The things they do in the name of religion

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]OK. Prove it.

If everything was created ~10,000 years ago, then how are we seeing 20,000,000 year old light from distant galaxies? Wouldn't you have to refute trigonometry in order to disprove any rough measurements of the distance to the light source?

[suma 8]

Quote[/b] ]If the sun 'stopped in the sky' then the earth must have stopped rotating. (since as we now know, the sun does not go round the earth).

Now, that is a proof - you make up an explanation and you show the explanation you made up is wrong. What if the whole thing was something different? What if only the sun appeared not moving (for exaple by changing refracting characteristics of athmosphere)? ... What if it was something completely else, unpredicted by you? (For anyone reading this: I am not claiming it happened, and I am not claiming I am able to prove it happened. What I am trying to show is that "It is entirely possible to prove it ... " is an overstatement).

Quote[/b] ]Similarly, the dead rising from their graves and all the other things that supposedly happened during Jesus' ressurection: not recorded by any of the thousands of contempory historians writing at the time.

There are many things in the history on mankind which happened, but nobody recorded it. Again - what you offer here is no proof, only a theory.

[sanctuary 19]

Science and Beliefs are looking at the same fact.

Science will explain the How

Belief will explain the Why

Science and Belief are not the opposite in the mind of a believer. They are in fact very complementary.

Some scientifics are believers, some are not.

For the atheist , there is no why for a fact, for the believer there is a why for a fact, and that is the same for every people , from the simple minded to the scientific with high knowledge.

That is why no discussion are possible, and we can see the unfortunate result in this thread as in all other thread like this already made.

Now, for the content of this thread : i respect atheists view , as i have lot of atheists friends despite i am a believer, because they have the right to make this choice and i have no right to force them to share my view.

But i do not respect atheist that has no respect for my beliefs, especially in this thread.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

And thanks for the course, but I repeat that science doesn't explain anything about creation.

...Because there wasn't a creation

Quote[/b] ]

There is a number of factors stopping scientists to know what happened at instant zero. It is currently an explanation of what happened a few moment after this instant zero. This explanation seems to satisfy you, when in facts, it doesn't explain anything.

In fact it does explain a lot of things. There is nothing except a lack of information stopping science knowing what happened at instant zero; it's not impossible for it to be found out. You are not very up to date with the latest theories: one such theory describes the entire event.

Quote[/b] ]

Could we not say that this theories are impressing peasants while bringing nothing?

No, because they are not bringing nothing.

Quote[/b] ]

"I'm afraid of death. What will happen to me when I'm dead?"

The same thing that happened to you before you were born.

Answered much more satisfactorily that religion, whose answer is.... we don't know. Maybe you'll go somewhere nice. But with absolutely no evidence behind that.

Quote[/b] ]

Question answer by religion, in a satisfatory manner for many, it is event the main lever religion has over humans.

It is not a satisfactory answer. Which religion? Which part of which religion? Etc.

Quote[/b] ]It was created to impress peasants

No, it was created to answer legitimate questions, like the one above.

Which it never did.

Quote[/b] ]

It was USED afterwards to impress peasant, that's the whole difference. It is a TOOL, not created for this purpose, but used for this purpose.

A tool which has served its purpose and is now completely useless.

Quote[/b] ]

They are tools in the hand of human being. Their purpose is different (one tries to answer "why?", the other "how?").

One of which suceeds, the other fails totally

Quote[/b] ]

You seem to think that the current state of science is the penultimate state of what can be done by humanity. You disregard what humanity belived in centuries ago because of this belief. Be sure that in a few centuries, some people will disregard what you think today, because things will have changed.

Wrong.

The fact of gravity is never going to change. Etc.

Quote[/b] ]

Whis'

PS : Hitler persecuted another race for the (hatefull) "good" of another race.

Religion. Not race. For his religion.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Now, that is a proof - you make up an explanation and you show the explanation you made up is wrong. What if the whole thing was something different? What if only the sun appeared not moving (for exaple by changing refracting characteristics of athmosphere)? ... What if it was something completely else, unpredicted by you? (For anyone reading this: I am not claiming it happened, and I am not claiming I am able to prove it happened. What I am trying to show is that "It is entirely possible to prove it ... " is an overstatement).

Quote[/b] ]Similarly, the dead rising from their graves and all the other things that supposedly happened during Jesus' ressurection: not recorded by any of the thousands of contempory historians writing at the time.

Ever heard of Occams razor?

You are also confusing two different definitions of theory: the mathematical and the commonly used one.

I'm using 'prove' as in 'establish beyond reasonable doubt.'

Its far far far far more probable that the sun did not 'stop in the sky' than it did.

Quote[/b] ]

There are many things in the history on mankind which happened, but nobody recorded it. Again - what you offer here is no proof, only a theory.

But not when there were thousands of people writing down concurrent events at the time anyway, who would certainly have noticed large scale events such as these.

Again, its far more likely that the dead did not rise from their graves, the sky didn't turn black, etc and that someone simply embellished the story.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Science and Beliefs are looking at the same fact.

Science will explain the How

Belief will explain the Why

Science and Belief are not the opposite in the mind of a believer. They are in fact very complementary.

Some scientifics are believers, some are not.

No matter how deluded believers are, there are still no facts. Its not a fact just because you believe it.

Getting tired of dealing with the same crap again and again.

What does belief actually explain?

It explains NOTHING.

All it does is answer a question with another question.

Science and belief are opposites, regardless of what deluded people think. Already posts by Denoir as to why.

And once again, atheism is not a belief.

I cannot choose to believe in something that is untrue.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]All it does is answer a question with another question.

That is simply not true. Religion such as Hinduism and Buddhism as well as even our religion do give clear answers to  questions. or do you believe the 10 commandments arent clear instructions.

What is so stupid about that? You may question the existance of god but have you never read the one or other interesting chapter in the bible. Dont you think for example the story of the "lost son" is one that is realy worth thinking about. Would the story become clearer if the bible would explain why this or that happened. Sorry but I prefer to think about the reason myself.

And usually the best way to make someone understand the solution to a problem is to ask him the right question so he finds it himself.

If you would have lived in Asia as I did then you would know how beautiful the religion shapes the lifestyle and culture of people, their way of respecting each other, to be honnest, friendly and modest and to relief themselves from stress through meditation. Have a look at Burma for a few weeks and then come back and tell me again into my face "religion is stupid because it cannot be proven by science".

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]or do you believe the 10 commandments arent clear instructions.

I didn't need the commandments to know that murder is wrong. I didn't need the commandments to know that stealing is wrong.

[Veovis 0]

Okay, I've been stumbling through this whole thread somewhat bewildered. Am I the only one here who believes in God, yet at the same time, craves science? I believe (can I not say believe in conjunction with science? Too bad.) in evolution, and the big bang, and new theories excite me. I take the Bible lightly, more as a moral guideline than historical fact (I find 3,000 year old men afraid of their own shadow to be untrustworthy historical sources). Until reading this thread, I was not aware that science and religion were apparently incompatable. Neither can prove everything, and IMO, the world (at least my world) would be somewhat empty without one or the other. I find too many things left unexplained by science, or as somebody mentioned earlier, incomprehensible by humans, to not believe in God. But (brace yourself, hardcore science athiests) most people are not religious simply to prove things, or explain history and theories, etc. They are religious because it makes them feel better, it makes them feel they have a purpose. That needs to be understood. Only the extremists (I'm going out on a limb here and going back to the original topic) use religion to explain everything, and damn everybody that disagrees. Extremist athiests do the opposite. Both are annoying.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]or do you believe the 10 commandments arent clear instructions.

I didn't need the commandments to know that murder is wrong. I didn't need the commandments to know that stealing is wrong.

Ah yes? and where does sense of right and wrong come from? Did you eat it, were you born with it? If so, why did nature give you the feeling of what is wrong and what is right? What would be the use for our species? NONE! Still you got it!

In case you werent born with it. What in our culture has created this sense of community rules. So you have because you are so much smarter than the Atztekes who regularily killed for fun. Religion shaped our way of respecting and dealing with each other

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Ah yes? and where does sense of right and wrong come from

Respect for life and property, I learned the exact terms in a high-school ethics course. Of course, my respect for life puts me deep into the outfield when it comes to abortion, but my beliefs are my beliefs.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Ah yes? and where does sense of right and wrong come from? Did you eat it, were you born with it?

Not religion, at any rate.

Do you really need a book to tell you that murder is wrong?

If so, you are in a minority.

'Do unto others as you would have done to you' is pretty much a constant in human laws, but it does not come from religion (Its in Hammurabi's code of Laws, BTW, so don't try to say religion invented it)

Animals have a sense of right and wrong, but they certainly do not have religion.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Religion is not needed to make people feel good or give them purpose. In fact in frequently does the opposite.

And religion has not proven ANYTHING, much less somethings.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]Ah yes? and where does sense of right and wrong come from

Respect for life and property, I learned the exact terms in a high-school ethics course. Of course, my respect for life puts me deep into the outfield when it comes to abortion, but my beliefs are my beliefs.

Go back and read my posts again cause I got to edit them over and over again!  

Ethics class? hmmm well, and what do you think is the base of our ethics? Ever thought about the impact of religion?

The field of ethics, also called moral philosophy, involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. And where does our sense of right and wrong come from. Why dont you kill your parents when they reach the age of 50 and not realy able to work productively anymore? Why dont you sleep with girls at the age of 15 cause biologically they are able to reproduce. Why dont we burn dead people right away, saves time, money and space. Why do you moan for someone. This feeling is irrational, and science cant find a reason for it. Why do you try to keep someone alive who is mentally or phyiscally disabled, what is their use for society? None, just kill em!

There are certain emotions that we have that cannot be explained by science. They are irrational in evolutionary terms. But we know they are right and we know we are doing the right thing when we support a  handicapped person or open a door for a woman. And this is not because we were only disciplined this way! What is your scientific explanation?

I can tell you lots of cultures that existed before christianity that no moral base and worked very successfuly. So dont be arrogant to believe morality as you know it would be commone sense!

[denoir 0]

Modern science and theology have both wisely abandoned the idea of proving god's existance or non-existance by using scientific ideology. Attempts at such things are a complete waste of time. The real issue is the crossing point where the two models are irreconcilable. Science deals with present theories and leaves room for future improvements. God is an entity that is not defined by science and as such it can't deal with it. You can always claim that it is a variable whose connection to science will be discovered later. Although that is a possibility it certainly isn't a fact. It just says that there is room for it. From a scientific point of view, god is now a superflous variable, not needed for current theories and thereby consistent with good scientific methodology (occam's razor) eliminated.

The real issue is however the areas where religion enters what is now the domain of science and makes various claims that are based on religious ideology rather than real-world observations.

Before I get into that, I just want to make one definition clear. We get all our information from the world from our senses. If you assume that they are being manipulated somehow, then anything is possible and nothing is provable. The only practical option is making the assumption that our senses on average give a correct representation of the world. I hope that we all can agree that we can use it as the basic axiom for this discussion.

The strength of science is that its theories are accumulated knowledge connected with deductive reasoning. If the underlying theory is correct and the math and logic you use is correct then your derived theory will be correct. You only have a realistic chance of modifying the last theory. Anything below it in the deductive chain will most likely collapse a lot of other proven theories. When I say proven, I mean empirically tested; measured. So you can't accept selectivly parts of science and dismiss other parts. They are all connected through both empiric testing and mathemathical deduction.

This is where religion most of the time falls flat. For most part religion deals in things that are disjunct with science and then there are no problems. Religion must however have a link to the real world and it therefor contains a number of theories that are quite incompatible with what we know through science today. A popular example is the age of earth. The bible says that the earth is 6,000 years old. Carbon dating disagrees. So what follows is an attack on carbon dating. Ooops, if carbon dating doesn't work then nuclear physics doesn't work. If nuclear physics doesn't work, quantum mechanics doesn't work. If quantum mechanics wouldn't work. Oh, crap, well then the semiconductors in my computer wouldn't work and I would not be typing it. You can't break the chain since everything follows through mathematical deduction and empiric validation.

The followers of religion usually confront this with two ways:

1) Saying that the religious text isn't supposed to be read literally and that it's impossible to exactly say what the text meant

2) Trying to fight it with pseudo-science through quasi-scientific methods.

The latter can be easily dismissed as those that try it are not familiar with the scientific methodology while trying to prove their case in the domain of science.

The first one is a bit more interesting. If the religious text can't be readily understood without an indirect interpretation, then how do you know that your interpretation is correct? Why do you then choose to follow the rules of something that you don't understand in the first place? If the Bible's statements about the age of the earth are not meant to be taken literally, why are you taking things such as "You shall have no other gods beside Me" literally? Etc.

The problems with religion are:

[*] Inconsistencies with real world empirical testing and observation.

[*] Internal inconsistencies (I won't get into that, but basically all religious texts are full of inconsistencies)

[*] External inconsistencies (lots of different religions with different claims. which is right?)

Now while this may be fully allowed in the domain of religion, it is not allowed in the domain of science, which has very strict rules about not allowing inconsistencies. So those two are irreconcilable in terms of inconsitencies.

What about religious scientists? It's a non-issue. One scientist is not equal to science. And I can guarantee you that no prominent scientists use religion in their research.

One last point of difference that I'm going to bring up is the following of authority, without critical evaluation. In science, you can take a theory and do empirical tests yourself and validate it. Or you can follow the deductive line down to the most basic mathematical axioms that really everybody can agree on. Religion on the other hand requires you to without any proof, evidence or possibility of validation accept a huge text that has the ambition of explaining everything. It requires 100% blind faith in the issuing authority. And that is what faith is about. It is not rational. It is not reasonable. It is not scientific. It is accepting a huge number of unsubstantiated claims and rules, often contradictory and embrace it as the absolute truth.

Personally, I don't work that way. If somebody tells me that green men from Mars are kidnapping me every night, I like to see proof. If somebody tells me that a supernatural being influences my life and possibly my future, then I demand proof. And as I said first, no religion is able to give me that proof. So I do not see the necessity of bothering myself with it.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Damn denoir   You realy are a scientist!  

I have the impressions some of you people here have stopped dreaming, phantasizing for the sake of always being rational and objective. You kill your own boring life with that and one day you kill the creative heads of your children that seek for a little magic tale or lie. Or at least with the doubt that there may be a god who listenes to them in case they are realy feeling bad!

It is astonishing with which "arrogance" (not directed at anyone) here people tend to treat religion. Lets not forget that religion and prayers are the last resorts of people with basically no hope. The forgiveness of the church makes many people forgive themselves for a mistake and to continue on with their life. We are sitting here with our fat spoiled stomachs in a hot house with warm running water and make fun of people that are so stupid to hope for better times even if statistical truth shows them there is no better future for them. How stupid they are, why are they hoping, just accept your fate and give up hope.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I have the impressions some of you people here have stopped dreaming, phantasizing for the sake of always being rational and objective. You kill your own boring life with that and one day you kill the creative heads of your children that seek for a little magic tale or lie. Or at least with the doubt that there may be a god who listenes to them in case they are realy feeling bad!

Nice. Insult everyone who doesn't agree with you.

There is far more creativity in thinking for yourself than taking what others say as true.

Quote[/b] ]

It is astonishing with which "arrogance" (not directed at anyone) here people tend to treat religion. Lets not forget that religion and prayers are the last resorts of people with basically no hope.

And give false hope which does more damage than it solves. And take these people's money, when they already have nothing.

Quote[/b] ]

The forgiveness of the church makes many people forgive themselves for a mistake and to continue on with their life.

The attitude of the church, which makes people feel guilty for things they shouldn't feel guilty for, makes people feel worse in the first place.

I equate it with the 'high' (tobacco) smokers claim to get with their first cigarette in the morning. It's not a good thing,

Quote[/b] ]

We are sitting here with our fat spoiled stomachs in a hot house with warm running water and make fun of people that are so stupid to hope for better times even if statistical truth shows them there is no better future for them. How stupid they are, why are they hoping, just accept your fate and give up hope.

If there's one thing that I do not advocate, its that. In fact thats one of the worst things that religion does: makes people not bother trying to help themselves and just pray. Instead of helping themselves and others, they waste their time and money at church.

[Placebo 29]

Nice.  Insult everyone who doesn't agree with you.

Which is what you have been doing for quite some time now with your patronising, arrogant, aggressive, rude and condescending attitude, which is why Ex-Ronin had to speak to you about your attitude and why I've come close a couple of times as have other moderators. There are right ways to debate a topic and there are wrong ways to debate a topic, lately you seem to be choosing all the wrong ways.

I would strongly suggest you either learn to discuss things in a polite, respectful, tolerant manner or simply refrain from discussing topics that you for whatever reason cannot debate civilly.

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]If you cannot answer my earlier questions, why are you still posting?

I don't have to answer your questions - especially because you choose to ignore my arguments. What you do is to answer arguments with another question and that's so boring and ignorant - nevemind extremely "unscientific" .

Quote[/b] ]

And you are wrong, by the way.

10x 10 (in base 10) will always be 100, no matter what happens. The sun will never change its state and start orbiting the earth.

Sigh* Of course I know 10 x 10 = 100 . We are talking about principles and parameters of science. If you are having problems understanding that I can't really help you - not even science can! What is right today can be falsified tomorrow - by science. Somehow I feel you will never understand........

Quote[/b] ]Blah blah blah. Once again.

I wish you the best of luck at university because you'll need it! Your personal meaning about this and that is less than interesting if you'r going to discuss science and philosophy. Even though your arguments may be interesting (which they arn't) they are worth nothing if you can't make sets of arguments in an established discourse - with references . Maybe my point is futile because you obvously don't take part in the establised discourse. Yet, I'm propably the stupid one for still arguing with a stone.

Quote[/b] ]

Give me an example of something that cannot be found out through scientific means that is true or exists

Well, about all the results gained by the social sciences - because they arn't really sciences (with your parameters) . Just about all of it down the drain due to your scientific crusade against everything that can't be measured scientifically.

Quote[/b] ]Name a need that involves religion. A need that you think I'd have.

Sorry, but the social sciences abolised the functionalistic perspective in the fifties because of "finale" statements wher you place the effect before the reason. Among those fruitless theories they realised that "science" per se couldn't account for meaning experienced by various societies members. So be my guest and and try to measure meaning!

The philosophical field of knowledge is called epistemology and two of the most prominent debaters that influenced modern philosphy are called Lacan and Feyerabend. Don't be so childish and just say blah blah blah when infact you know nothing about it!

Quote[/b] ]That is not what science is for. You are demonstrating a very naive miscomprehension of science (or should I say, this guy in your book you quoted that from).

So what is science for then? Is it not because we want to have knowlegde of our world. Isn't that our cosmologic world?

Doesn't it give us meaning? What's science for if it doesn't help us understand and make our surroundings meaningfull?

Quote[/b] ]It is not a tool for fulfilling needs, though - its just the best way to find things out.

LOL - so you don't need to find things out?

Quote[/b] ]

If you cannot answer these questions, just admit it.

I have - several times - but you only respond with a momentary laps of reason (a good recording btw)

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

As far as i know, we have Christians, Muslim and probably serveral other religions represented on this board. Yet the only one showing agression (almost to the extent of flaming) is the atheist. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Veovis 0]

Quote[/b] ]Religion is not needed to make people feel good or give them purpose.  In fact in frequently does the opposite.

And religion has not proven ANYTHING, much less somethings.

Religion helps me feel good sometimes, and I would say the same for anybody else that is religious (else, why would they bother with it?). It would be impossible to explain why to somebody who is not religious. If somebody is happy as an athiest, I'm happy for them too. As for your comment on proof, you completely missed the point of my post. I (and many others) am not religious to prove anything, because it cannot. I disagree with those who take the bible as absolute fact, but I will not put them down so rudely and arrogantly as you.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I don't have to answer your questions - especially because you choose to ignore my arguments. What you do is to answer arguments with another question and that's so boring and ignorant - nevemind extremely "unscientific" .

I don't have to answer your babble then.

Welcome to Ignore.

Why can't you just admit you cannot answer the questions?

Your arguements seem to consist of:

'Science can't measure some things' - I say 'what things' - you say ' I DONT HAVE TO ANSWER THAT!'

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]Your arguements seem to consist of:

'Science can't measure some things' - I say 'what things' - you say ' I DONT HAVE TO ANSWER THAT!'

Can't you read? It's in my post

Edit: I see something black on grey on my screen. It's your last post. Somehow I know that the signs are called letters . Their constellations forms something known as words . But at which level do they inform me of something else? You wouldn't know because you can't measure them! And if you can't measure them they can't exist in your universe. Thus you have no meaning. What you say are meaningless.

See - the result of your "scientific" approach.

[Balschoiw 0]

No bad intentions but when I read your posts Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX, I feel like reading the posts of a radical believer. Only difference is that you do not believe in anything.

I keep my fingersout of such religiouse debates. I don´t believe in in god, but my girlfriend for example does. I have no problem with that. Everyone has the freedom to choose. Tolerance is the key.

You don´t sound very tolerant Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX.

Maybe you can explain some things to me like Stigmatas, people who had abilities that noone else had and things like that.

I don´t like the expression "wonders" but some people on this planet definately did some.

I´d like to hear you on the Stigmata issue as there are a lot of scientifically researched people who had them and the stigmatas were not to explain with modern science.

I listen.

[whisperFFW06 0]

Nice text Denoir. I personnally fail to see how this makes "science" a better tool at answering some vital question than "religion".

I'm atheist.

I follow closely the evolution of fundamental research, in fact I wanted to work in quantum physics (before realising it was too hard for my limited brain   ).

But I try not to dismiss what others do believe. Perhaps they are right, who knows? Not me.

Just as an example, and for blabbling, because it doesn't really bring much to the discussion, let's take your "problems with the religion". Throughout history, science had the exact same problems.

- Inconsistencies with real world empirical testing and observation. Today, most advanced theories can't be proven because of lack of precision in current observation capabilities. The energy levels required are too high to see "super-corde" (french word, I don't know the english translation, sorry) theory proven, for example. In the past centuries, lack of precision could not make the relativity theory visible. Therefore classical mecanics was the parangon of science, the end of it for many scientists, and soon everything should have been discovered. History has proven it wrong, and one should take care of making the same mistake today. We lack precision in observation, and as such have probably a false representation of reality.

- internal inconsistencies. Relativity + quantum mecanics = infinite numbers. Something is inconsistent between the 2 theories. See above for issues when trying to resolve it  

- external inconsistencies : science history has shown plenty. I'm aware many of this inconsistencies had a religious basis, and it's probably one of the strong point of science to be globally consistent within its members.

EDIT : oops, wrong button, I've submit my post too soon...

Ok, let's continue. So, my main problem when reading you guys is that 1) you seem to see science as the ultimate answer to your questions, better than religion, when in fact the 2 do not answer the same questions, and 2) you are repeating mistakes already done about the current state of science, like :

Quote[/b] ]The fact of gravity is never going to change.

I bet some very reknown scientists in 19th century were saying the very same sentence about Newton gravity. Gravity which has changed A LOT since.

Kind of though which leads you to things like "scientology". Dangerous way of thinking.