The things they do in the name of religion

[jtec 0]

I personally have no religion (my parents did not force one on me) and solely believe that most religions are the basis of laws. While im cool with people believing anything they want, i really do hate the thought that i (or anyone i know or love)could be blown to pieces because of a person who believes in something they have not seen and will never in their lifetime, decides that it is right to take another persons life for something they have been told or read about. One major fault with religions is that there is always a person at the top who preaches it. Just because a person is religious doesnt make them a better person then you or me and they could be someone like adolf hitler for all you know. End of the day religions are controlled by people who may be totally nuts (please dont misread and think im saying all of them are nuts) Im happy as i am with life ahead of me, i know i dont hate anyone because of their religion, i aint got no heaven or hell (well my heaven is rolling green hills with a nice warm summer breeze), i will never hurt anyone intentionally and i will always live on in my children.... I hope something is resolved in the end regarding all the wars over religion, as life is too short and its about time people learnt that life is all about living and enjoying yourself. Peace out...

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Learn some manners or your account may be in danger. Your arrogant and patronising tone has been noticed. There is no need for something like this in a civilised discussion.

Ahh, I see.

YOUR arrogant, insulting and patronising comments about science being comparable with religion are fine, but if I point out your bias its not?

Hello?

Quote[/b] ]

Show to me how science can be the complete opposite, if the conclusions from science are taken as the ultimate truth,

They aren't. You don't understand it, obviously.

Quote[/b] ]

It can not be proven that it exists, hence it doesn't exist.

This it terrible science.

That is not what I said. I said there is absolutely no evidence for it existing. It could easily be proven to exist if it did. It doesn't, therefore there is no evidence for it.

For example, if there was an omnipotent, all knowing, all good god which intervened in the universe (as its believers claim) then it would show up. Less accidents for believers, better chances at things, etc.

Doesn't happen. It's the same for everyone.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Lets discuss this in a nice manner cause it is very interesting and every opinion here has a logic.

That is exactly it. Belief is that you trust in something that you should not trust, because it has never been seen, felt, nor proven. That is why the term "belief" is so appropriate.

And it is also why many people would say 'believers' are batshit insane, along with alien conspiracy 'theorists'.

Quote[/b] ]

Why should I believe in something that doesnt even show itself? It would be so easy for a god to turn all humans into christians...just create a nice catastrophy and give some clear signals from the sky. And everyone would fear god's power. But instead he lets the humans kill the only the diplomat he sent to earth.

That is called freedom.

It's easier than that for an omnipotent god who determines the rules of the universe; simply make everything believe by default.

Quote[/b] ]

You have the right to believe or not, if there would be indicators of a god you would no longer be free to chose for yourself. You would not belief, you would know, where is the freedom then to choose?

There is no freedom to choose. This is a myth. I cannot force myself to believe the sun goes round the earth when I know it does not. I cannot force myself to believe something as ridiculous as a bearded figure in the sky. This arguement is invalid.

Quote[/b] ]

You can believe or not and your life wont change. Prayers wont change anything, crimes wont change anything. Your life just moves on. But when you belief then you do it even though their is no proof, that is what we nowadays think god wants, confidence and trust!

And a perfect (as in - doesn't need or want for anything), all powerful, all knowing god wants this why? And allegedly tortures for infinity those who 'choose' (although that is a myth) otherwise why?

A god would have no need or want of this. If you have a fish tank in your house, you do not feel the need to torture any fish that don't show you the proper respect.

Quote[/b] ]

If you would belief and know there is a god, then you would pray because you expect a return. You would see a visit to church like paying for an upcoming bill.

But no, I go to church (rarely) because I belief and dont do it because I have hidden intentions (so I will end up in heaven instead of hell). I dont do to get a profit out of it. I do it to thank someone for all I have. I am sure we will never have a proof of god. You say "because there is no god" and I say "because god will continue giving us the choice to belief or to know that there isnt". Confuses you?

Again, there is no such thing. This argument is very old and oft-quoted, but has been shown to be wrong many times before.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

when your girlfriend asks you if you love her would you then answer "well you tend to have a certain influx on my nervesystem and my hormon budget!

I must say you seem not give people the right to believe. You are very strict on that. Proven? Nothing has been proven. Science is a great subject for me but to speak of real proofs is simply incorrect, you are making fun of science. We are just scratching the surface of what science has to be discovered!

[Acecombat 0]

Hmm interesting albert , i was thinking along the same lines , so thats what love is after all , the ability to override someones nervessystem and hormones   , but then i wonder what sort of love is there which i have for my mother and father , bah.

Then logically death is also not a thing to be greeted with sorrow or greif instead you should say 'Ah it was bound to happen sooner or later , his body wasnt meant to endure the rigours of time'.

Quote[/b] ]YOUR arrogant, insulting and patronising comments about science being comparable with religion are fine, but if I point out your bias its not?

I dont see Ronin being arrogant and patronising however i can vouch for you behaving in such unruly manners in many other topics.

One of the main things thats bugged me is how do athiests make out how the universe came in to being ? Any takers ? Did it just pop out of nothing ness? Considering all that logic and prove talk that you guys come out with how do you plan on explaining this remaining within the realms of YOUR present LOGIC. From my understanding and logic no thing can pop out of nothingness , isnt this right ? If it isnt then why isnt more matter dripping from the sky or elsewhere ?  

Furthermore where did that matter came from which formed the Universe ?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

So you are saying only scientists have the right to speak of "wise facts". And you claim that everyone who cannot proof his ideas and concepts by science must be naive.

But then you must consider the philosophers of ancient greece such as Sokrates, Platon and Aristoteles to have been naive people. Strangely enough I must say I have learned more about the world and the universe from them than from modern scientists. None of them was an atheist. And much of  the issues they approached in their methaphysical way turned out to be hard scientific fact. They embraced the world with a clarity that is astonishing, and all without a single scientific proof. So HOMER, ARISTOTELES, SOKRATES, and PLATON were "believers", "thinkers" and in your interpretation they were "batshit insane". So I wonder why did they invent the idea of LOGOS and then still continued to belief? They were wise men and milleniums ahead of science.

[Scorpio 0]

Great...I stop reading this thread for a day and already it's turned into the 1894923th 'existance of God' discussion.

Absolutely pathetic.

Can't we all just get along?

Look, religion can very easily be twisted around to mean very different bad things. That's why you get this shit. That's where you get these extremists.

Personally, I don't give a shit if you're a Christian, a Muslim, an atheist, or whatever...

To me, you are judged by the content of your character, and not your religion.

Quote[/b] ]Don't talk nonsense.

Science is the complete opposite of religion.

Go to school.

Could you care to put in a bit more detail and justify your rather short and arrogant comments next time?

e: oh, and I find the 'science proves that God doesn't exisit' comment rather ignorant. If there wasn't someone who created us, then could you care to give us your version of the story?

Thinking about the period before the existance of the universe hurts the mind badly. I could only say that our brains arn't sophisticated enough to understand that matter.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

YOUR arrogant, insulting and patronising comments about science being comparable with religion are fine, but if I point out your bias its not?

ROFL, are you taking the piss mate??

You call an opinion arrogant and compare it then to me calling your attitude arrogant

Hang on there, you are serious, aren't you

I have no idea where you are from, but if people are classed as "arrogant" for having free thoughts, then I have to say its a very sad place and I hope I will never get to see or experience such a place.

For the record, in my opinion everyone is free to think whatever they want to think. Their freedom to express all their thoughts is slightly restricted (racism etc.).

However, one thing I will not have on these forums are people being attacked. You can do whatever you want with people's ideas - as long as you take them apart in a civil manner.

The second you start putting people down (calling them dumb, telling them arrogantly to go back to school, and other such niceties), then you can bet that I am going to put down your account.

Your attitude has been noticed negatively for quite a while now. It is time for you to realise that you either have civil discussions on here, or not at all. Stop attacking people.

Thanks for ruining a discussion with lots of potential

[denoir 0]

Oh Denoir, where art thou?

I'm keeping away from this discussion. The reason is that the last five discussions on the subject were terminated when Baron Hurlothrumbo started with his personal insults and the threads were closed. It's quite unfulfilling not to be able to finnish a discussion. So until Baron Hurlothrumbo starts behaving in an acceptable manner, I'll stay away.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I don't like having to teach fairly basic things to people who ask silly questions.

Hence when people start coming out with things like 'but how did the universe get there if an invisible fairy didn't make it' or 'science is a form of belief' (which is insulting, and arrogant) I tend to get annoyed with them and respond curtly.

[Scorpio 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hence when people start coming out with things like 'but how did the universe get there if an invisible fairy didn't make it' or 'science is a form of belief' (which is insulting, and arrogant) I tend to get annoyed with them and respond curtly.

How could it be insulting and arrogant? What else whould you expect them to say? Care to explain?

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

I don't like having to teach fairly basic things to people who ask silly questions.

Hence when people start coming out with things like 'but how did the universe get there if an invisible fairy didn't make it' or 'science is a form of belief' (which is insulting, and arrogant) I tend to get annoyed with them and respond curtly.

I don't care for your excuses.

If you can not partake in a discussion without insulting people for having the ideas they have, you will have to find yourself another forum for discussion, where people communicate their ideas on your level.

[denoir 0]

Its funny how people try putting down religion vehemently, using science as a reason.

Science really is just a new type of religion - mathematics and physical observations say so, hence it must be so. It is taken as the absolute Right. Just like it was done with any of the major religions in the past millennia or so.

Just as crazy as thinking of the old man with the white beard

So 'll just lean back and enjoy this paradox and watch out for naughty comments

Don't talk nonsense.

Science is the complete opposite of religion.

Go to school.

Should have read:

Quote[/b] ]

I disagree. It is a common mistake to think of science and religion as equal opposites. This is I think mostly because people are not properly educated on what science and scientific methodology is.

(...motivation...)

See? You say the same thing but in a much friendlier way. You'll see that you get a much more positive response from people

[Scorpio 0]

Denoir for President!

[Placebo 29]

Ralph for First Lady

[brgnorway 0]

Myself I am an atheist! However:

I'm a bit tired of people a dogmatically preaching about science over religion. The points made are always consisting of arguments embedded in a "rational scientific way" - and many of you fall for it without thinking criticaly about what science really is!

In a historic perspective science have largely surpased religion as an explanatory ideology over religion in our western society. People easily accept scientific explanations and the way they do it resembles early naive positivism. Yet they don't know what science really is! Is science truth? Is science a pattern of truth waiting to be uncovered? Is it universal or is it relative in any way?

The answer is a huge NO! Science is not truth and it can never be! Science is only a process which establishes paradigms - and the nature of science is that paradigms are paradigms only as long as they are not "falsified" or proven unguilty by a new paradigm. So science is not true, it's not a static "something" - but relative and dynamic. Still, some people believe in it like it's the only rational thing to do - even if science fails to give us "all the answers" .

To those of you preaching the final truth of science - maybe you should go and read up on Paul Feyerabend and really understand that science is not only problematic because of failing correlations between "the real world" and the percepted or represented, but please do also discover that science is also all about politicoeconomy and the effects of the lack of resources. Paul Feyerabend is a good starting point.

That there is no need for religion is utter crap! We - the western world - have a behavioral pattern to legitimise in that respect. The funny thing is that when most of us praise the medical science etc. we still crave for alternative treatment rejected by all "sane" medical communities.

However, in a functionalistic perspective one could very well say that science is our the new black - it has become our religion - yet it doesn't fulfill our needs!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Its funny how people try putting down religion vehemently, using science as a reason.

Science really is just a new type of religion - mathematics and physical observations say so, hence it must be so. It is taken as the absolute Right. Just like it was done with any of the major religions in the past millennia or so.

Just as crazy as thinking of the old man with the white beard

So 'll just lean back and enjoy this paradox and watch out for naughty comments

Don't talk nonsense.

Science is the complete opposite of religion.

Go to school.

Should have read:

Quote[/b] ]

I disagree. It is a common mistake to think of science and religion as equal opposites. This is I think mostly because people are not properly educated on what science and scientific methodology is.

(...motivation...)

See? You say the same thing but in a much friendlier way. You'll see that you get a much more positive response from people

What a bullshit you rotten blue bycicle!    (positive feedback).

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

I believe in science. But to try to explain a potential existance of god through science is like using a hammer to fix a porcelane tea-pot.

[Kuja- 0]

Don't talk nonsense.

Science is the complete opposite of religion.

Go to school.

Let's retire from the field of battle so we can watch Denoir own them

All of the arguments put forward thus far have not even succeeded in getting past the most basic and misguided christian attempts to explain their faith:

"I find it hard to believe..."

"I have not troubled myself to learn the science, therefore I put to you these relatively simple questions as though they are something that will forever remain unsolved..."

"Faith in itself is sufficient, and thus requires no evidence..."

Ex-Ronin, you can hardly tell Hurlothrumbo not to insult you when demonstrate what he said by trying to equate science with a faith-based belief.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Myself I am an atheist! However:

I'm a bit tired of people a dogmatically preaching about science over religion. The points made are always consisting of arguments embedded in a "rational scientific way" - and many of you fall for it without thinking criticaly about what science really is!

In a historic perspective science have largely surpased religion as an explanatory ideology over religion in our western society. People easily accept scientific explanations and the way they do it resembles early naive positivism. Yet they don't know what science really is! Is science truth? Is science a pattern of truth waiting to be uncovered? Is it universal or is it relative in any way?

The answer is a huge NO! Science is not truth and it can never be! Science is only a process which establishes paradigms - and the nature of science is that paradigms are paradigms only as long as they are not "falsified" or proven unguilty by a new paradigm. So science is not true, it's not a static "something" - but relative and dynamic. Still, some people believe in it like it's the only rational thing to do - even if science fails to give us "all the answers" .

To those of you preaching the final truth of science - maybe you should go and read up on Paul Feyerabend and really understand that science is not only problematic because of failing correlations between "the real world" and the percepted or represented, but please do also discover that science is also all about politicoeconomy and the effects of the lack of resources. Paul Feyerabend is a good starting point.

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

Yes, science is not an ideology. No, there is nothing that exists which cannot be discovered by thinking and experimenting on it in a rational manner.

Any other 'way of knowing' is not as good. Period.

Read 'The Devils Chaplain' (Richard Dawkins) to find out why this argument of yours is jibberish.

There is no need for religion.

Quote[/b] ]The funny thing is that when most of us praise the medical science etc. we still crave for alternative treatment rejected by all "sane" medical communities.

ummm. No. I certainly don't, and I'll bet denoir, Kuja and the rest of the people here who think somewhat rationally do not.

Alternative medicine does not work. If it worked, it'd just be medicine. Any treatment that results in people getting better without merely being a placebo (placebos are slightly more effective than nothing at all for some reason) will become medicine.

Quote[/b] ]However, in a functionalistic perspective one could very well say that science is our the new black - it has become our religion - yet it doesn't fulfill our needs!

Name a need that involves religion. A need that you think I'd have.

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).

If you have a need, science can help you find the best way to fulfil it. It is not a tool for fulfilling needs, though - its just the best way to find things out.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

How could it be insulting and arrogant? What else whould you expect them to say? Care to explain?

They might care to read the most basic of articles, either in books or available on the net, on the subject(s) before simply spouting the first thing that comes into their heads.

That would be nice.

Quote[/b] ]Albert Schwietzer

I believe in science. But to try to explain a potential existance of god through science is like using a hammer to fix a porcelane tea-pot.

Why is that? Do you have a better tool for determining things existance? I doubt that. A more reliable tool? I doubt that.

PS, for the 500th time: science is not something to be 'believed in.'

It is insulting to equate science with a belief system because they are polar opposites. A belief is something that people want to be true although they have no evidence for it.

Science is about determining what IS true regardless of what they personally want to be true.

[brgnorway 0]

Myself I am an atheist! However:

I'm a bit tired of people a dogmatically preaching about science over religion. The points made are always consisting of arguments embedded in a "rational scientific way" - and many of you fall for it without thinking criticaly about what science really is!

In a historic perspective science have largely surpased religion as an explanatory ideology over religion in our western society. People easily accept scientific explanations and the way they do it resembles early naive positivism. Yet they don't know what science really is! Is science truth? Is science a pattern of truth waiting to be uncovered? Is it universal or is it relative in any way?

The answer is a huge NO! Science is not truth and it can never be! Science is only a process which establishes paradigms - and the nature of science is that paradigms are paradigms only as long as they are not "falsified" or proven unguilty by a new paradigm. So science is not true, it's not a static "something" - but relative and dynamic. Still, some people believe in it like it's the only rational thing to do - even if science fails to give us "all the answers" .

To those of you preaching the final truth of science - maybe you should go and read up on Paul Feyerabend and really understand that science is not only problematic because of failing correlations between "the real world" and the percepted or represented, but please do also discover that science is also all about politicoeconomy and the effects of the lack of resources. Paul Feyerabend is a good starting point.

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

Yes, science is not an ideology.  No, there is nothing that exists which cannot be discovered by thinking and experimenting on it in a rational manner.

Any other 'way of knowing' is not as good.  Period.

Read 'The Devils Chaplain' (Richard Dawkins) to find out why this argument of yours is jibberish.

There is no need for religion.

Quote[/b] ]The funny thing is that when most of us praise the medical science etc. we still crave for alternative treatment rejected by all "sane" medical communities.

ummm. No.  I certainly don't, and I'll bet denoir, Kuja and the rest of the people here who think somewhat rationally do not.

Alternative medicine does not work.  If it worked, it'd just be medicine.  Any treatment that results in people getting better without merely being a placebo (placebos are slightly more effective than nothing at all for some reason) will become medicine.  

Quote[/b] ]However, in a functionalistic perspective one could very well say that science is our the new black - it has become our religion - yet it doesn't fulfill our needs!

Name a need that involves religion.  A need that you think I'd have.

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).

If you have a need, science can help you find the best way to fulfil it.  It is not a tool for fulfilling needs, though - its just the best way to find things out.

Sorry, but there is no point in discussing with you as you obviously prefer to disregard everything that has happened during and after postmodernistic philosophy.

Maybe you should have lived before the Great War when everything was progress and dandy.

Have a great life and long live positivism!

[shinRaiden 0]

Pascal posed a little thought something like this: (i'm generalizing)

Quote[/b] ]Suppose you did good all your life because you believed in the judgements of God. What have you actually lost if when you die you discover that there actually is no God?

On the other hand, suppose that you lived life up assuming that there is no God, and as soon as you die you discover the paddywagon for your ride to perdition?

I would also assume that the accepted humane approach to dealing with the presumed insane would be to help them and care for them, rather than beat them with the rod of presumed intellectual superiority. Then again, as your choice of a moral system is inherently self-centered, survival of the fittest is exclusive of peers. I prefer the company of peers in so-called ignorance than the inherent mono-pedestal of self-worshiping aggrandizment.

Science is the discovery of knowledge via logical and physical tools as applied by the human intellect, iirc. Therefore is not your understanding of the ultimate power and enlightenment your ownself, in your current form?

But wait... what if you learn something new tomorrow? Then you tomorrow is superior to you today. But as tomorrow does not yet exist to science and thus not evaluatable, your own idol is of an unknowable God.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

If an alien would arrive on earth they would put him into a centre for mentaly disabled, and they would probably do the same with jesus II. All I got to say!

[shinRaiden 0]

Having counted 10 groups of 10, I personally 'know' that (10 x 10) = 100. Given the logic of that equation (=tool) I 'believe' that (17 x 10 x 10) = 1700, although I have not counted personally to 1700.

Science does not declare the 'truth' that 10 x 10 = 100, science gives me the tool to discover for myself that using the science-defined tool of equations, I can learn independent 'truths'.

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]Science does not declare the 'truth' that 10 x 10 = 100, science gives me the tool to discover for myself that using the science-defined tool of equations, I can learn independent 'truths'.

I agree - but the point is that embedded in science is the principle of paradigm. Basically, if tomorrow brings you a new paradigm proving the current/todays to be false, then 10 x 10 might not be 100 but 1700.

The point is that science cannot fulfill all our needs for explanation - on all levels. Also, my point is that science takes on a form as a cognitive "folk model" (ref Keesing) that serves as an explanatory ideology - not in a way that people "pray" to science, but on a purely explanatory basis. This used to be a privilige of religion in our society before Emmanuel Kant said man was his own measurement and not Gods.

All in all cooks down to science's lack of ability to explain "why" - but only "how" .