Jump to content

Religion


 Share

Recommended Posts

That's a nice way spelling my name ;) Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing anyone. Just mentioning things.

And yes, some guy had proven the Earth to be round long before that. But then, if that guy had proven it was round. Howcome no one believed it ? So the whole world "believed" or was convinced [ you can blame it on going with the mob, one witch I do agree, but still most people belived it ] the Earth was flat. This is just about my point. We have 2 theory's. Contradicting eatchother but still they "exist" at the same time.

They didn't prove it ? Well they had some "great" theory's about why it had to be flat. And in what way is that any differnt then some assumptions we have or have used in science that has proven itself up to this point ? Like Quantum Mechanics [ again, I know ]. No "real" prove for the theory, just some experiments and a lot of theoretical stuff but still this is science and scientists are working with it. So the science of "the old days" is definiately not science to us, but to them it was. They didn't think like we do now and thus we can't place our therory's upon them to identify and name the things they used as science or not. It's not "our" science, but again, to them it was science.

"Is it any different with religion? Centuries ago the mere idea that anything in the Bible was metaphorical or false would be rewarded with death. Now the majority of Christians accept that Revelations was a complex metaphor for the Roman persecution of the early church."

That's what Ive tried to explain a way back in this topic. With my words, science and religion don't change mutch, They are both based on faith of the persone believing in it.

Again, the science that stated the Earth was round was NOT religious !

[ some was and some wasn't ]

Old worm, I like the way you seperate science with the scientists. But isn't that a bit to mutch of a utopy in "real life", where science doesn't exists without the interpretation of scientists and the cultural sociaty it's placed in ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gryphon, no one believed it because they believed the Church, and what the Church says, is. Would you believe a teacher you've known since birth or a brand new student? And even though you asked worm, I have a thing or to on it. What I believe is that some scientists believe in things in science as a religion, which infects the whole system. But science as itself, is a way to get to the truth via working and not-working theories. It is always changing, and never holds onto one theory without letting others be "tried" as to whether they are valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, don't keep my questions [ if any ] stick to the persone I direct them to. I'm not personal, or try to be, just commenting and so feel free to comment or answer back. :)

Who I believe, the teatcher or the student. Well it depends on what they say and if that makes sense to me. So it's just valuable to me, becuase I interpret and judge what they say.

Agree with you on that, just one thing [ as usual in this topic ] science can't be directed directly towards us. If it does exists it an abstact form that always uses a medium to reatch us. And that medium can alter it a bit, mayby not with "bad" intentions but it could verry well be altered.

And then the science we know and use isn't the real science. That's why I like the seperation the old worm has made. But I also think that the science it self won't be known to us as it really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science is another sort of religion, in a way. Not everything can be explained by science, but whether this is because of hoaxers, the paranormal or some aspect of science we do not yet understand, we don't know. The safe way of looking at science is as the most logical application of evidence about the universe we live in; we must be careful not to see it as anything more than that. It is merely a human shortcut for understanding, because our tiny minds cannot comprehend the sheer vastness of existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The process of finding truth is not important because we think it will someday give us the truth, the search is important because we reap the benefits from each new discovery, from medicine and disease control to cosmology and space travel to human psychology.  They give us reflections of the truth that allow us to grow as a species.  Religion has contributed nothing, except moral codes(which I admit, have been very important to our development).  

I'll put it to you this way.  I see religion as a shell that we, as a species have protected ourselves with in our immaturity.  Religion set up the basic moral codes, while pulling communities closer together with similar ideals.  I don't think we could have survived up until this point without it.  But our transition from the frightened, superstitious people we are now to the enlightened race that we can become is going to require us to step out of that shell and face the realities of the universe.

The fact is, that we can sit and quibble over the unattainable absolute truth, and do nothing to advance as a species, or we can actively find those reflections of the truth and explore the possibilities out there, gain whatever pieces of truth, reaping the benefits, and dangerous consequences of our search.  At some point, we have to accept the most likely truths and move on, even if later on, we find out that we were wrong.

Science has not changed, our tools and understanding of science has.  Science is simply observation, and even faulty theories such as a flat Earth used this method.  We found out that the conclusions were incorrect, so we adapted our techniques and moved on.  This is progress and while you, Gryphon, seem to want to make it a detriment, it is really a virtue.

I'm sorry, but if the evolutionary theory is proven false in the future, then I am wrong now.  That doesn't change no matter how much I believe it.  We either evolved or we didn't.  The science of ancient times with the belief that the Earth was flat is false, just like if a better theory of the origins of the universe comes along, then the Big Bang is false.  Things are either true or false, belief does not change that.

You're right, there are many things that science cannot explain.  It cannot dive into my first person experiences of the world, but does that make it invalid?  I have never said we can know absolute truth, to the contrary.  But we must accept the probable truths and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I challenge anyone to show me a Bible verse that says the Earth is flat. And I mean a clear reference to that, not something like "the sun stopped in the sky", because we use terms like "the sun rises" and "the sun sets" even today, although we know better.

It seems few people know the REAL story of Copernicus, Galileo and their heresies... The truth is that the "heresy" wasn't the fact that the Earth is round, but the fact that it moves around the sun. (that's why Galileo said "e pur si muove")

But you see, the geocentric system (the idea upheld by the Inquisition) has nothing to do with the Bible at all. It is also called the PTOLEMEIC model of the Solar System, because it was "perfected" by Ptolemy - who was not a Christian, FYI.

The Inquisition blaimed scientists of heresy because they held as sacred the wisdom of the ancients. And that wisdom said that the Earth is the center of the universe. It was also a matter of simple paranoia.

The dispute over the Earth being flat or round was never handled by the Inquisition, as far as I know.

Nema:

The web is a powerful tool... and getting more powerful each day. Soon, we will say "He who controls the internet controls the media. He who controls the media controls the mind." And so we will all worship the deputy of satan, Bill Gates. ;D

What's stopping atheists from building a huge, imposing, opressive building of their own? Be my guest.

Greed is a natural instinct. Apes are "greedy" too.

Trouble is that "inconsiderately disruptive" can mean anything you want it to...

"Mordecai is right in that we must all make certain assumptions - and from them, deduce our goals and moral code. e.g.: I assume constructive activity in the search of knowledge etc."

What have I been saying in the last 2 pages?? The very same thing!! We must all make certain assumptions - on blind faith. Even the assumption that what we see is real (and not an illusion) is only based on "blind faith".

Science doesn't aim to kill - so it's not evil (same applies to religion). But science has the potential of destroying the human race - so it's very dangerous. Use extreme caution. Not to be handled by inexperienced or mentally unstable personnel. :)

Earthnuker, how much do you REALLY know about schools in the States and in Europe? I few years ago I studied in Britain for a whole term and I can tell you a lot about their Religious Education. They learn about all religions comparatively and thoroughly (that's where I got most of my knowledge about Buddhism). They also learn about evolution in science classes as a proven theory, so I don't know where you got your info from, but it's wrong.

Mordecai, I agree 100% with your opinion on human kind. Imagine a trial:

The accused: humanity

Accusations: Genocide, mass destruction of other species, disregard for life, irrational spilling of precious resources, endangering all life on Earth, etc.

Defense attorney: humanity itself

Prosecutor: satan

Judge and jury: God

We wouldn't stand a chance normally, except that God would forgive us. That's the surprising part. We are insignificant (and malevolent, for that matter - just look around you) specks of dust, but God still cares about us. He cares enough to send part of Himself to die for our sins.

^One of the reasons I'm a Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The_old_worm, are you aware of how many millions died in the name of your progress? Many more people than the Inquisition ever killed!

In the name of progress we have built oil drills and burned rainforests. In the name of progress we have created factories and power plants and pumped chemicals into the ecosystems. In the name of progress people are being forced into slavery to the transnational corporations. In the name of progress we have fought wars and exterminated native populations.

I want no part of this "progress"!!

Your concept of science is an idealized godlike image of an entity that transcends human intelligence and morality, something above and beyond us. Come down from your idealized heaven and smell the grass, The_old_worm! It's not nearly as green when you see it from down here! The truth is that your "science" doesn't exist. There are only scientists, going about their business of playing god while over 50% of humans live in extreme poverty. It is so typical for a scientist to look down on the rest of the world from his crystal tower!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edric, we use sun rise/sun set as a reference, not as a belief. We do not believe it, the people back then did. So the different times makes different meanings of the words, thus they could very well have meant the sun revolves around the sun, and probably did because they didn't have the knowledge we have today.

And if God is perfect, then he didn't send a part of himself down, he made an imperfect being and brought it to Earth. Or do you say that he sent a part of himself, and made it imperfect? It just seems strange that people think he sent a part of himself to die for us. All people did was make a martyr of Jesus and it advanced into a worldwide religion. Osama could very well be a Jesus to his followers when he dies, and then it would be pressed upon people forcefully and sometimes peacefully and spread throughout the world. Then people would say God sent a piece of himself (Osama) and he died for our sins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old worm, when you speak of the advancment of our species you speak of a scientiffic adnvancment. Don't say science is good becouse it greates [ give us ] science. That's not the important thing in life to a lot of poeple.

Einstein : You know what's more important than knowledge ? Imagination ;)

"I'm sorry, but if the evolutionary theory is proven false in the future, then I am wrong now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What's stopping atheists from building a huge, imposing, opressive building of their own? Be my guest"

My point was that we don't use such propaganda techniques.

"The web is a powerful tool... "

My point was that there are people on the web who worship toast (look 'toast' up in a search engine) - so don't place too much stock on the fact that some atheists have a website.

"Ptolemy - who was not a Christian"

The church realised this would fit with their beliefs... besides he was still religious, and the ideas were compatible. If Ptolemy had made it as we find today, the church would have ignored it and called it heresy.

"...In the name of progress people are being forced into slavery to the transnational corporations. In the name of progress, those motivated by pupose like have fought wars and exterminated native populations..."

Nor do I.

Remember science and religion are two-edged swords: people can use religion to kill (as a reason) as can they science (as a means). We

"We must all make certain assumptions - on blind faith. Even the assumption that what we see is real (and not an illusion) is only based on "blind faith". "

We must make some assumptions, or we will get nowhere. We need to assume we are, in fact existent... but we do not have to assume that there is some omnipotent being that is wonderful etc etc.

"Trouble is that "inconsiderately disruptive" can mean anything you want it to... "

Yopu know what I mean, and I know what I mean.

Besides, the entire bible can mean anything you want it to...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I never said that science alone would give us truth, but we do gain many reflections of truths through science.  Other factors, such as reason and imagination have to play a role as well. But science IS key to finding those most likely truths.

Science is not important to many people?  You don't think a person's health is important to them? or their families health?  You don't think that psychology is important to most people, understanding why they get depressed and how to deal with it? You don't think understanding our planet is important so that people know how to protect themselves from Earthquakes, Hurricanes, Volcanoes, UV rays etc...? If you don't see the importance of science in everyone's life then you are blind.  Does religion give us the answers to these problems, besides "sacrifice a lamb to ease the anger of the volcano God!"  We can get nowhere with these guesses that religion provides as answers.

The fact is Gryphon that evolution either did or did not happen in some form or another.  No one should assume they are right, that is one of the problems with humanity today, we all think we're right.  I would be right in saying that evolution is the most likely explaination that we know today, but it is important for people NOT to accept this as truth.  The idea that you propose of truth being what we believe, is an idea that holds us in stagnation because if we already are right, then why search anywhere else for the answer.

If my basic theory is false, then my evidence IS garbage, or, at the very least, is misinterpereted, and I must be prepared to accept that.  You can make NO valid conclusions if you base those conclusions on a faulty theory.(unless by accident)  I accept that my theory is LIKELY!!!!!  and attempt to make conclusions from that. There is a BIG difference, as I said, between cautious acceptance and belief.

Science IS observation!  The collective observations of the scientific community and of the rest of the population, represents the conscousness of Science.  Scientists are simply voices in the crowd influencing the overall ideas of humanity.  Some of these observations are valid, and some aren't but Science, as a whole, hears them all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gryphon, read what I am saying!  Yes, religion set up a moral code for us, and we still use it today.  Yes, we will continue to use much of that code, hopefully forever.  Yes, many people do rely on religion today.   You are not understanding my point.  We must step out of the shell of religion and uncomver our eyes from the guesses that religion uses to cloud our vision.  But, it is important for us to be able to do so, while keeping our morality, and sense of community that religion has provided.  Are we ready for this step yet?  Maybe not.  Maybe people can't have morality without religion.  Maybe we need to mature longer, before we can handle that.

Are you saying that the God Emperor did not understand the power to control through religion?  Leto was not a God, but he allowed himself to be worshiped as a God, as did Paul, because they understood the power of Blind Faith. They used it to control the masses, and to direct it for their own ends. For Paul, the destruction of the Harkonnens, and rise to power.  For Leto, for his direction of Humanity down his Golden Path.  Sorry, Frank Herbert was an agnostic, if you want, I'll quote his work to support myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edric, while the Bible never actually says "The Earth is flat" it does very stongly imply that, and by applying logic to the interperetation, given the belief of that time, it stands to reason that the people who wrote the Bible believed that the Earth was flat.

Mathew 4:8 "... took upon a high mountain and showed all the kingdoms of the Earth."--- Not on a round planet, he didn't!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know i am a little late, but your discussion intrigues me.

First of all, There is a difference between "religion", Judaism, christianity, what many "christians" in america practice, and those who call themselves "evangelical christians"

Religion is the quest to know God; Judaism is the quest to satisfy the God they base their heritage upon; christianity is based upon God seeking humanity, and providing a way to atone for the sin gap through the resurection of Jesus; many see this as unlimited forgiveness, which it is(from an unlimited God) and choose to use it to excuse their own deeds; evangelical christians see this as a way for us to know God, and feel that in gratitude, others should know Him too.

When "Science"(I should say scientists) discount certain theories because they are "religion", they really only do not wish to put their "proven facts" to the test. They make excuses: "We used the scintific method","We base our theories on evidence","We discovered these things with an open mind, you had your chance then". They do this because they cannot win.

About using unproven theories to prove other unproven theories, and allowing these to pile up, this only increases the chances of being incorrect in the "final" theory. There is so many unproven, outlandish, creative, fanciful, and wishful "evidence" in the theory of macro-evolution that the odds of one of the main supports for it being wrong is very likely. The big bang theory has only been proved in one respect, that there was a begginning(something people have known pre-history), and that the galaxies are very probably moving outward(some dispute it). Anti-matter, unified forces, and such are wishful suggestions that have been put forward to support the theory. Why? because people want to know how, why, how do they "know" what they know.

Also about that whole, "Jesus' followers mad ehim a martyr after he died and Osama could be the next Jesus" junk, I ask you, will Osama rise from the dead and appear to hundreds, and did he do miraculous wonders that defied the laws of science while he was still alive?

If we created "religion" and then "discovered" "science" then why has science proved many things that the Bible has known for thousands of years before? The answer? The Christianity I practice was not started by men seeking a god, it was started by God's last ditch effort to save a mankind that had gone astray and ignored the rules he instituted (for our own well being) for our own selfish desires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...while the Bible never actually says "The Earth is flat" it does very stongly imply that, and by applying logic to the interperetation, given the belief of that time, it stands to reason that the people who wrote the Bible believed that the Earth was flat.

Mathew 4:8 "... took upon a high mountain and showed all the kingdoms of the Earth."--- Not on a round planet, he didn't!

You would be suprised at what Satan can do.

...and all their splendor(last part of that verse)

Also, you ever seen a picture of the earth from space?

Would it not be tempting to own all that? It would, if you didn't already!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judaism is the quest to satisfy the God they base their heritage upon;
I'm sorry, but you can't sum up a religion in a few words. Any religion has different variants and different strings, so to sum it all up in a few words would be a lie. You prove that one example doesn't work for the statement, then the part conscerning that is wrong.
I ask you, will Osama rise from the dead and appear to hundreds, and did he do miraculous wonders that defied the laws of science while he was still alive?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is, that scientists don't reject theories base on religion, they reject them because they have no evidence!  Or if they do, it's because the facts have been manipulated and lied about by the religious psuedo-scientists.  Creationsist are the most dishonest group out there.

Science is neutal to God. If evidence arises that proves God's existance, or at the very least makes him likely, science will accept that, until another theory comes along to prove it wrong.

What test are you talking about Dezerfish?  If you have a test that can falsify evolution, please put it forth.  Otherwise you are just spouting rhetoric.

And which system sounds good to you Dezerfish,(and we all know which sounds better to you), Using evidence, observation and logic to support theories, accepting the fallability of human perception, or guessing about the answers and having Blind Faith in those answers, denying all other possibilities.  Which do you think has more likelyhood to be wrong about the final truth?

You're statement about outlandish, wishful, blah blah, evidence of macroevolution, only demonstrates your ignorance on the topic.  How do you explain the numerous vestigial organs that have been found?  The vestigial genetic structures found?  The evidence from genetics that supports the mophological family tree?  The order in which we find fossils and it's correlation with carbon 14 dating?  Observed beneficial genetic mutations? Behavioral patterns predicted through evolution?  As time goes on, sorry friend, but your argument is going the way of the Dodo.

Yes, you can clobber the big bang theory all you want, but their is sufficient evidence to validate the theory.  No it is not proven, and certainly not fully understood, but at lease science is trying, instead of creationists who insist that their mythology has the answer.

Osama may not do those things, or he may, who knows, but the question is, did Jesus do those things? How do you know? because a book written by man tells you so, well I can write a story of lightning bolts coming out of my butt, will you believe that too. There is no evidence supporting any of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One other thing I would like to say is that the Bible is just a book. Most of the things described in there are consistant of stories people made up long time ago or misinterpretations. Jezus walking over water? Come on.

If you buy a magazine wich states that Madonna is a guy, would you believe it? Then why should people believe all the things in the Bible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the greatest arguments against religion is...

Religion.

Even if a person decides that there must be a higher power, they still have to decide which religion they think is correct. Each proclaims itself to be true and right, whilst denouncing all others. The fact is, no one belief has any superior claim to being right than any of the others - namely, the teachings of one person hundreds or thousands of years ago who claimed to be inspired by god (or something similar). Even in the possibility of religion totally destroying atheism, there would still be similar pointless arguments about which religion was right, and exactly how people should live their lives.

STOP FOOLING YOURSELF, HUMANITY!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...