Science VS. Religion


Ad: Buy Girls Und Panzer Merch from Play Asia!
QUOTE
On the flip side you do get some atheist who force their opinion onto others. They often ridicule other religions and may even show contempt to people who are religious citing science is the true answer. Then again this isn't a problem of science but a problem of believes. Science, unlike religion does not have a code of morals or believes that people must adhere to. Its main function is to present facts about the world around us. Sure there are scientific laws and theories but none of these are absolute and can change over time.

First point : Quite often, religions need no one to be ridiculous. When seeing the Church's policy regarding condoms and the AIDS pandemy in Africa... My scorn for this position isn't because I'm agnostic, but because the position is morally evil.

Second point : people are people, whether they are religious or not.
You'll find atheist rude people just like you'll find religious rude people, and you'll find atheist good people just like you'll find religious good people.
In both cases, rude peopl are more vocal than good people, and media love them better.


QUOTE
I've known many people who don't believe in god but when questioned about it they don't really know. They don't give proper reasons: "I dunno, a god seems rather silly" or they even avoid the subject all together. Often these atheists who claim not to follow religion then celebrate Christmas when it comes along! Heck a few of them even join in the Muslim Eid celebration but maintain they're atheists! rolleyes.gif I think it's a clear case of going with the flow sheep style!

I don't really understand : It's bad when atheists ridiculize religions, but it's also sheepish when they accompany religious people ?
Nothing prevent them from participating to religious celebrations (At least if Christmas is still a religious celebrations, which is not my opinion) with friends or family, as long as it's done with some respect.

And you're right about a lot of atheists not knowing why they are atheists.
But ask a theist why he believes in God, and you wont have better answers.

That why I'm agnostic :
Firstly because we don't have proof of God or of non-God.
Secondly because I've already my own moral values. And if God suddenly appearsamong the clouds in a golden light, either his values will match mines and I won't change my lifestyle, or his values won't match mines and I won't take this Divine Jerk as my God, no thanks.

So anyway, the existence of non-existence of God won't change anything. So being agnostic is the most consistant position.

-----------------------------------------------

QUOTE

well, I will always argue that religion was a precursor to science. Humans have always been curious creatures, and so want to know what is happening in their world. Why does it rain? Where Did we come from? What Happens to us when we die? To answer these questions, religion was developed, particularly to answer the questions of where we came from, and where we go. Religion in itself relies on the mystical, the root of which is mysterious.


Precursor of science and ethics then.
Except if you believe than science can solve anything, even moral problems, but then you'll have to convince us.
 
QUOTE (Dalriada @ Dec 07 2008, 02:35 AM)That why I'm agnostic :
Firstly because we don't have proof of God or of non-God.
Secondly because I've already my own moral values. And if God suddenly appearsamong the clouds in a golden light, either his values will match mines and I won't change my lifestyle, or his values won't match mines and I won't take this Divine Jerk as my God, no thanks.
I see it similarly to you, however I still refer to myself as an athiest. Although I can't prove or disprove a god, the existence of a god is not consistent with the laws that exist in our universe, and therefor cannot possibly exist in my mind.
If a god came out of the sky, though, it would be just like you said. Either his morals would match mine or they wouldn't. If they didn't, I'd oppose this god. Even if it meant being on his bad side and suffering hell for all eternity, I'd at least know I have higher moral values than this being.
 
QUOTE That religion still believes the other sects will be thrust down into the bowels of hell, not just atheists/agnostics.

You’ve lost me in the earlier part, so I’ll just comment on the above-quoted last sentence.

It isn’t that “religion still believes”, but rather, that’s “what the Scriptures say”. And since the Scriptures are deemed as the “inspired Word of God”, no one has the right to change them. Even if any biologically living person does have that kind of authority, there is no logic in repealing its contents in a way that accommodates the very people and things that it is intended to warn or speak against.

How would you like it if an animal rights activist tried to remove or tamper with a sign that says “Beware of Alligators” for the reason that “it spreads hate towards alligators”?



QUOTE But realize, in this day and age, it's usually much easier to be religious than it is to be a secularist.

In what way is it easier?



QUOTE I have never met a non-believer who hasn't put a lot of thought into religious matters. Usually, for someone to push it to the extreme and call themselves atheists/agnostic means that they have put much deliberation into it, and very comfortable with their own beliefs, as well as familiar with the beliefs of most other major religions, especially if they were already born into a particular religion. Explain to me why, then, should an atheist/agnostic be perfectly happy with religion when all the world's major holy books state that they should be immediately converted, stoned to death, that they should be considered evil, lawless, immoral heathens, and that they shall burn in hell for all eternity?

Immediately converted – out of concern

Stoned to death – see John 8:3-7

Should be considered evil, lawless, immoral heathens – got to call a “spade” a “spade”

Shall burn in hell for all eternity – hence the urgency of conversion; so you hopefully won’t

Now that I’ve addressed your concerns, please explain to me why God should be pleased with the people you’ve referred to?



QUOTE I would have to call that statement very narrow-minded. 99% of the time, atheists haven't decided to become atheists simply because they're "too lazy" or "immoral" to follow the teachings of any particular faith.

You don’t have the statistics for that “99%”, do you?

I, on the other hand, looked around and found myself some:

”Among people aligned with faiths other than Christianity, half or more described each of seven behaviors as "morally acceptable" - gambling, co-habitation, sexual fantasies, having an abortion, having a sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex other than their spouse, pornography and profanity. Atheists and agnostics were the people most likely to describe any of these behaviors as morally acceptable. In total, atheists and agnostics defined nine of the ten behaviors as morally legitimate, dismissing only the use of non-prescription drugs.” (Source: http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Ba...rnaUpdateID=152 )



QUOTE Remember, belief in god does not bring with it any set of moral codes, that come with religion, and the vast array of different religions means that anyone could find any religion with any set of moral beliefs that fit their agenda (we see that happen all the time throughout history, even today).

But the same could be said of the atheist and gay movements; “…with any set of moral beliefs that fit their agenda.”



QUOTE Often it's a moral value of religion that the atheist/agnostic finds revolting that leads them to leave, not the other way around. Take, for example, the very common religious values of: seeing homosexuality as a vile, unforgivable act because of a few old-testament references;

The Bible speaks against other sexual practices and forms of sexuality, but I don’t see atheists and agnostics having a problem with those. Isn’t that the very same “cherry-picking” you’re accusing the adherents to the Bible of?



QUOTE believing that those who don't believe in your particular faith are hell-bound sinners who must either be converted or rejected;

I’ve already addressed this earlier.



QUOTE mutilating children's genitalia;

Are you referring to male circumcision?

How about the killing of “UNWANTED” unborn children and the lobbying for its legitimization?



QUOTE believing that anything that doesn't support their particular faith is some Devil-derived deception;

If it’s not that, what is it then?



QUOTE or that young children incapable of making their own decisions are, all over the world, being forced into their parent's religion, never giving the child a chance for themselves to decide what's right, what's wrong, which belief systems are sane and which are not.

I was born into my parents’ religion. That didn’t stop me from eventually walking away from it.

But let’s talk about “right and wrong”, “sane or insane”. You think children are capable of making that kind of discernment? Especially with all kinds of influences and social elements out there?

And it’s ironic that you should even mention “never giving the child a chance”, considering how atheists don’t seem to have a problem with labeling an unborn child that was born out of promiscuity (I’m not talking about cases of rape) “UNWANTED” and deciding to just get rid of it.



QUOTE There is a whole number of things besides religion's demonization of sex to make them disagree with their belief system.

“Promiscuous sex”.



QUOTE Of course, not all religions believe in those things I mentioned above, or, at least, don't take the punishments (usually death) to the same extremes as described in the Old Testament. Of course, these religions used to, but nowadays very, very, very few people, only the most extreme religious fanatics, take the Bible to a pure literal interpretation. Not only would they have to stone more than half the world to death (there is quite a wide list of people who need to be killed in the Old Testament),

I’ve already addressed this earlier. See John 8:3-7



QUOTE but they themselves would need to be subjected to an incredibly strict moral code which most, if not, all Christians now deem unnecessary or impractical.

And your point is…?



QUOTE We see all throughout history an evolution of religion, the exact beliefs or the punishments for not following have adjusted to suit the ethical codes of the day. It just goes to show that, because everyone cherry-picks what they take as literal or not in the Bible, they're not getting their ethics from the Bible. Rather, they are simply choosing the teachings that they most agree with.

My bet is on the Gospels.



QUOTE It's important to realize that (in the words of Barack Obama) religion does not have a monopoly on morals.

I agree. But religious morals are constant. Even if the followers of the religion don’t abide by them or understand them differently from one another, they remain unchanged.



QUOTE It just goes to show, an atheist doesn't need science to be an atheist.

Is this an admission that despite all that talk about fossil evidence for Evolution, and the lack of empirical evidence for the existence of God; atheism all just really boils down to a form of “rebellion”?

In any case, I found this article about atheists’ morals:
http://www.carm.org/atheism/atheistandethics.htm



QUOTE that it's a problem when people start trying to force their religious beliefs onto others.

It’s a problem when people try to force their beliefs onto others. It doesn’t have to be religious in nature.



QUOTE However, I'd just take it a step further, seeing as how most religions state that their followers need to spread it around the globe. Forcing faith onto others is a problem of the individual, and not a problem with the faith, but when forcing your faith onto others is an intrinsic part of your faith, then it's a problem with the faith.

Spreading religion is “forcing”… but imposing to everyone to be okay with homosexuality, or to accept the Theory of Evolution as factual despite its numerous flaws, is not?



QUOTE About 90% of my friends are deeply religious (go figure) and for the most part, they've learned to not try and push their beliefs on me, and I'm fine with that. However, their religions state that they *should* be trying to force their beliefs onto me, it's right in their holy books. That, to me, is a very, very major problem with religion.

Has any percentage of that same 90% of your friends ever tried to stone you to death before learning not to, allegedly, impose their beliefs onto you? If you don’t mind, I’d like to see those scriptures that say “they should be trying to force their beliefs onto you”.

Speaking of numbers and imposing beliefs onto others, here’s some articles I’ve found:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder
http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Soc...ry_of_Evolution



QUOTE ...and not a problem with science, lol.

The problem with science is different.



QUOTE Although I can't prove or disprove a god, the existence of a god is not consistent with the laws that exist in our universe, and therefor cannot possibly exist in my mind.

It’s always easy to say “laws” without citing any. I’ve seen an atheist do that before.



QUOTE If a god came out of the sky, though, it would be just like you said. Either his morals would match mine or they wouldn't. If they didn't, I'd oppose this god. Even if it meant being on his bad side and suffering hell for all eternity, I'd at least know I have higher moral values than this being.

That’s not “having higher moral values”, but simply, “pride”. But you do that. You put your money where your mouth is and do that.

And if your basis for determining moral value is compatibility with respect to your own subjective, faulty, “human” (as opposed to “divine”) morals, then you’re hardly in a position to tell even yourself what’s right or what’s wrong. God can see everything… knows everything. You can’t even see or know past your own ego.

For anyone interested, here’s a relevant article that I found:
http://www.carm.org/atheism/God_just.htm
 
QUOTE Spreading religion is “forcing”… but imposing to everyone to be okay with homosexuality, or to accept the Theory of Evolution as factual despite its numerous flaws, is not?

Nobody is forcing you to be okay with homosexuality, dang it!!! Your statement is freaking flawed... Idiotic... Pointless!!! We're just saying nobody can deny a human their basic human rights because of your opinion on their sexuality.


QUOTE That’s not “having higher moral values”, but simply, “pride”. But you do that. You put your money where your mouth is and do that.

And if your basis for determining moral value is compatibility with respect to your own subjective, faulty, “human” (as opposed to “divine”) morals, then you’re hardly in a position to tell even yourself what’s right or what’s wrong. God can see everything… knows everything. You can’t even see or know past your own ego.

It is most certainly not pride.
If this god tells me that anyone who is different will go to hell, or that I will go to hell for using the supposed "free will" that he granted me the right to use, or any other stupid arbitrary rules, then this god is a crazy coot. I would in fact have a higher set of moral values than this idiot.
In what way is my moral value faulty because I'm human? If this god's moral values are "divine," then there should be no feasible error with them. Yet I can find quite a few.
A rule should not be pious because God arbitrarily said so. If his set of morals was indeed pious, then they would stand on their own accord. I wouldn't need convincing. Unless your god can produce a better reason for me to discriminate and hate my fellow man other than, "I said so," then he is not divine, perfect, and all knowing. He wouldn't come up with a set of rules unless they actually made frigg'n sense.


QUOTE The Bible speaks against other sexual practices and forms of sexuality, but I don’t see atheists and agnostics having a problem with those. Isn’t that the very same “cherry-picking” you’re accusing the adherents to the Bible of?

Athiests and agnostics don't say that everything in the bible is wrong. You're belief that we are all disagree with it 100% is idiotic. You're mistaken in thinking that athiests and agnostics have no sense of morals. There is no cherry-picking at all.

Your argument misses the point entirely (again).

Why am I not surprised, though?
 
Style over substance is it?


QUOTE Nobody is forcing you to be okay with homosexuality, dang it!!!
Here’s what you said earlier on (Page 7 of this thread):
“I don't think anyone is trying to convince you to be gay or that gay is better, but simply saying that it is okay to be gay.”

If someone can just refer to the mere “spreading of religion” as “forcing”, why can’t I refer to that (and the other things that go with it which I have already stated before) as “forcing” too? And it wasn’t me who brought the “forcing” card on the table, I’m just working with what I’ve been dealt with.



QUOTE Your statement is freaking flawed... Idiotic... Pointless!!! We're just saying nobody can deny a human their basic human rights because of your opinion on their sexuality.
But don’t you think pedophiles, bigamists/polygamists, and zoophiles are also denied of their basic human rights in this sense? I mean, homosexuals are “wired” (because you implied before that it isn’t a choice) to be sexually attracted to people of the same gender, so that gives them the right to lust after and engage in sexual activity with such people. Pedophiles are “wired” to be sexually attracted to children. Bigamists/Polygamists are “wired” to need more than one partner. Zoophiles are “wired” to be sexually attracted to animals. What part of that logic aren’t you getting?

And we’re not talking about my opinion, we’re talking about what’s in the Bible. Did you even bother to read the statement I was replying to?



QUOTE It is most certainly not pride.
Definition of PRIDE from Merriam-Webster.com:
1: the quality or state of being proud: as a: inordinate self-esteem : CONCEIT b: a reasonable or justifiable self-respect c: delight or elation arising from some act, possession, or relationship <parental pride>
2: proud or disdainful behavior or treatment : DISDAIN
3 a: ostentatious display

Definition of INORDINATE from Merriam-Webster.com:
2: exceeding reasonable limits

Definition of CONCEIT from Merriam-Webster.com:
(2): individual opinion b: favorable opinion ; especially : excessive appreciation of one's own worth or virtue

Definition of DISDAIN from Merriam-Webster.com:
a feeling of contempt for someone or something regarded as unworthy or inferior

Definition of OSTENTATIOUS from Merriam-Webster.com:
marked by or fond of conspicuous or vainglorious and sometimes pretentious display



QUOTE If this god tells me that anyone who is different will go to hell, or that I will go to hell for using the supposed "free will" that he granted me the right to use, or any other stupid arbitrary rules, then this god is a crazy coot. I would in fact have a higher set of moral values than this idiot.
Well, supposing I own a building. And I gave you the permission to do anything you want to do within its premises. But I tell you not to jump off from any of the floors because you’ll either get badly hurt or die. Does that make me “crazy”, an “idiot”, or “immoral”?



QUOTE In what way is my moral value faulty because I'm human?
Are you saying that it has no flaws whatsoever?



QUOTE If this god's moral values are "divine," then there should be no feasible error with them. Yet I can find quite a few.
I thought this issue has already been addressed in one of the articles I’ve posted a link to. Apparently, you didn’t take the time to read it. Here, I’ll post it again for everyone’s convenience:
http://www.carm.org/atheism/God_just.htm



QUOTE A rule should not be pious because God arbitrarily said so. If his set of morals was indeed pious, then they would stand on their own accord. I wouldn't need convincing.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pious



QUOTE Unless your god can produce a better reason for me to discriminate and hate my fellow man other than, "I said so," then he is not divine, perfect, and all knowing. He wouldn't come up with a set of rules unless they actually made frigg'n sense.
It’s actually “hate evil”, not “hate your fellow man”.



QUOTE Athiests and agnostics don't say that everything in the bible is wrong. You're belief that we are all disagree with it 100% is idiotic. You're mistaken in thinking that athiests and agnostics have no sense of morals.
I didn’t say that. In fact, I acknowledged that “religion does not have a monopoly on morals”. However, I’m pointing out the difference between religious morals, particularly with respect to the Bible, and atheist morals.



QUOTE There is no cherry-picking at all.
This contradicts with what you’ve just said:
“Athiests and agnostics don't say that everything in the bible is wrong. You're belief that we are all disagree with it 100% is idiotic.”

So how do atheists and agnostics decide on what to agree or disagree with when it comes to the Bible? When it serves their interests, they agree with it. When it gets in their way, they disagree with it. Tell me if that isn’t “cherry-picking”.



QUOTE Your argument misses the point entirely (again).
No, it doesn’t.



QUOTE Why am I not surprised, though?
Why am I not surprised that you’re down to expletives and unchecked definitions?
 
QUOTE
Here’s what you said earlier on (Page 7 of this thread):
“I don't think anyone is trying to convince you to be gay or that gay is better, but simply saying that it is okay to be gay.”


It just means that it's okay for other people to be gay, but that you don't have to be gay yourself if you don't want to.
Just like it's okay to be Christian, but I don't have to be Christian since I don't want to.

It's exactly the same thing. Except that gays have killed far less people through history.


QUOTE But don’t you think pedophiles, bigamists/polygamists, and zoophiles are also denied of their basic human rights in this sense? I mean, homosexuals are “wired” (because you implied before that it isn’t a choice) to be sexually attracted to people of the same gender, so that gives them the right to lust after and engage in sexual activity with such people. Pedophiles are “wired” to be sexually attracted to children. Bigamists/Polygamists are “wired” to need more than one partner. Zoophiles are “wired” to be sexually attracted to animals. What part of that logic aren’t you getting?

We've already told you the difference between homosexuality and paedophilia.
Have you the memory of a goldfish or what ?


QUOTE
Well, supposing I own a building. And I gave you the permission to do anything you want to do within its premises. But I tell you not to jump off from any of the floors because you’ll either get badly hurt or die. Does that make me “crazy”, an “idiot”, or “immoral”?

Supposing a raving beggar comes to my house and says that he owns the building, and gives me a lot of rules, some logical, some completely strange.
If he doesn't give me some proofs that he owns effectively the building, I think "crazy" would be a right epithet



QUOTE
This contradicts with what you’ve just said:
“Athiests and agnostics don't say that everything in the bible is wrong. You're belief that we are all disagree with it 100% is idiotic.”

How could they be cherry-picking, since they just don't care about the Bible.
I've my own moral values, completely unrelated with the Bible. And then, I realize that some of those values are in agreement with the Bible (or with the Koran, or with any other religion) and some aren't.
It's not cherry-picking, it's strawberry-taking and then saying that cherrys and strawberries are both red.


QUOTE
No, it doesn’t.


Yes, it does !
Wow ! I won the debate !

Seriously, can't we close this thread too ?
It wandered off-topic too much, I don't think it can go back on the track (mainly because one side is not really interested in speaking about science, it seems).


---------------

QUOTE

I feel at this point that Dalraida and Casshern don't behave they should be made to stand in the corridor holding buckets of water rolleyes.gif

And I fell that, since you're not a mod, your repeated patronizing comments are as off-topic as mine. So take your buckets and go with us in the corridor
 
At this point I'd also like to request this thread to be closed before the "debate" becomes a slanging match.
I'm fairly sure that the thread has drifted from it's orginal purpose.
A debate about science vs religion should include logical arguements supported by evidence for these arguements and I mean arguements in the philosophical sense.ie. points of debate which give rise to further enquiry.
It's unfortunate that when religion becomes involved in debates because the emotional content of faith (and possibly also those that support opposing theories) that debates will always be in danger of becoming conflicts as opposed to calm discussions.
I feel at this point that Dalraida and Casshern don't behave they should be made to stand in the corridor holding buckets of water
rolleyes.gif
 
You have a lovely list of definitions there, but none of them apply to me.
I have pride in myself, as I also have self-esteem and self-respect. None of it is inordinate, though. I do not consider my self better than someone else. Of course, once they are compared, I'll decide if I think my opinion is better than someone's. When I compared my thoughts to that of the god we are talking about, I believed mine to be better. Now you may think that because I'm challenging the opinion of a being you consider divine and all knowing, that I am conceited and full of excess pride; in fact I'm just comparing opinions. You're the one who's conceited for thinking that nobody should question your god.

QUOTE QUOTE In what way is my moral value faulty because I'm human?Are you saying that it has no flaws whatsoever?

Did I say that? Did you read what I typed?
I never said my moral value was flawless.
I asked you why you say it's flawed simply because it came from me, a human.
Swing and a miss, eh?


QUOTE Well, supposing I own a building. And I gave you the permission to do anything you want to do within its premises. But I tell you not to jump off from any of the floors because you’ll either get badly hurt or die. Does that make me “crazy”, an “idiot”, or “immoral”?

No. Not at all. So far that makes sense to me. But if you said that nobody is allowed to be gay in that building, I'd ask how that had any bearing on my health.


QUOTE I thought this issue has already been addressed in one of the articles I’ve posted a link to. Apparently, you didn’t take the time to read it. Here, I’ll post it again for everyone’s convenience:
http://www.carm.org/atheism/God_just.htm

You presume wrong again. I read it, clearly and slowly. As I wouldn't comment on your post without taking to consideration everything you put in it. Awfully conceited, aren't we?
I still don't see what that article does to defend against what I said earlier. And I must add that the responses in that article were terrible.

If we are the creation of a deity, we should always keep in mind that creators are responsible for their creations. We are not dogs, but to use an example, consider the training of a dog - if you raise it since it was a puppy, and it turns out vicous and mean, is it the dogs fault, or the one who raised it? While it can be pointed out that dogs by nature might just be nasty (i.e. it's genetic), that doesn't apply to a deity capable of creating something from scratch.

When you say "we should always keep in mind that creators are responsible for their creations" you aren't explaining what you mean by "responsible". There are certainly areas in which a parent is responsible for his children, or an employer for his employees. But we would agree that such responsibilities have contextual limits. So, unless the context and the extent of such responsibility were explained further, the statement is suspect.
The dog analogy is insufficient. When an individual raises a dog, there are far too many variables that cannot be quantified: the wisdom and experience of the trainer; the temperament of the dog, etc. This does not port over when comparing an infinitely wise and all knowing God. I fail to see how this atheist is making a cogent argument.

The entire statement the second guy makes is flawed. The first guy just said that the "trainer" is God, supposedly perfect, and the "dog" was created by him. Therefor, the dog wouldn't do anything that the creator didn't want it to do. Thus, if the dog did something "bad" then it's because the trainer did a crap job of training. But God can't do that, since he's perfect and all.
And since when did God's power and responsibility become limited? If God created us, our world, and can control and manipulate everything in it, then he is completely and totally responsible for everything in it. Why then would he create gay people and athiests and others and then punish them for being that way? His divine plan? Does this plan involve bias, hate, pain, and corruption?
That article does not defend you. Trust me.


QUOTE http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pious

Thank you for that. But I already know what pious means, hence why I used it in proper context.




Everything else has already been commented on by Dalriada; pretty well, I might add.
This thread has drifted off course. I feel my buttons are being pushed. I apologize, and will try to stay on topic and not resort to insults from this point on. If I can't do that, I won't reply at all.
 
In an attempt to bring this thread back on topic then let us consider if the question of science vs religion is an important one. If there is a God and He/She created the universe it is unlikely that somebody not following a particular religion would actually offend the deity (I use diety because I dont wont to keep typing He/She). Also, it is plausible if thought through rationally that if there is such an entity as God that science whilst neither proving or disproving the existence of such an entity is just a way to explore and attempt to understand the way the deity made things. To put simple is it it not possible that science being an attempt to understand how things work in our universe just like attempting to understand how a machine works by somebody who did not create it.ie. Science is basically the asking of the question "what happens when I do this and what makes it do that?" NOT the question "Why is it like this?". So in the end is the arguement of Science vs Religion valid to begin with? Is such an arguement more or less like saying: which is superior Mathematics or Art?
In my mind there is no Science vs Religion as their is no conflict between my morals,ethics and beliefs AND science. Science teaches me the mechanics of how the world I live in works whilst Regligion and belief fulfills the purpose of inspiring, giving hope, sense of purpose and a foundation to which I can anchor my own individual beliefs as a person.
That is to say that I dont try to use the question "why does an apple fall if I drop it?" in science but instead use science to ask the question "what makes the apple fall? and how does it do that?" it may be just symantix but it resolves the potential problem of conflict which is in the end caused by inadequacy in language.
To use science to ask the question why anything is pointless.eg. Why is an apple shaped the way it is? has no final answer. We can say it's physics but that only leads to the question why does physics do that?
So I shall ask you ALL to think carefully about whether the arguement of science vs religion is even valid because a wise person once said.
"The answer is only important if you ask the right question"
 
This is going to be my final post on this discussion.


QUOTE (Dalriada)It just means that it's okay for other people to be gay, but that you don't have to be gay yourself if you don't want to.
This is what JustGravy said before (see page 7 of this thread):
“But it seems to me that you are suggesting that homosexuality is a choice; in this case, you seem to say that they are commercializing it. I don't think anyone is trying to convince you to be gay or that gay is better, but simply saying that it is okay to be gay.”

The earlier part of your statement agrees with the rest, while the latter part contradicts the “But it seems to me that you are suggesting that homosexuality is a choice” part. JustGravy’s statement implies that homosexuality is not a choice. Your statement implies it is a choice. Given the contradiction between your claims, I don’t see how one could support the other.

And you did the same with the “cherry-picking” issue. “Active” agreement with the Bible on part of JustGravy, “passive” agreement with the Bible on yours. If you’re going to butt in, at least check if the claim you’re trying to support is even compatible with yours.



QUOTE Just like it's okay to be Christian, but I don't have to be Christian since I don't want to.
Faulty comparison. If you can compare a religion with homosexuality, then I don’t see why I can’t compare homosexuality with zoophilia. At the least, homosexuality and zoophilia are both NON-PROCREATIVE/NON-REPRODUCTIVE SEXUALITIES.



QUOTE It's exactly the same thing. Except that gays have killed far less people through history.
But Christians recognize a savior who serves as a “ticket” to an eternal, pain-free life with God that this trouble-filled life of only a mere few decades pales in comparison to. And you’re ignoring the fact that many so-called “Christians” don’t even abide by the teachings of the one they refer to as “Christ”. This is the main reason why I say that the RCC is “bogus”.

Speaking of kill count, this article suggest that atheists have killed even more people:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder



QUOTE We've already told you the difference between homosexuality and paedophilia.
Have you the memory of a goldfish or what ?

I don’t know about that, but if my memory serves me right; I asked you to define “sexually mature” (which was part of your explanation) and you haven’t done that. I also presented you with two questions, but you haven’t answered either one either. I also remember posting about pansexuality and the prefix “pan-“, but that post got deleted by a mod.

Do I have to spell it out for you that your explanations were insufficient for me to just accept?




QUOTE (JustGravy)You have a lovely list of definitions there, but none of them apply to me.
I’m going to just leave that for the readers to decide for themselves.



QUOTE in fact I'm just comparing opinions.
Is this “just comparing opinions”?
“Although I can't prove or disprove a god, the existence of a god is not consistent with the laws that exist in our universe, and therefor cannot possibly exist in my mind.
If a god came out of the sky, though, it would be just like you said. Either his morals would match mine or they wouldn't. If they didn't, I'd oppose this god. Even if it meant being on his bad side and suffering hell for all eternity, I'd at least know I have higher moral values than this being.”

Again, I’m going to leave that for the readers to decide for themselves.



QUOTE You're the one who's conceited for thinking that nobody should question your god.
But God has already been questioned countless times in human history. Of course, it’s reasonable to believe that God knows the exact number of times, if He’s even keeping count, but as far as who’s being conceited is concerned, I think the tone of your statement speaks loud and clear for itself; “If a god came out of the sky, though, it would be just like you said. Either his morals would match mine or they wouldn't. If they didn't, I'd oppose this god. Even if it meant being on his bad side and suffering hell for all eternity, I'd at least know I have higher moral values than this being.”



QUOTE No. Not at all. So far that makes sense to me. But if you said that nobody is allowed to be gay in that building, I'd ask how that had any bearing on my health.
The “death” or “getting badly hurt” part of the analogy is supposed to correspond with what most people refer to by “going to Hell”, with “jumping off” corresponding to “committing sin”.

But since you’ve opened up the subject of “Health”:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_Health
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_Mental_Health



QUOTE The entire statement the second guy makes is flawed. The first guy just said that the "trainer" is God, supposedly perfect, and the "dog" was created by him. Therefor, the dog wouldn't do anything that the creator didn't want it to do. Thus, if the dog did something "bad" then it's because the trainer did a crap job of training. But God can't do that, since he's perfect and all.
And since when did God's power and responsibility become limited? If God created us, our world, and can control and manipulate everything in it, then he is completely and totally responsible for everything in it. Why then would he create gay people and athiests and others and then punish them for being that way? His divine plan? Does this plan involve bias, hate, pain, and corruption?
I guess you’ve missed the “Fall of Man” part.



QUOTE That article does not defend you. Trust me.
I don’t care if it defends me or not. If it has helped you and some other people here see past your misconceptions regarding God for even just a little, that’s good enough for me.



QUOTE Thank you for that. But I already know what pious means, hence why I used it in proper context.
This is what you said:
”A rule should not be pious because God arbitrarily said so. If his set of morals was indeed pious, then they would stand on their own accord. I wouldn't need convincing.”

First definition from Merriam-Webster:
marked by or showing reverence for deity and devotion to divine worship

Second definition from Merriam-Webster:
sacred or devotional as distinct from the profane or secular

How can you call something “pious” (by the first definition) without the “deity” (which is obviously a superior being) affirming it as such?

I don’t know what you meant by “standing on their own accord”. But your whole statement implies that you have your own criteria for “piety”, and only when such criteria are met are you willing to accept something as “pious”. If I’m correct in saying that, let’s consider the above definitions; does your criteria even involve “reverence for a deity” or being “sacred”?




QUOTE (Gustav1976)In my mind there is no Science vs Religion as their is no conflict between my morals,ethics and beliefs AND science. Science teaches me the mechanics of how the world I live in works whilst Regligion and belief fulfills the purpose of inspiring, giving hope, sense of purpose and a foundation to which I can anchor my own individual beliefs as a person.
I ask you to read the four Gospels, even just in your spare time. Then go on with your life from thereon as you see fit.

Remember when I said that I think it is important to draw the line between a scientist and an atheist? There really should be no problem between Science and Religion. The problem starts when some groups (who have a problem usually with the Judeo-Christian religions for any number of both given and non-given reasons) try to use science in an attempt to convince everyone else that God doesn’t exist (for any number of both given and non-given purposes). Sometimes, these groups would accuse “the religious” of forcing their beliefs onto them, but they can’t seem to stand it when someone doesn’t want to adjust his thinking to the materialist mentality that they’ve confined themselves into.

Science has allowed mankind to fathom a great deal about our physical universe, but it hasn’t even scratched the surface of the metaphysical, let alone the spiritual. And by saying “great”, it is of course with respect to our point-of-view as humans, and not even God’s… if there is one.

Science can’t even address some of the supposed flaws of the Theory of Evolution, yet it is suggested that we all buy into it, and discard religion while at it. Science has theories regarding the origin of our planet and the life in it, but those too has its share of problems. Even if each individual theory has no known flaws, the fact that more than one theory exists and is being considered for a single concern (the Origin of Life for example), means that scientists themselves can’t always agree on something despite the same standards. And even when the scientific community agrees on something, I understand that it’s still a matter of consensus. And truth, simply, is not based on consensus.

Now, some people might say that the explanation as to how our world and the life in it began, provided by the Book of Genesis, is even worse… absurd, illogical. I understand that it is hardly scientific, and much more mythological in nature, and that’s fine with me. The purpose of the Bible is not to explain how things came to be, but to serve as a guide in finding our way back to God.

And here’s another thing that Science… I mean, Atheism, is supposed to be unable to account for. Logic:
http://www.carm.org/atheism/debate_edwin_kagin.htm
 
Cashern my friend, did you read my entire post? I think you might have missed the point I was making which was trying to get the thread back on track instead of pointing out flaws in each others theories I simply tried to state that the topic of Science vs Religion could be considered absurd and that before discussing it people should be considering whether Science vs Religion has any point to it. Does that make sense at all? Umm I'll try explain another way just in case.. I was trying to suggest that a sensible way to think about the topic would be consider the validity of it.ie. does the arguement of Science vs Religion have any actual meaning? I asked because the purpose of debate is to discuss ideas and concepts openning the mind to new questions and perspectives and not to poke holes in other peopls arguments.
Anyway, as I pointed out for me there is no Science vs Religion as for me there is no conflict and I see the arguement as rather pointless.
 
I now feel that I could speak in this discussion without having each sentence be quoted and dissected by Casshern because they stated they will not make any more posts in this topic. Therefore, I will offer my opinion on this topic in the hopes that there can be an intelligent, reasonable discussion here.

I think it is interesting that science and religion are perceived to be at odds with one another because in the beginnings of modern science, the funding for such research came from religion. This is not true of all research of course, but the fact that any was implies that the two are not polar opposites at all.

I think that there is no point in denying however, that supporters of science and religion have disagreed on many things. This thread is a perfect example! The thing is, I feel that whatever their beliefs, anyone will disagree with someone else on one thing or another, so it is not correct to assume that because they do not wholly agree on everything that they have to be at odds with one another.

The question of who is right, if that is indeed the question posed in this thread (I do not remember as this thread has been off-topic so much!), is a bit pointless to me. As Gustav states, the two are doing different things for a different purpose, or at least that's what I think, so it would be the same as asking which tastes better, an apple or an orange. Some people will say apple, others will say orange, but then you have to decide for yourself who is right, so in the end the only opinion that matters is your own, right?
 
QUOTE (Carlita @ Dec 11 2008, 05:15 PM)The question of who is right, if that is indeed the question posed in this thread (I do not remember as this thread has been off-topic so much!), is a bit pointless to me. As Gustav states, the two are doing different things for a different purpose, or at least that's what I think, so it would be the same as asking which tastes better, an apple or an orange. Some people will say apple, others will say orange, but then you have to decide for yourself who is right, so in the end the only opinion that matters is your own, right?
Yes, science and religion (in its purest form; although I'd rather use the term spirituality, or ethics), both serve very different purposes. I strongly believe that they can coexist. The problem, however, is that more often than not, they don't coexist. Babies and dogs can coexist, they both serve different purposes, but when dogs start eating babies, that becomes a problem worthy of discussion. It's not a matter of whether you like babies (*cough* science *cough*), or whether you prefer dogs (*cough* religion *cough*), or even both. It's about whether or not you like babies eating dogs, or dogs eating babies.

The way I see it, religion as it is today (and as it has been since modern science came about) is wrongly trying to impugn upon modern science by steadfastly rejecting every single discovery that doesn't line up with its doctrine. (since doctrine is set in stone, any new evidence that goes against it MUST be false, yeah?
rolleyes.gif
) A primary example of this is with most of modern Christianity denying the scientific theory of evolution, while it readily embraces non-threatening theories such as the quantum theory used to design today's computer hard drives used to host their websites, or the theories behind chemistry that are responsible for making the mortar that holds their temples together.

In an ideal world, science and religion coexist without any problem, but this is not that world. From the time Galileo was arrested for claiming the earth orbited the sun, to the time Mr. Aguillard was put on trial for teaching evolution in school, up until the present day, science and religion have some serious conflicts, and this is a big problem.
 
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."

~ Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics
 
QUOTE (mamori @ Jan 07 2009, 12:17 AM)"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."

~ Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics
Nice quote but I'm not sure it can stand up to close scrutiny. Many good people can commit bad crimes or deeds. Not because they are religious but because they want to conform to society. Look no further than the school playground. Many children bully, not because they think it is right but because they want to fit it. Join the "it" crowd as it where. Similarly if children see others being bullied they will often turn a blind eye. To tell would break the school yard rules. Okay the example is a little bit silly but it just shows that people are quite able to forgo their morals just to fit into a social group.

I recently heard there was this test where they asked various people to electrocute people. They were given these instructions by a person of authority. Many people carried out the orders and did not question them, even when the electrocuted person seemed to be in great pain. It just goes to show that good people are capable of doing evil deeds, even if they're not religious.

EDIT - Not important enough to warrant it's own post.


QUOTE (langes01x)Just because everyone thought the world was flat didn't mean that it actually was.
That is largely a myth!!! People knew the world was not flat for many years. The Greeks knew of it and actually calculated the circumference of the Earth as far back as 200BC! Many people of the Middle Ages and even Dark Ages believed the world was spherical! This theory of a flat Earth only became popular around the 19th century and was mainly the result of Washington Irving's book.

Hmm but I guess it does sort of prove your point, albeit in a indirect manner.
 
That test was done quite some time ago actually but it does prove a point. If a person is not held accountable they will do whatever they are told if they are given enough reason to believe it will benefit more people. In a medical experiment the people conducting it may believe that they are doing a service to the rest of mankind and may also believe that the person they are using to experiment is not worth all of the lives that may be saved.

Back to the topic though science itself is becoming something similar to a religion. You are taught in school that gravity pulls things down and are given a nice little formula to "prove" it. But you do not have to believe that gravity pulls things down. You are not really shown that "gravity" is the one doing the work. You either accept it or don't. You could believe that it is something else and give an equally appealing reason.

We can not prove anything without assuming at least one other thing because if we could prove something from nothing it would have no basis or be trivially true. Thus since everything is based on at least one other thing we can only really make circular proofs. Science is only a set of proofs and formulas that seem to work together and so far have given us correct answers. Who is to say that we will not find out later that one of the formulas doesn't work in all cases.

Just because everyone thought the world was flat didn't mean that it actually was.
 
QUOTE (monsta666 @ Jan 06 2009, 06:35 PM) Nice quote but I'm not sure it can stand up to close scrutiny. Many good people can commit bad crimes or deeds. Not because they are religious but because they want to conform to society. Look no further than the school playground. Many children bully, not because they think it is right but because they want to fit it. Join the "it" crowd as it where. Similarly if children see others being bullied they will often turn a blind eye. To tell would break the school yard rules. Okay the example is a little bit silly but it just shows that people are quite able to forgo their morals just to fit into a social group.

I recently heard there was this test where they asked various people to electrocute people. They were given these instructions by a person of authority. Many people carried out the orders and did not question them, even when the electrocuted person seemed to be in great pain. It just goes to show that good people are capable of doing evil deeds, even if they're not religious.

EDIT - Not important enough to warrant it's own post.

QUOTE (langes01x)Just because everyone thought the world was flat didn't mean that it actually was.
That is largely a myth!!! People knew the world was not flat for many years. The Greeks knew of it and actually calculated the circumference of the Earth as far back as 200BC! Many people of the Middle Ages and even Dark Ages believed the world was spherical! This theory of a flat Earth only became popular around the 19th century and was mainly the result of Washington Irving's book.

Hmm but I guess it does sort of prove your point, albeit in a indirect manner.
but all that begs the question, are they then good people. going by your standard D&D guides, evil simply means boils down to selfish. those who forgo their morals in order to "fit in" to me seem to be acting selfishly, and thus "evil."

what the quote is saying that it is only in religion can you take a truly good person, one who believes they are doing something of benefit to others, and convince them that the evil they are commiting it actually a good thing.
 
I don't know if I'm the only one who thinks so, but this religion vs. science topic is pretty ridiculous. Just reading some of these comments sound so weird when they try to be so general.

Religion is defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (Dictionary.com)

Taking the first part of the definition "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" expands the set of religions beyond the ones with some form of God/gods to include Humanism, Atheism, and others that don't fall under the "especially..." set.

I don't think Atheists have any beef with current Biology and Geology trends. And I don't think Sikhs care what science has to say either way.

Besides that, I'm pretty sure most everyone arguing the topic has a certain religion in mind when they're presenting their points, the problem is that what might be true for one religion isn't necessarily true for another.

My point? Topic's too broad to discuss meaningfully. Steven Weinberg's quote on people doing bad things disguised as good things could just as easily apply to Humanism or Atheism as human experiments for the betterment of humanity is a prime example. Or even experiments on animals depending on your definition of bad. Hey, there's another great discussion that'll get nobody nowhere: What is good? What is evil? And who defines them?
cool.gif
 
extremely small nutshell.

Leaps of faith:

Science w/ Evolution: Like throwing a box of letters up...and having it come down as a dictionary.

Religion: Leap of faith that there is a creator.

Other topics:

Me: im on religions side.... to me the bible makes sense.

on morals: I think without religion there would be no legitamate way to define ones set of morals.

body and soul: one thing. think of it like an electromagnet. electricity and the coil of wires makes the magnetic force (very crude description). Cut the electricity and magnetism stops. life and flesh results in a mind (not to be confused with brain, ie. frame of mind, brain never changes) cut life and the "magnetism"(soul) dies, as it is the body.

on fate: I believe we have choices

science wouldn't necessarily be considered a "religion" per say as much as it would be called a set of beliefs. similar though, lol you could follow it with the same conviction as a religion though.

I believe science would if anything attest to the grandeur of religion, although, don't get me wrong, there are some odd people out there claiming to do things in the name of there own religion, and i mean from many different faiths. It's kind of disgusting when you look into the pasts common religions and the politics and things that have gone on inside them [ew pun on words(can that considered a pun?)].

personally for me: gay=wrong

hell: dont believe in it. If God was so kind and forgiving then why would he make you burn for eternity because of a period of like 70 years? (dont get me wrong, again there are some twisted people) Interesting to look at the terminology used in the bible when hell comes up and find out what the text had been talking about. Lol lots of times it was referring to a huge burning garbage dump. funny stuff....

err....can't think of anything else off the top of my head at 1:48am heh heh.. uff.

lol what a nutshell that turned out to be...
laugh.gif



EDIT: there were some spelling errors... like necesarily stupid second s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Playasia - Play-Asia.com: Online Shopping for Digital Codes, Video Games, Toys, Music, Electronics & more
Back
Top