SpeedRacer 1 #101 April 20, 2008 My point in this thread was not to prove God exists or that Religion is a valid belief. My point was that the goal of Religion is NOT the same as the goal of Science. And therefore one is not supposed to be a replacement for the other. A saw does not replace a hammer: the two tools have different purposes. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #102 April 20, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Which one? So much choice! .... LOKI ODIN THOR FREYA RAGNAROK BALDUR ASGARD TYR HEL ..... Why are all the Nordics in capital letters? Well, you definitely don't want to get on the wrong side of those guys....... ... Gals (Freyja) clicky (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,595 #103 April 20, 2008 QuoteMy point was that the goal of Religion is NOT the same as the goal of Science. And therefore one is not supposed to be a replacement for the other. A saw does not replace a hammer: the two tools have different purposes. But you're still wrong. Science explains the physical universe, moral philosophy explains, well, morality - religion tries (and usually fails) to do both. To suggest otherwise is revisionism at its worst.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #104 April 20, 2008 I have a lot of Christians in my family, with varying degrees of devotion to religion. Not one of them attempts to use the Bible as a replacement for a science textbook. Are you trying to tell us what we believe? (btw, when I was in college I had to write a term paper for my class in Coastal Geology. As it turned out, one of the best experts on the geology of New England turned out to be a Catholic priest who wrote books & taught classes in geology at Boston College. Obviously this guy is a devout beliver, but obviously doesn't believe in Fundamentalist Creationism.) Look: here's one argument I have no problem with from an atheist: "Religion is mankind's attempt to become spiritually closer to God. But since God doesn't exist, religion is bullshit." I disagree with that, but I have no problem with that at all logically. Here's where I have a problem: "Since religion is an attempt to explain physical phenomena and Science does a better job of that then Religion, then we should replace Religion with Science." THAT argument is based on a false premise, which I put in bold. To say Religion should be rejected because it fails at describing physical phenomena is simply using the wrong criteria. It would be like saying that Bill Gates is a FAILURE because he never became a professional athlete. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #105 April 20, 2008 Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. A scientifically-based person can have beliefs that have not been proven by science. There are many things that science has yet to prove. To discount all that has yet to be discovered through scientific method is a little short-sighted, imho. We're a little ways off from being able to examine some things scientifically, while we're a LONG ways off from others. This only demonstrates our own human limitations...not the limits of what exists that we've yet to discover. Do you believe that there is life outside the confines of our little world? Is it possible even though we haven't seen proof? What if a person believes it to be so? Is he believing in fairy tales? linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #106 April 20, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #107 April 20, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Which one? So much choice! .... LOKI ODIN THOR FREYA RAGNAROK BALDUR ASGARD TYR HEL ..... Why are all the Nordics in capital letters? Well, you definitely don't want to get on the wrong side of those guys....... ... Gals (Freyja) clicky Them too!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #108 April 20, 2008 If memory serves me right I don't think Ragnarok is a god. I think it is the Norse version of Armeggedon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,595 #109 April 20, 2008 QuoteI have a lot of Christians in my family, with varying degrees of devotion to religion. Not one of them attempts to use the Bible as a replacement for a science textbook. Are you trying to tell us what we believe? I'm saying that when you make a statement like this "I think that the belief in God is not and never was supposed to be an attempt to explain physical phenomena." You are completely and utterly wrong and I've explained why in the other thread currently on the go. It's revisionism and it's indefensibly wrong.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DZJ 0 #110 April 20, 2008 QuoteLeaving aside the fact that the first four are completely pointless and the final one sounds like advocating lack of ambition, d'you really think that people wouldn't know that the others are wrong if a bloke in a hat didn't tell them so? "Well I was about to run you over, fuck your wife and steal your TV, but the vicar told me not to." Sorry mate, but I think your characterising the final commandment as 'advocating lack of ambition' is a bit of a stretch. As far as I can see, all it's saying is that you shouldn't covet that which is not yours.(Would coveting your neighbour's wife be 'ambitious'? Your post would imply that would be a good thing). It doesn't say anything about not earning those things for one's self. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #111 April 20, 2008 QuoteQuoteI have a lot of Christians in my family, with varying degrees of devotion to religion. Not one of them attempts to use the Bible as a replacement for a science textbook. Are you trying to tell us what we believe? I'm saying that when you make a statement like this "I think that the belief in God is not and never was supposed to be an attempt to explain physical phenomena." You are completely and utterly wrong and I've explained why in the other thread currently on the go. It's revisionism and it's indefensibly wrong. Have you ever heard a clergyman give a sermon? They don't spend much time attempting to discuss things covered by science. That isn't the topic that they are exploring. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #112 April 20, 2008 QuoteQuoteI have a lot of Christians in my family, with varying degrees of devotion to religion. Not one of them attempts to use the Bible as a replacement for a science textbook. Are you trying to tell us what we believe? I'm saying that when you make a statement like this "I think that the belief in God is not and never was supposed to be an attempt to explain physical phenomena." You are completely and utterly wrong and I've explained why in the other thread currently on the go. It's revisionism and it's indefensibly wrong. I've not been reading the other thread, but I'm not sure what you find to be so wrong with revision when it comes to religious beliefs. To me it's a good thing when people modify what they believe based on scientific evidence. Revisionism isn't ALWAYS wrong.-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,595 #113 April 20, 2008 QuoteI've not been reading the other thread, but I'm not sure what you find to be so wrong with revision when it comes to religious beliefs. "Is not and never was supposed to be" That's revisionism - it's simply a blind denial of the facts. Throughout the vast majority of human history religion has been used to explain the physical universe. Only in the last 150 odd years, and even now for less than 50% of the population of your country, has religion moved away from explaining things which fall within the domain of science. To say that religion was never meant to be involved in explaining the physical world is a ridiculous, laughable falsehood.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #114 April 20, 2008 Quote To say that religion was never meant to be involved in explaining the physical world is a ridiculous, laughable falsehood. That's true. The trials of Copernicus and Galileo come to mind as counter-examples. However, I think you are wrong to equate spirituality with religion. The common definition of spirituality is not necessarily aligned with religion. It can be linked to other activities that provide a transcendent experience such as running, listening to Pink Floyd, and even skydiving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #115 April 20, 2008 Quote Quote I've not been reading the other thread, but I'm not sure what you find to be so wrong with revision when it comes to religious beliefs. "Is not and never was supposed to be" That's revisionism - it's simply a blind denial of the facts. Throughout the vast majority of human history religion has been used to explain the physical universe. Only in the last 150 odd years, and even now for less than 50% of the population of your country, has religion moved away from explaining things which fall within the domain of science. To say that religion was never meant to be involved in explaining the physical world is a ridiculous, laughable falsehood. Actually the separation of scientific questions from philosophical questions (within the Church) goes back a lot further than that. As for the "greater than 50%" believe in Creationism, I am just as surprised as you are. It certainly goes against my personal experience based on people I know. They probably did the survey in East Bumfuck, Mississippi during the auditions for Deliverance. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,595 #116 April 20, 2008 QuoteActually the separation of scientific questions from philosophical questions (within the Church) goes back a lot further than that. Fair 'nuff. But unless you're going to say it goes right back to the birth of the church, and indeed to the birth of religion itself (and you really can't do that and hope to be taken seriously) then you're still very wrong.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #117 April 20, 2008 Then why does the Catholic church keep coming out with public statements, and trial testimonies, AGAINST teaching Creationism (or Intelligent Design) as science? Clearly at least SOME believers do NOT use their religion as a substitute for science. (non fundamentalists) And for believers like that, the argument that religion fails because it doesn't do the same job that science does, is a bullshit argument. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #118 April 20, 2008 QuoteQuoteI've not been reading the other thread, but I'm not sure what you find to be so wrong with revision when it comes to religious beliefs. "Is not and never was supposed to be" That's revisionism - it's simply a blind denial of the facts. Throughout the vast majority of human history religion has been used to explain the physical universe. Only in the last 150 odd years, and even now for less than 50% of the population of your country, has religion moved away from explaining things which fall within the domain of science. To say that religion was never meant to be involved in explaining the physical world is a ridiculous, laughable falsehood. Who cares about "was never meant to be...." That's just one of those things that people like to argue over. It's without consequence, imho. Religion was once all there was outside of that which was directly observable. As we understand the universe better, scientifically, then our religious thinking has to change, I think. But spirituality doesn't have to cease to exist just because we come to have a better understanding of of physical science. It's not a blind denial of the facts. It's an acceptance of the facts that we have and an ability to alter our beliefs based on our knowledge. Both extremes....i.e. "the Bible tells us all we need to know" and "science has already given us all the facts we need for religious understanding"....are equally ignorant, imho. linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,595 #119 April 20, 2008 QuoteThen why does the Catholic church keep coming out with public statements, and trial testimonies, AGAINST teaching Creationism (or Intelligent Design) as science? Clearly at least SOME believers do NOT use their religion as a substitute for science. (non fundamentalists) And for believers like that, the argument that religion fails because it doesn't do the same job that science does, is a bullshit argument. You are again worming your way away from your original statement - that religion is completely, and was always, only concerned with moral matters. You're pretending (and that's the only word for it) that because that is the way you use religion, that is all that religion was ever for, and the reason religion was invented. You are wrong.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vallerina 2 #120 April 20, 2008 QuoteMy point in this thread was not to prove God exists or that Religion is a valid belief. My point was that the goal of Religion is NOT the same as the goal of Science. And therefore one is not supposed to be a replacement for the other. A saw does not replace a hammer: the two tools have different purposes. Pardon the anecdotal evidence, but I see science and religion both trying to understand and explain what we don't know (ie, they have the same goal.) Even my nephew who learns in school the actual origins of the Earth and will soon learn about evolution, even he breaks down the beginnings of the Earth to his Sunday bible school teachings. (ie, "What happened on the first day?" "What happened on the second day?" "Adam and Eve were the first people.") The biggest difference I see between science and religion trying to explain what we don't know is that one admits to not knowing and the other fakes it. I don't know how helpful it is to kids to lie to them and tell them certain things are true when they might not be. Religion is not necessary for a person to live with morals, but if that's how a person chooses to live, that's fine. I'm not quite sure how moral it is to talk about eternal damnation of others (as mentioned in this thread.) It is tiresome to hear people equate being religious with being moral (I especially love it when someone acts like a complete jerk and uses "god" to make themselves feel okay about it.) Yes, religious people can do good things like work at soup kitchens and build houses. So can non-religious people, so I don't see how religion has much to do with people's desires to want to help others.There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #121 April 21, 2008 Quote Like the moral template the 10 commandments provide. It's moral guidance whether you're a Christian or not. It's too shallow. You could molest children, take bribes, sell drugs and pay no taxes - and be one hundred percent abiding those Ten Commandments.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #122 April 21, 2008 Quote If we continue to act, speak out that He does not EXSIST, then how is He suppose to be a Father to us, as a teacher, a guide in our lives. How can HE be "nice" to me if I or others do not or will not believe in He? You're considering the God like your neighbor. Imagine you walk through the forest. And see an ant hill. You have a kind of superpower against the ants. Will you use it, and kill them all if you know that some of them (or even all of them) don't give a shit about you? Or you just continue walking, and forget about it in a second?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #123 April 21, 2008 Quote You want to keep gambling with your ETERNAL life, I can't stop ya! You ARE gambling, since you do not have any proof you're praying a right God. Imagine how it would suck when you, praying Jesus your whole life, die and face Allah who puts you in Hell because you weren't Muslim. I'd say you'd suffer even more than me in this situation - because I didn't pray anyone, and you made a wrong choice praying the wrong God. So who is gambling? :P* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #124 April 21, 2008 Muslims & Christians worship the same God. We both believe that there only is one God, so all the prayers get forwarded to the same email address. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #125 April 21, 2008 Jakee, you and Vallerina should go and sit through a church service sometime. There is virtually no effort, time, or sermon devoted to trying to explain physical phenomena. People attend religous services in order to get spiritually closer to God, not to figure out how to explain physical phenomena. Granted, there are obviously some fundamentalists out there who want to twist religion into a substitute for science. But if you actually attend a service, you would see that that is not religion's main purpose. Anyway, how else do you explain us non-fundamentalist believers? What do you think we are doing when we go to church? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
