The things they do in the name of religion

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 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'm not. I'm annoyed with people who cannot either learn the basic part of something before they try to argue about it, or who refuse to read others posts and take on board what they say. Denoir posted a very good definition of what the aim of science is only for it to be completely ignored.

Also I've heard so many of these arguements before, and debunked and seen debunked so many of them, that when they are brought up again its very annoying.

Quote[/b] ]

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.

And I agree. But that doesn't mean that we cannot have a discussion about it. That is all this is; a discussion. I'm not going to come round people's houses and scream at them that they are wrong.

It does also mean, however, that those beliefs that preach intolerance need to be dealt with (all abrahamic religions have elements of this) - subjugating women/ other religions because the book says it is ok. I don't like that, so I protest against these religions.

Quote[/b] ]

You don´t sound very tolerant Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX.

Hey, as long as religious people keep their ideas to themselves, and don't for example interfere in science issues I'm completely fine with them. Again though, here is a discussion about them, so I'm going to tell them why they are wrong. It's not something I do IRL when they are minding their own business.

Quote[/b] ]

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.

I'd like to see some evidence of that.

Seriously, give me a link or a peer reviewed medical journal or something.

ATM, without such evidence, I'm putting it on a par with stage 'psychics' who can easily fool most people but will refuse to perform in front of professional conjurers. (as Houdini said, you need a Flim-Flammer to spot a flim-flammer)

The Amazing Randi is a good example - a professional conjurer and skeptic who debunks all these sorts of 'paranormal' things.

[Scorpio 0]

Lately I've thought about some of the comments made in this discussion and I couldn't believe that such hostility and stupidity can come from a subject like this. It seems like a war rather than a peaceful discussion.

To put it clearly, people...you can't force your beliefs upon others. Both beliefs have been expressed time and time again and so have been noted by others.

Therefore, you will eventually see wether there is a God when you pass away.

To me, it doesn't matter if you believe - you are judged by the content of your character (i.e.good deeds) and not by your religious beliefs.

Such discussions about the existance of God are pointless and endless. It never stops if we keep on hurling comebacks at eachother.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I ask again what answers religion has.

Still awaiting any which are correct.

The FACT of gravity is not going to change. The theory of gravitation has become more accurate over time, explaining the fact better.

The FACT that the earth orbits the sun is never going to change until the sun burns out or some other sort of OCP (Outside Context Problem) occurs.

[whisperFFW06 0]

Quote[/b] ]Religion is a bullshit story designed to impress peasants thousands of years ago that does not mean anything today.

and

Quote[/b] ]But that doesn't mean that we cannot have a discussion about it. That is all this is; a discussion. I'm not going to come round people's houses and scream at them that they are wrong.

No, you're just saying that they believe in bullshit and are peasant.

Interesting way of discussing.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

No, you're just saying that they believe in bullshit and are peasant.

Interesting way of discussing.

To quote 'your' side:

Prove me wrong.

Quote[/b] ] Forum: A medium of open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper or a radio or television program.

[denoir 0]

- 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.

Indeed, but that is why they are still just unproved theories. They have not been empirically validated and therefor have not been accepted as scientifically valid.

Quote[/b] ]

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.

As I wrote earlier, science is per definition dynamic. No theory is ever complete or considered to be the 'ultimate truth'. You have a model and you constantly seek to improve it. And that's a big difference relative religion which tries to cling to a number of absolute theories. (In practice religion adapts as well which again casts a shadow on the whole absoluteness it aspires to have).

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

Well, you got me there. It's true but it is an acknowledged inconsistency. We know that either QM or RT is wrong or incomplete (or both). We know that this is a temporary setup. Religion on the other hand does not have the liberty of 'correcting' their dogma. It would kind of ruin the whole point with having an absolute, flawless god.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]who refuse to read others posts and take on board what they say

I read your posts very carefully and try to reply precisely to the points you made.

Did you know that many scientists do actually believe in god?

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm not. I'm annoyed with people who cannot either learn the basic part of something before they try to argue about it, or who refuse to read others posts and take on board what they say.

lol - if anything you are the one who makes:

1. Illogical statements based on subjective meaning.

2. A meaning that would be negated by your own perception of science....

3. which in turn is a result of a combination of your lack of basic knowledge about epistemology and your own agenda.

You have not debunked anything in this thread. The only thing you've achieved is to unfold your ignorance and especially your intolerance. What you achieved so far is in fact opposite of what you wanted. You have not shown us that you master basic knowlegde about science - which starts with philosophy - but that you have an almost ideological (religious) relationship to science. This you have shown brilliantly due to a belief in something you can't account for!

To put it in a blunt way I'd say you are just as irrational as the rest of us! Welcome to humanity!

[whisperFFW06 0]

Quote[/b] ]I ask again what answers religion has.

I can't give you an answer religion can give to people, because you are waiting for a scientific answer, with proven fact and scientific method. So you will reply with your "unsatisfactory" stamp.

Fact is that people can find the answer :

"You'll end in heaven if your action on this Earth are nice" (<- I'm grossly exagerating ) satisfactory to the question "what do I become when I'm dead", or that, when they ask themselves "Why do I live?", religion answer "to serve your God's beliefs in good and evil" is satisfactory, more satisfactory than science's answers to these questions (simply because the goal of science is NOT to answer these questions).

[GoOB 0]

Personally I think everyone should keep beleiving in whatever they want. I don't beleive in god, sometimes I don't beleive in science either, sometimes all you can beleive in is other people, sometimes you can't do that either.

Simply dismissing religion as a non-issue is very childish and seems very ignorant from my standpoint. Facts and non-facts aren't what make life, life is about other things than pure facts and truths.

EDIT: Very nice post whisperFFW06.

[denoir 0]

Did you know that many scientists do actually believe in god?

This is a non-issue. First of all, define "many". Do you have some demographics to back that claim up?

Second it's irrelevant. If you want to make a point, find me prominent scientist that use their belief in god in their research.

Individual scientists are not the same as science. Did you know that many people every year are killed by christians? Do you think that it somehow reflects on christianity? Or the fusion of murder and christianity?

[Scorpio 0]

Quote[/b] ]or who refuse to read others posts and take on board what they say.

And visa versa, my friend. How ironic. Look back at your posts. You ignore some of the most essential points and turn them round to something else so you can falsely prove them wrong.

Quote[/b] ]Hey, as long as religious people keep their ideas to themselves, and don't for example interfere in science issues I'm completely fine with them.

They are not the ones who started the whole 'religion vs science' thing. Kuja's posts followed by yours did. And where did religion interfere with 'science issues' in this topic?

Quote[/b] ] Again though, here is a discussion about them, so I'm going to tell them why they are wrong.

You can never change ~90% of the world to thinking that their religious beliefs are complete bullshit. You can't just come up to people and say that they're just wrong. Similar to your demand of evidence, they too will demand clear evidence that when they die there will be no God.

e:typo

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]they too will demand clear evidence that when they die there will be no God

Unfortunately, you can only do that experiment once.

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]You can never change ~90% of the world to thinking that their religious beliefs are complete bullshit. You can't just come up to people and say that they're just wrong.

Good point Scorpio! Ethnosentrism never did anyone any good!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Did you know that many scientists do actually believe in god?

This is a non-issue. First of all, define "many". Do you have some demographics to back that claim up?

http://home.houston.rr.com/apologia/scfndgod.htm

Nice to read. I think it is somewhat objective and gives some insights into our discussion.

Denoir, i never claimed that scientists base their research on their religious perceptions. That would actually be counterpoint to what I trying to bring across. My point is that religion and science can coexist without disturbing each other.

I MODIFIED THE LINK; PLEASE TRY AGAIN NOW

[denoir 0]

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/001025belief.html

Nice to read. I think it is somewhat objective and gives some insights into our discussion. (still I am not realy sure of what this meridian is about. A sect maybe??   )

Eh? Objective?

Quote[/b] ]

No wonder that these marvelous creations inspire awe and reverence; they are the work of the Almighty. When we look on any or the least of these, we are looking at God moving in his majesty and power.

Quote[/b] ]The new millennium promises to provide many new and wonderful inventions as scientists recognize the hand of God in nature and begin to understand the principles behind so many inventions which are found everywhere in His creations.

Continuing with anti-evolution shite:

Quote[/b] ]One final note is the following. While the above book assumes, as do most scientists, that these wonders of nature just "happened" by themselves, there is also a growing group of scientists who recognize that no random processes could have resulted in many of these inventions. The natural inventions which must have been "designed" rather than occurring by chance are those in which each of the many parts would have been useless to the creature unless they all just happened to spring into existence at the same time.

Objective? It's fundamentalist crap. I can't find a better word for it.

As for the numbers, let's assume that they are correct. 40% scientists in America believe in god. That's not too impressive, considering that over 80% of Americans are religious. So, American scientists are two times more likely to be atheists than non-scientists.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Damn Denoir, you are too fast   Yeah I noticed that strange taste in that article so I tried again and found a new NON-SECT article from Newsweek. Please try again my link!

I am checking right now if Newsweek realy wrote that one!

yeah they did ... but is it the original text?

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

And visa versa, my friend. How ironic. Look back at your posts. You ignore some of the most essential points and turn them round to something else so you can falsely prove them wrong.

Such as?

How amazing. The religious don't believe they are wrong

Quote[/b] ]

They are not the ones who started the whole 'religion vs science' thing. Kuja's posts followed by yours did. And where did religion interfere with 'science issues' in this topic?

Is this IRL? No, this is a topic on a forum, which is about religion. Why do you want to censor posts about it?

Quote[/b] ]

You can never change ~90% of the world to thinking that their religious beliefs are complete bullshit. You can't just come up to people and say that they're just wrong. Similar to your demand of evidence, they too will demand clear evidence that when they die there will be no God.

I never said you could. You can, however, improve the standard of education so that people figure out for themselves how much pap religion is.

As has happened in Scotland; its gone from an extremely religious country to one of the most irreligious in the world as education has increased.

[denoir 0]

Damn Denoir, you are too fast   Yeah I noticed that strange taste in that article so I tried again and found a new NON-SECT article from Newsweek. Please try again my link!

Ok, from your new link:

Quote[/b] ]Physicists have stumbled on signs that the cosmos is custom-made for life and consciousness. It turns out that if the constants of nature — unchanging numbers like the strength of gravity, the charge of an electron and the mass of a proton — were the tiniest bit different, then atoms would not hold together, stars would not burn and life would never have made an appearance. "When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see," says John Polkinghorne, who had a distinguished career as a physicist at Cambridge University before becoming an Anglican priest in 1982, "that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it."

This is typical pseudo-scientific flawed reasoning. The reason that life exists is because of those parameters exist not vice versa. A very elementary confusion of cause and effect.

Anyway, better than the first sect-article but still very lame.

Oh, look we have oxygen here! Without it we would die. So therefor God must have put oxygen here so we could live. What better proof do you need of a designed creation?

My reply: Go to Mars and enjoy the atmosphere. Here's 5 € for the trip. Enjoy and make sure to inhale properly.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Damn Denoir, you are too fast Yeah I noticed that strange taste in that article so I tried again and found a new NON-SECT article from Newsweek. Please try again my link!

I am checking right now if Newsweek realy wrote that one!

That page is also a fairly fundamentalist site.

Check out the page one level above: its more ...of what denoir said.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

any religious aspect is pseudo scientific. What else could there be when trying to use science to explain religion. Absolute rubbish I agree. But that is the constant mistake of atheists/religious scientists trying to find a trace with their own university tools.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Continuing with anti-evolution shite:

Objective? It's fundamentalist crap. I can't find a better word for it.

As for the numbers, let's assume that they are correct. 40% scientists in America believe in god. That's not too impressive, considering that over 80% of Americans are religious. So, American scientists are two times more likely to be atheists than non-scientists.

OMG STOP USING NAUGHTY WORDS AND SLAGGING OFF RELIGIOUS PEOPLE THEY ARE NOT STUPID

[/sarcasm]

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

any religious aspect is pseudo scientific. What else could there be when trying to use science to explain religion. Absolute rubbish I agree. But that is the constant mistake of atheists/religious scientists trying to find a trace with their own university tools.

Eh?

You can use science to figure out the roots of religion and what effects/ reasons for its existance there are

(it was useful early on in humanity's history, but is not now.)

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Continuing with anti-evolution shite:

Objective?   It's fundamentalist crap. I can't find a better word for it.

As for the numbers, let's assume that they are correct. 40% scientists in America believe in god. That's not too impressive, considering that over 80% of Americans are religious. So, American scientists are two times more likely to be atheists than non-scientists.

OMG STOP USING NAUGHTY WORDS AND SLAGGING OFF RELIGIOUS PEOPLE THEY ARE NOT STUPID

[/sarcasm]

You are trying to make a battle out of this discussion and polarise the members into two groups that fight each other. Wont work buddy!  

[denoir 0]

any religious aspect is pseudo scientific. What else could there be when trying to use science to explain religion. Absolute rubbish I agree. But that is the constant mistake of atheists/religious scientists trying to find a trace with their own university tools.

I agree and that's what I've been saying all along. The problems occur when science/religion overlap. And since religion has ambitions beyond the spiritual/ethical realm conflicts arise. If people made a proper separation of those two, I would have no problem with it. In reality however most religions make extraordinary claims ranging from the creation of the universe, to the age and shape of earth which strongly conflicts with the scientific evidence we have, both theoretical and empirical.