunch and think how enormous space is and how miniscule and insignificant we are when looking at the larger picture. Differece being, one is a very lonely place, the other isn't.
I don't believe in god, some superior being, that there is someone watching over us, or anything like that, but I have faith and follow it, in the exact same fashion that those that do believe in a god, so what is the difference? Is it that people are following something that can not be proven scientifically, that doesn't take a physical manifestation, that is an ideal and, rather than a real physical power? I see nothing wrong in people choosing to follow faiths that embody their values and beliefs in the ideal that a god, an overseer of the universe has passed to them, for guidance.
That's where we human beings go wrong. We like to think there's some higher power and an after-life in which we can make right all the things we did wrong during our material life. The belief in a Santa Claus hightens us to be the crown of the natural world, whilst we're merely an outcome of a natural process that lead to US BEING THERE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Detomah
So what does science say? It says that we are nothing more than flesh and blood, evolved from monkeys, essentially nothing more than animals that have crawled up the food chain, nothing better than any other organism on the planet, basically with the sole purpose of pro-creation and survival of the species, yet due to chemical reactions in the brain, we have developed a massive superiority complex that makes us feel we have the right to dictate whether every other species on the planet gets to live or not, we have developed skills that instead of being used for management of our habitat, have been used to destroy the vast majority of our planet, making large area's uninhabitable, etc, etc, etc.
Yes, we're flesh and blood. Science never said we evolved from monkeys. Basically it says we ARE MONKEYS and we are in fact animals that just learned how to walk on 2 feet. In they eye of the science we really aren't different from any mammal. As a specie we like our spiecies more, so does even piranhas, they may be the most blood hungry species living, but they don't end up eating other piranhas unless forced to. Even we may think we're the crown of the 'creation' we mostly have ended up into shitting areas to be uninhabitable. See for example ancient Greek/Rome areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Detomah
What I would personally ask, is why such an insistance in putting down people who don't share your views, people who do follow religion, who believe in a god, who want to believe that life after death is a place in heaven if they live a good life, what is wrong with people wanting to believe that relatives who die are going to a nice peaceful resting place, rather than simply being burned or fed to worms. What is wrong with people following a set of guidelines in the form of the bible, Qur'an or any of the other holy scriptures, after all, their purpose is to get people to live a rightious life, for people to follow a good path and not be evil, bad, destructive, immoral, etc. What in science teaches people to live in a morally correct life, to be honest, to not harm other living creatures, etc?
With the after-life I have some serious problems. After all what most of the religions say is that you can't enter the 'best place' after life without obeying their tenets. Now, If I do follow them and some of my best friends wouldn't then where would my best friends go to? Okay, they go to a limbo or whatever, but I should have some recollection of them. But they're lost to whatever and I have to grief for their nothingness, alone. The instant reply from the believers is that their deity makes me feel so that I don't remember the friends that did not follow me. Fine, I say. Then is it me who goes to the better place without my friends? If I don't have the memory of myself in the better place, then is it me who's happy everafter without my memories?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Detomah
The question for me isn't whether god exists, it is in what is wrong with something that wants people to not be bad to each other, for people to not murder, steal, rape, destroy, be glutons, etc, etc....
God's existance in imaginations has never stopped anything bad happening. When good happens it's praised to God, when shit happens it's just overlooked by saying "That's God's will.". Fucks sake we can still say it was bad luck or it was good luck, without any exaggeration towards some supernatural being.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Detomah
Me, I have faith in myself, I take what I need from what ever source, to make me learn by mistakes, so that I live as honest life as I can, it's not a faith in god, it's not a faith in science, it's a faith in myself and those around me that I trust. I believe in myself, I believe in my friends, I believe in those that live a life that my mind says is good.
Science is never good or bad, it just explains natural phenomenons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Detomah
So what if science can or does prove religion to be fiction, what does proving such thing do? Besides making the person doing the insulting feel smug for a bit. To me all it says, is that it makes billions of people on the planet suddenly not have a sense of guidance that they have spent their lives following, it says that people suddenly feel they don't have anything to say what is right or wrong as it is all lies.
So, why won't you be a good person just for the sake of it? Not because some imaginary being forcing you to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Detomah
I really don't get what the end goal is, in constantly knocking down people who follow a religion, all it does, is makes those into science as bigoted as those who constantly pimp/force religion onto others. Forcing opinion on either to the extent of aggression, is wrong and self defeatist.
Science isn't an opinion, it's an explanation of natural things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Detomah
It's easy to simply state things like, "where are the dinosaurs in the bible", etc, etc, "where is neanderthal man pre-dating the bible, by thousands of years", etc. Yet in simply doing so, it's not actually addressing the actual meaning, which is almost exclusively that people don't want to feel alone, insignificant, meaningless, in exactly the same way as those into science feel when they number crunch and think how enormous space is and how miniscule and insignificant we are when looking at the larger picture. Differece being, one is a very lonely place, the other isn't.
If anyone's meaning of life is dependent on some imaginary being saying so then there's something wrong in the brain. And I say that because I know that brains are a huge biochemical/electrical computer that can be programmed. So, when you are programmed to believe in imaginary beings, it's quite a shock to the computer to re-program areas that claim invisible untouchable to be true. it's not impossible, but it's very hard.
You really didn''t get what my point was, did you...
I'll respond in detail later, but I see little point, your rigid aggressive view towards religion, is even more rigid than that of any religious extremist, making it impossible to have a sensible discussion with you on this subject. I'm not religious as initially stated, but the constant bombardment towards those that are, is seriously offensive and I can understand why nobody at all can be bothered to keep on going over the same ground, when those that can't understand religion are so outrightly nasty against it.
Too many strawmen arguments. Everyone is perfectly fine to believe in a deity if they like, but that should not extend to imposing it onto anyone else, nor should it have to do with politics or running a state. Those days are supposedly long gone in the west since the reformation.
Believing in a god does not make you a good person just as not believeing in a god makes you a bad person. Science and religion in my opinion are not compatible, it is unfortunate that we have elvolved to be able to easily compartmentalise diametrically opposing evidence and views and live with them both. for me anyone who believes in a diety is frankly deluded. Religion was and is a way of controlling people.
Religion is all about control, it has little to do with virtue or being a good human, if it was then there would be only 1 religion, and very little war, we would all be living in a single culture. Unfortunately thats not the case.
Oh I know people can argue that its mans interpretation of the word of god that makes conflict and not religion, but that too is a strawman and a disingenous argument. If the word of god was irrefutable there is no need for interpretation, period.
Religion is constantly bleating on about how its under attack, yet again a very disingenous argument, since one of the tennets of religion is supposed to be based on tolerance, it doesnt itself tolerate other world views. Yes the bible in all its forms are totally contradictory, so is the torah and quran. Indeed you can see this intolerance by religion almost every single day when in the name of religion people are allowed to die, torcher each other, and otherwise abuse other people with no chance of being brought to book. this year alone 3 children were allowed to die in america because their parents decided the power of prayer alone would save them. In every case the illness was easily cured, yet the parents watched their kids die. And guess what? No charges of manslaughter because there is a law that states if they have a belief system and they truly believe in it then there can be no crime.
that is some of the utter nonsense that religion is.
As a comfort blanket religion is fine. If people need some sort of god becuase they are scared of their own mortality thats good for them, they delude themselves about death and an afterlife. but religion is nothing more than a comnfort blanket imnposed by the leaders of that religion to control peoples attitudes. The single most control over peoples lives in religion is sex. Sex in almost all its forms is seen as evil, only to be done reluctantly to have children. Fun is not allowed in religion.
I could go on for hours and hours about the failings and contradictions of religion, but not in this post.
I honestly feel that if anyone believes (note believe as in think something is true with absolutely no evidence whatsoever) in a deity they are deluded. It doesnt automatically make them stupid, just deluded, and questionable in their decision making.
naturally people feel insecure without something to believe in. especially for various questions like whats the meaning of life etc,
religion offers a belief, although the detail of what it offers is unbelievable nowadays.
people who think science offers an equivalent or better alternative to cope with this feeling or is incompatible with religion are wrong, even though it may be at odds with various religious texts.
those who believe science can explain our existence are in fact using science exactly like a religion.
evolution isn't an explanation to creation its just one microscopically small step.
the big bang theory requires faith as it has limited evidence.
and ofc the big question what caused the big bang has sparked 'M' theory which has less evidence than religion. - ie none, apart from pure conjecture.
to think of a person as a computer which is programmable is ludicrous. brainwashing people or programming them is limited and trying to control people like that isn't good for them.
especially in this area and science in general its obvious to most people who are at the forefront of science that you cant assume we will know all the answers, todo so is very unscientific, the more we dig for answers the more questions we raise along the way.
those who think they can argue science against religion shouldn't do so until they have studied the science of humanity.
As an atheist, I've spent an inordinate amount of time involved in Religion for the last year or so. This is due to my girlfriend suddenly discovering Christianity in a big way roughly 10 months ago. We spent time talking about it (less now as she invariably got upset), time with her Christian friends, we go to Church every Sunday that we're together, I did the Alpha course and I even fasted.
I've also realised how ignorant I was about religion: When I was younger, I didn't really think religion was an issue anymore and was all but dead, surely no-one took this seriously!? Since coming to Uni that view was turned on its head. Also in my current work environment, I've encountered so many people whose religion is so important to them.
I've always been interested in religion from a philosophical perspective, but after all this exposure to religion, I'm somewhat confused. I see how much happier it's made my girlfriend and those around her. I see a caring community at Church. I see respectable morals and guidelines. Would I want to take them all away? NO.
However, I also see a lot of harm. Do I want my girlfriend making irrational, potentially dangerous decisions because she felt a divine inspiration? Do I want all these good people wasting their time and investing all their trust and hopes in something that might eventually desert them? Do I want people beating each other up because they're so filled with the spirit that they're blinded to normal human decency? NO.
Who knows? It's something I'm constantly contemplating. I can sympathise with a Deist, but I find it hard to acknowledge the hateful, sadistic mass murderer that is the Judeo-Christian God, even for an ignorant bliss.
Slightly more on topic, I feel that much of scripture is refuted by Science and the Scientific method, and as such, they cannot coexist. This is painfully obvious to me, but not so for religious people. Other concepts within scripture - those pertaining to a God and spirituality - transcend Science in my opinion. Science cannot prove or disprove a God, nor is it required to. The existence of God is decided by the person, and we all seem to have differing opinions.
I truly hope that we can abandon religion one day, whilst adopting it's followers' sense of community and caring to each other (generally).
I truly hope the God(s) of scripture do not exist, for all our sakes.
Science has never been a belief system. Its a methodical approach on discovering the truth. Religion does not require truth nor evidence because it is based on neither. As an emotional crutch or safety blanket its fine. If people believe they need that then fair play, i still think they are deluded. Its simply because people are scared of their own mortality that they need this emotional crutch, a deity does nothing for no-one, it answers no questions. Apologists are just as bad in their delusion in my opinion.
I am not a good person because of religion im a good person because i want to be and its how i was brought up. I can be as "christian" as the next person, i do not need anyone to tell me how or any books thank you very much.
I am just as happy as any religious person without god, i dont need it. For every word that you think is spelling out a virtue in the bible i could point you to a contradictory paragraph. All religions are medievil myths perpetuated by those who want control, nothing more.
Science has never been a belief system. Its a methodical approach on discovering the truth...
I'm not sure if that was aimed at me, bit either way I agree with you.
When I was referring to good people I've met, those people are good people because of their nature. That's not to day that religion cannot breed good people - I can see that a lot of religious people would have a far worse character if they felt they didn't need to be good to get into heaven. Religious or not religious, there are good and bad people within all walks of life.
I have noticed though, that a lot of Atheists that I know (I'm talking people who've considered and investigated this, as opposed to people who don't give a shit), are pretty good people. Sometimes from the reactions I get from some people and things I've read/watched, I wreckon people expect Atheists to be ill mannered, destructive sodomites whose only goal is to entice people into Hell. I've observed quite the contrary however. Maybe because we believe that these 100 years that we get here are all we're going to get and, as such, are infinitely more precious. May as well spend them making them better for ourselves and others .
Realising that I haven't actually answered the question...
I accept Science.
I accept Science, because it has to be accepted. I use the word "accept" very loosely here. Unlike religion, there is no certainty in Science, there are no absolutes. If I accept something in Science, I am merely saying that I see that something has been asserted, tested and verified and I will accept it as a truth, until some other evidence comes along to show me I was wrong.
I do not accept religion.
I don't accept it for a myriad of reasons, however, the primary two reasons for me are the following:
I don't like any God I've read about - I think I'm morally superior to them all.
I don't feel a God, and at my girlfriend's request I've tried pretty damn hard.
I agree, the only decision to make is whether to accept religion or not.
basic science has absolutely nothing to do with it.
in its simplest level, science tells how quick our kettle will boil, and stuff like that.
this is simple observation and calculations, whats to make a choice on here ?
when it comes to wider context such as arguing if the earth is the centre of the universe or not, it is more difficult, although you can accept the science of the gravity and earth revolving around the sun, however science cant really determine the centre of the universe or tell if the universe is moving or not - due to relativity and so science cant exactly prove the earth isn't the centre - indeed all experiments to measure our speed through the universe have failed, if someone managed to measure this they would win the Nobel prize.
things like unified theory which might shed some light on this do require a leap of faith to accept them, especially as they cant decide if the universe has 11 or 13 dimensions.
those who believe science can explain our existence are in fact using science exactly like a religion.
evolution isn't an explanation to creation its just one microscopically small step.
the big bang theory requires faith as it has limited evidence.
and ofc the big question what caused the big bang has sparked 'M' theory which has less evidence than religion. - ie none, apart from pure conjecture.
First off, whilst my understanding of this sort of theoretical physics is at best very limited (mostly through lack of mathematical competence, which I'm slowly improving) I'd like to know how you're getting M-theory to explain the Big Bang... unless I'm just totally oblivious on the intricacies of the theory.
Also, the Big Bang is a pretty solid cosmological model. Most of the issues with the Big Bang arise because we just don't know enough about the universe. There are issues involving dark matter and dark energy, for instance, but we can't refine the BB theory until we know what dark matter is. Once we do, if it fits then the Big Bang can be refined and the theory is improved. If not, new theory. Such is science. However, the Big Bang theory has to date survived attempts at disproving it (through revision and improved observational data) as well as surviving beyond it's competitors such as the "steady state" model of the universe. It holds up pretty well, and a lot of the "limited" evidence is solid.
Religion, conversely, demands that you accept as truth what it says and offers little to none quantifiable evidence in support of this. The little evidence that is provided is a very old book, that has been translated countless times by who knows who, and that for all we know was written by some guys who knew the ancient cousin of David Copperfield and wanted to pull a L Ron Hubbard and con people out of their cash. Perhaps that's a bit harsh, but lets be scientific here - prove me wrong.
My personal view is that religion is nothing but a means to control the populace for the benefit of the Church. Look back to a time in this country where the Church was a central authoritative figure - what do you come up with: The Dark Ages. The argument of "science vs religion", though, always struck me as pointless since no truly faithful man will ever accept the principles of science due to his staunch and unyielding belief in what religion says is right, and no man of science will accept religion since it's unprovable...
I think that when the M stood for membrane it was believed that 2 such membranes coming together could release enough energy to create the universe. it seems as though M doesn't stand for anything specifically now as thieve lost confidence in it.
I think the big bang theory has very little evidence that one can consider real proof as such, ,,,well,,, it depends how far you follow it back in time.
it does seem the stars are moving away from a central point, but when it was measured more accurately it was found it was no longer a well defined central point.
puzzlingly, various cosmological machinations and constants have been created out of thin air because scientists seem to want to stick to this belief that the universe comes from a point of zero size. yet the evidence is a long way short of being accurate to determine if its a single point less than 1 micron or less, it might just as well be infinity percent error lol :- at best i think its something like the distance of many millions of galaxies. which i guess isn't far when you consider the size of the whole universe lol.
these constants and such cant be then used as proof of the big bang as they have been adjusted so that the big bang model works.
I think if you claim to be a scientist and you use the logic "i must be right because no one has proved me wrong" then you will be laughed of the face of the earth by the religious guys.
whatever science comes up with to explain the start of the universe, there will always be the question well what caused that then? and so on and so on,, the same problem dogs religion too, although obviously god has always been there which is convenient ! i somehow don't think science can get away with saying the same thing.
if you are a true scientist you will keep an open mind as to what the real answer is.
the rather big piece of evidence you seem to be missing for religion is the very fact that we are here, although how we got here according to the bible is a little bit comic today.
the fact that we are here is truly incredible, but that offers little proof of the nature of the creator or whatever.
I think everyone who is so into the science versus religion thing are missing out on life tbh.
one form of religion just simply says god is what or whoever created everything.
oh and btw ,,,, quantum levels strikes me as very similar effect as what you would expect from the floating point rounding in a computer simulation.
whatever science comes up with to explain the start of the universe, there will always be the question well what caused that then? and so on and so on,, the same problem dogs religion too, although obviously god has always been there which is convenient ! i somehow don't think science can get away with saying the same thing.
Absolutely boggles my mind to be honest - in a fascinated way. I think it's great that there are things in this universe that we'll likely never be able to understand. I suppose that's why people hold onto religion as well as science. Science doesn't explain everything (at least not currently), and due to a natural human need for answers, this facilitates the existence of a God.
I suppose this is why many people hold on to their religious views, despite it being obliterated by Science and logical reason (in my opinion, of course). A lot of people need answers that they can understand!
I think the big bang theory has very little evidence that one can consider real proof as such, ,,,well,,, it depends how far you follow it back in time.
it does seem the stars are moving away from a central point, but when it was measured more accurately it was found it was no longer a well defined central point.
Big Bang theory's evidence is rewinding the current movement of the universe back to the point where there was no time nor space (time is space and vice versa). Universe's central point is everywhere as we started from a singularity dot that expanded the edges of that dot is just everywhere. Universe has a mass central point though.
What was before big bang is obvious, all matter was one dense spot that embodied everything even space-time curved around itself. All matter at the moment consist of more than 99.9999% of empty space so when you take all the emptiness away you get one dense spot that consisted of everything.
Take for an example of a black hole. You know that you can't observe behind the event horizon but you know that what went it is there, right.
Science never said there was NOTHING before the big bang, it's unknown but we know that everything existed before the BB. So, matter is eternal.
to think of a person as a computer which is programmable is ludicrous. brainwashing people or programming them is limited and trying to control people like that isn't good for them.
Indoctrination (dogma based brainwashing) starts at very early age, some start their brainwashing before their children can read or speak. These brainwashed people grow up and sometimes they can leave the religion behind but more likely if they try to abandon their beliefs they are more likely to run into serious mental problems.
Little test you about the brains, ask someone to rise their hand when they see you waving a red paper. Then wave a red paper to them and ask them did you have time to think what colour the paper was. That rising of hand comes before cognitive areas in brains activate. Meaning you weren't thinking before you acted. That's been tested several times.
What does it say then? It says you don't have a free will after all. You act before you think.
I think that when the M stood for membrane it was believed that 2 such membranes coming together could release enough energy to create the universe. it seems as though M doesn't stand for anything specifically now as thieve lost confidence in it.
I think the big bang theory has very little evidence that one can consider real proof as such, ,,,well,,, it depends how far you follow it back in time.
The mathematics involved in all this is still somewhat beyond me, but after doing a little reading it does seem that you might be right and they did want to use M-theory to describe the Big Bang. Also, the theory has never been called "Membrane theory" as far as I know as the scientist who developed it was never a big fan of the theory of branes. Bit like Einstein wasn't a fan of the expanding universe.
I'll assume that you're citing the CMB as the one definitive proof of the Big Bang: it offers proof that the universe was once hotter than it is today, and all observations and measurements of the CMB are consistent with the BB theory - no other cosmological theory has suitably explained it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meow
puzzlingly, various cosmological machinations and constants have been created out of thin air because scientists seem to want to stick to this belief that the universe comes from a point of zero size. yet the evidence is a long way short of being accurate to determine if its a single point less than 1 micron or less, it might just as well be infinity percent error lol :- at best i think its something like the distance of many millions of galaxies. which i guess isn't far when you consider the size of the whole universe lol.
these constants and such cant be then used as proof of the big bang as they have been adjusted so that the big bang model works.
I suspect that science works along a principle closer to the idea that it's better to try and fix a mostly working theory than to throw it out and start afresh. I can only think of one theory that required physicists to throw out everything they previously held dear, which was quantum theory. For the record, I despise Schrodinger's wave equations. Ugly, ugly things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meow
I think if you claim to be a scientist and you use the logic "i must be right because no one has proved me wrong" then you will be laughed of the face of the earth by the religious guys.
Well physics is a pretty mathematical subject, but proof by contradiction is quite possibly the easiest way of testing a theory where it's not practicable to experimentally verify predictions. Someone posits that some theory is true, and offers up their reasoning and some measure of proof as well as predictions on how this new theory affects relevant things. You can either test the predictions, and see if they hold up, or you can poke holes in it.
I can see your point, though, that religious people may just use the argument of "Well disprove God!" to hold up their faith. Sadly, I'm pretty certain that scientific papers detailing new theories offer initial supporting proof that should hold to scrutiny. We then test this proof, and see how it holds up. I suppose we could make the Bible into a scientific document, since it does predict that Jesus is going to come back. All the other evidence doesn't really stand up to much prodding, unless you're willing to just accept it as truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meow
if you are a true scientist you will keep an open mind as to what the real answer is.
the rather big piece of evidence you seem to be missing for religion is the very fact that we are here, although how we got here according to the bible is a little bit comic today.
the fact that we are here is truly incredible, but that offers little proof of the nature of the creator or whatever.
There's a difference between keeping an open mind to the possibility that true understanding of the physical principles that govern our existence our still eluding our grasp and being aware that there are theories that have held up under intense scrutiny for many many years.
And yes, that is the one big proof for religion - we're here. Roll on the day when we find provable evidence for life, either past or present, elsewhere in the galaxy or the universe. How is religion going to explain that God secretly made other races... That said, the nature of our existence being "incredible"... that's somewhat debatable. There are theories that making basic life is actually quite straightforward.
I really don't get you lot at times... Why not just make a science thread to discuss science and leave religion out of it, rather than do what has been done here, which is on a par with a primative witch hunt. The non-discussable anti religion stance being displayed here is far more aggressive, unsavoury and insulting than anything i've ever read by people who follow God on TF or most other places for that matter. Hell, why not just bring on the gay bashing and wife battery while your at it.... You couldn't just have a civilised discussion, you've basically insulted absolutely anything religious related... I'm ashamed, really, I never figured that people on TF would be so tunnel visioned and biggoted just because your views and beliefs differ. Or maybe it's just because i've stepped backed and simply watched this, whatever it is, I suddenyl find myself thinking... It's no wonder anyone with any religious tendancies doesn't bother to ever try to hold any kind of discussion on TF on this subject, those that don't believe don't have the ability to discuss it in any kind of dignified manner...
*shakes head*
All i've seen here, is using science as a vessel to insult religion, without any provacation, reason or justification.
I really don't get you lot at times... Why not just make a science thread to discuss science and leave religion out of it, rather than do what has been done here, which is on a par with a primative witch hunt. The non-discussable anti religion stance being displayed here is far more aggressive, unsavoury and insulting than anything i've ever read by people who follow God on TF or most other places for that matter. Hell, why not just bring on the gay bashing and wife battery while your at it.... You couldn't just have a civilised discussion, you've basically insulted absolutely anything religious related... I'm ashamed, really, I never figured that people on TF would be so tunnel visioned and biggoted just because your views and beliefs differ. Or maybe it's just because i've stepped backed and simply watched this, whatever it is, I suddenyl find myself thinking... It's no wonder anyone with any religious tendancies doesn't bother to ever try to hold any kind of discussion on TF on this subject, those that don't believe don't have the ability to discuss it in any kind of dignified manner...
*shakes head*
All i've seen here, is using science as a vessel to insult religion, without any provacation, reason or justification.
I hope I haven't made a personal attack against, nor made an unfounded and unreasonable attack against a person or group of people. If I have, please point it out to me and I'd be willing to either apologise, or discuss why I made such a statement.
I find it hard to see where you're coming from though. To me, I find it hard to understand how people can believe in the bible etc. I find it quite ludicrous. This is merely my opinion. I don't see why you have to shelter everyones' beliefs. If they have a belief then they should stand up and say why they believe it, provide their evidence and enter into a debate with me. I say they're delusional and emotionally dependent on something which is evil and completely irrational. They say I just want to sin and that I need to open my eyes and that I'm blinded by Science. Why can we not have this discussion Detomah? I see no-one here offering a "l0l u believes in God, u sucks just u do hahah!!1!!1" argument.
I have been criticised for being an Atheist. Do I expect someone to intervene and tell them they can't think I'm insane for not sharing their beliefs? No I don't. I provide my views and evidence and tell them what I think of their arguments.
Maybe we have no theists left here on TF, maybe they just can't be bothered to reply. I think if they want to defend their beliefs, then damn well stand up and make your point and accept any criticism that comes your way as would be expected on any other topic.
Edit: I do agree however, that this is getting OT. This is to be expected however, as no-one has really provided an opposing argument.
I really don't get you lot at times... Why not just make a science thread to discuss science and leave religion out of it, rather than do what has been done here, which is on a par with a primative witch hunt. The non-discussable anti religion stance being displayed here is far more aggressive, unsavoury and insulting than anything i've ever read by people who follow God on TF or most other places for that matter. Hell, why not just bring on the gay bashing and wife battery while your at it.... You couldn't just have a civilised discussion, you've basically insulted absolutely anything religious related... I'm ashamed, really, I never figured that people on TF would be so tunnel visioned and biggoted just because your views and beliefs differ. Or maybe it's just because i've stepped backed and simply watched this, whatever it is, I suddenyl find myself thinking... It's no wonder anyone with any religious tendancies doesn't bother to ever try to hold any kind of discussion on TF on this subject, those that don't believe don't have the ability to discuss it in any kind of dignified manner...
*shakes head*
All i've seen here, is using science as a vessel to insult religion, without any provacation, reason or justification.
I take issue with the Church as a religious institution, though I don't honestly hold any serious quarrel with anyone who chooses - for an educated reason - to follow a religion. Personally, my views probably fall most closely to Atheism, but my personal experience of people who're involved with the Church has lead me to see two types of religious person: intelligent following and mindless dogmatic drones.
I count quite a few very active, very involved Christians among my friends from various denominations. I have, for my own reasons, challenged quite a few of them on their faith over the years. I have no issue with people, such as my friends, who are intelligently following a religion. Yes, I did go and say that. There are people who can look at a religion for what it is, and utilise the best parts of it to improve themselves and help others in a positive way. They aren't pushing anything on anyone, and most importantly whenever I've argued the scientific high-ground they've always had an intelligent and reasoned counter to anything I've said. Their beliefs are their own, they've made the religion their own and they're jolly aware of what they believe and why. That I'll respect.
What I object to, is religious institutions that demand blind and irrational belief in things that are fundamentally backward or inherently untrue. There are still religious nutters who refuse to believe the Earth is several millions of years old, or believe that homosexuality is a disease and that people who are part of the LGBT community are sinners and are going to burn in the eternal fire of Hell. I object to mindless belief that propagates nothing but ignorance, intolerance and ultimately hatred for anything your religion deems "wrong".
It's my opinion that you're welcome to believe in whatever you like, be it Catholicism, Buddhism or scientific principle. It's my opinion that I, and everyone else, has the right to challenge what you believe - because if you're following anything for the right reasons, because it's relevant and beneficial to you and you're not just another mindless drone doing what a good drone does, you'll be able to defend your beliefs in a competent and reasoned manner without anyone being able to shake them. If you can't defend your own opinions, then how are we so sure they're your own and not someone else's you're just regurgitating?
[Edit] Could have been read as though I thought that being gay was a disease. Sincerest apologies.
Religion or science, both or just one?
.
Linear Mode
