# Truth : Science Vs. Religion



## Wrigleyvillain (Jul 18, 2011)

The Witcher said:


> Ummmm.....so this means that there is a chance that all these carbon dating were a bit off ?
> 
> Yes....finally a good news.



Good news why? Cause it bolsters the belief that Allah created the universe? 

Like Mailman said we really have no idea when it comes to the universe and religious Creationist theory is likely the epitome of that ignorance.

Very interesting. Nice find.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 18, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Good news why? Cause it bolsters the belief that Allah created the universe?



nothing in science speaks about a creator nor can science ever make any statements to that


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 18, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> nothing in science speaks about a creator nor can science ever make any statements to that



Technically as understanding of the mind grows science can make plenty of statements about what and why we believe the things we do.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 18, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Technically as understanding of the mind grows science can make plenty of statements about what and why we believe the things we do.



yes but that has nothing to do with a creator. any answer science can give you can ask "why? how?"


----------



## The Witcher (Jul 19, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Good news why? Cause it bolsters the belief that Allah created the universe?
> 
> Like Mailman said we really have no idea when it comes to the universe and religious Creationist theory is likely the epitome of that ignorance.
> 
> Very interesting. Nice find.



What ? you just read United ARAB Emirates and automatically assumed I'm a Muslim ? 

I just find it funny when things like that happen, I mean when I see other people defending concepts just because everyone believe in it. I'm a free thinker myself, I'm extremely skeptic about everything.

Anyway I was just being sarcastic....


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 19, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Good news why? Cause it bolsters the belief that Allah created the universe?
> 
> Like Mailman said we really have no idea when it comes to the universe and religious Creationist theory is likely the epitome of that ignorance.
> 
> Very interesting. Nice find.



Religion is not the epitome of ignorance. Mans arrogance is. Be it his faith in an interpretation of mans science. Or his faith in mans interpretation of a book. Its all self severing stupidity and the message is always lost.

Some say man uses religion to explain the unknown. Some say man uses science to explain away his misunderstanding of G-d. Bottom line? Nobody knows and anyone who holds judgment over one or the other is worse then who he holds judgment over.

Both science and religion are about having an open mind. Yet both extremes seem to be the most closed.


----------



## JATownes (Jul 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Religion is not the epitome of ignorance. Mans arrogance is. Be it his faith in an interpretation of mans science. Or his faith in mans interpretation of a book. Its all self severing stupidity and the message is always lost.
> 
> Some say man uses religion to explain the unknown. Some say man uses science to explain away his misunderstanding of G-d. Bottom line? Nobody knows and anyone who holds judgment over one or the other is worse then who he holds judgment over.
> 
> Both science and religion are about having an open mind. Yet both extremes seem to be the most closed.



This post needs to be put on a billboard and shared with the world!  Very good outlook on science & religion.  I liked it a lot.  Kudos to you!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 19, 2011)

> The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. - Stephen Hawking



From the man who "proved" there is no G-d sitting in a wheelchair.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> bunch of stuff.



except he never said religion is the epitome of ignorance, 
he said that religions' creationist theory is, and i'd like to 
see the great mailman  dispute that!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 19, 2011)

digibucc said:


> except he never said religion is the epitome of ignorance,
> he said that religions' creationist theory is, and i'd like to
> see the great mailman  dispute that!



Religion is the corner stone of the creationist theory. 

Disputed.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jul 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> From the man who "proved" there is no G-d sitting in a wheelchair.


I don't recall that ever happening.  Douglas Adams did that. 


> Originally written by *Douglas Adams*
> _Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
> The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
> "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"
> "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic._



On a more serious note I don't see how science conflicts with deism.

The problem I have with your criticism of science is that you seem to neglect the burden of responsibility that exists in science.  

To explain that idea a little better . . . Often the question of where to go for lunch will come up between my friends and I.  Being a troublemaker, I'll often suggest a restaurant I like.  Someone will inevitably complain that they don't like ______ food.  My standard response is thus, "In life you won't get very far by only stating that a choice is inadequate; you have to suggest another option which works better."  Then I put on my troll face. 

This metaphor extends to science and begs the additional questions:
How do we know when we know it? Or, how much evidence is enough to be positive proof?

Human ego is pervasive in science, but this is incidental and unavoidable.  What aspect of life is not subject to bias?  Nevertheless we must be diligent in removing obstacles, including the illusion of knowledge, to scientific progress.



> Originally spoken by *Richard Dawkins*
> _I do remember one formative influence in my undergraduate life. There was an elderly professor in my department who had been passionately keen on a particular theory for, oh, a number of years, and one day an American visiting researcher came and he completely and utterly disproved our old man's hypothesis. The old man strode to the front, shook his hand and said, "My dear fellow, I wish to thank you, I have been wrong these fifteen years". And we all clapped our hands raw. That was the scientific ideal, of somebody who had a lot invested, a lifetime almost invested in a theory, and he was rejoicing that he had been shown wrong and that scientific truth had been advanced._


----------



## digibucc (Jul 19, 2011)

exactly, science at the very least makes an allotment for human egotism, 
and that's why there are so many checks and balances, proof argument 
and counter-point.  it's goal is to find the most objective truth we can 
- whereas religion's goal seems to be to ignore as much proof as possible, 
so as to maintain the grip you have on people's minds.

and note:i mean organized religion, though i think the belief in god alone has
it's harmful effects, in making one MORE willing to accept inconsistent claims
on "faith". but it's nothing compared to the effect of the abrahamic religions 
in particular.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 19, 2011)

streetfighter 2 said:


> I don't recall that ever happening.  Douglas Adams did that.
> 
> 
> On a more serious note I don't see how science conflicts with deism.
> ...



I agree. However while scientists are willing acknowledge they do not know everything. They are also 100% positive there is no G-d yet can offer no proof. Its hypocritical and egotistical. There lies my issue with a lot of "science". I feel the same way when religion passes judgment on a culture or a person. They are being hypocritical to their own foundation. 

My view is to keep an open mind. Until ether one can be proved without a doubt Ill practice what both preach. 



digibucc said:


> exactly, science at the very least makes an allotment for human egotism,
> and that's why there are so many checks and balances, proof argument
> and counter-point.  it's goal is to find the most objective truth we can
> - whereas religion's goal seems to be to ignore as much proof as possible,
> ...



No thats not religions goal at all. Thats mans goal.

The same can be said about science and its misuse of the "green industry" to also gain control. Checks and balances are out the window when politics are involved.

Science and religion should team up and get rid of what truly ills man. Politics.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I agree. However while scientists are willing acknowledge they do not know everything. They are also 100% positive there is no G-d yet can offer no proof.



that is the first time i have seen you say something that is outright false.  i don't even want
to know your excuse, as that statement has no basis in reality.

any scientist, heck - any rational logical being worth their salt would say at most:

"I highly doubt there is any creator, though i can't say for sure."  anything more than that
is either an ignorant person, or a straw-man argument.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 19, 2011)

digibucc said:


> that is the first time i have seen you say something that is outright false.  i don't even want
> to know your excuse, as that statement has no basis in reality.
> 
> any scientist, heck - any rational logical being worth their salt would say at most:
> ...



Lots of scientist say for sure there is no G-d. When they do I toss them out as scientist.

Granted my statement was generalizing and that was a mistake.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Lots of scientist say for sure there is no G-d. When they do I toss them out as scientist.
> 
> Granted my statement was generalizing and that was a mistake.



fair enough.



TheMailMan78 said:


> No thats not religions goal at all. Thats mans goal.
> 
> The same can be said about science and its misuse of the "green industry" to also gain control. Checks and balances are out the window when politics are involved.
> 
> Science and religion should team up and get rid of what truly ills man. Politics.



right but the difference is, religions are built around the idea of trusting a singluar
authority that has no basis in fact to back up their claims.  at least with science and
enough desire it is possible to test the claims we are trusting.  

religion inherently lacks a system to do this, and therefore imo is less reliable.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 19, 2011)

digibucc said:


> fair enough.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There used to be a show years ago that attacked the bible and its theory's with science. The parting of the red sea and such. Almost every single major "miracles" in the bible could be explained through science and in fact could be replicated in some way today.

It was an amazing show that pissed off both religious and scientific minds. Guess thats why it went off the air 

Anyway it comes down to one belief. Do you believe in coincidence and all its likelihoods.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jul 19, 2011)

The Witcher said:


> What ? you just read United ARAB Emirates and automatically assumed I'm a Muslim ?
> 
> I just find it funny when things like that happen, I mean when I see other people defending concepts just because everyone believe in it. I'm a free thinker myself, I'm extremely skeptic about everything.



My bad for jumping to conclusions but I couldn't come up with any other reason why this would be "good news" and your "explanation" didn't really change much in that regard. And as 76% of the UAE is Muslim I figured it was a safe assumption.

And yes I agree that mans arrogance is the epitome of ignorance but what is more arrogant in terms of believing one has "all the answers" (well, almost) than organized religion?

Religion is like a communicable virus that affects the mind.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jul 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> They are also 100% positive there is no G-d yet can offer no proof. Its hypocritical and egotistical. There lies my issue with a lot of "science".


Wait, wait, wait -- what?  I don't remember science saying god doesn't exist.  Richard Dawkins said that and most of his peers regard him as a shock jock.

Whether or not god exists depends on how your belief system works.  For instance if someone asserts, "if the earth is more than about 6,000 years old than god doesn't exist because the bible is literal", well I've got bad news for you, because god doesn't exist .  If, on the other hand, the statement is changed to, "God is infallible but the bible is not a literal account of creation", then this says nothing about whether god actually exists or not.

You can only disprove god if you give god some testable criteria.  Science does not define god, religion does.

As I said earlier, "I don't see how science conflicts with deism."


----------



## digibucc (Jul 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> There used to be a show years ago that attacked the bible and its theory's with science. The parting of the red sea and such. Almost every single major "miracles" in the bible could be explained through science and in fact could be replicated in some way today.
> 
> It was an amazing show that pissed off both religious and scientific minds. Guess thats why it went off the air
> 
> Anyway it comes down to one belief. Do you believe in coincidence and all its likelihoods.



well without seeing it, i would assume the science was shoddy - so scientists didn't like it. 

and religions, as wrigley said, already have all the answers.  anyone claiming something
else is obviously wrong, or else why have we been listening to these people for thousands of years.

if the science isn't shoddy, i would have something to consider.  do you remember the name?

as for coincidence, i believe some things are going to happen.  not "meant" as to signify 
intention, but more like the answer to a math problem.  the pieces are already in place so
it will happen regardless.

but a lot is simply chance.  and i've heard no argument strong enough, that even combined
with the others lends any credence to the idea that there is a divine being that created our
world with intent, and/maybe still watches over us.  absolutely nothing leads to this being
the most logical conclusion, so i dismiss it until maybe something does logically lead there.

*it's not a matter of accepting the possibility, i have already done that.  i just think it's 
about as likely that there is a teapot orbiting our solar system.  i could never prove that
wrong, but it doesn't mean there is an equal chance of it being correct as not.*


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 19, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> *Mans interpretation* of religion is like a communicable virus that affects the mind.



Fixed.

So is bad science. The only thing they have in common is mans arrogance.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 19, 2011)

You can only assess the claims of God's depending on how you define a God. Some say God is love, some say it's the soil or air. But the problem has always been the lack of evidence, they all rely on faith which solely appeals to emotion, as faith is not a pathway to truth.

Religion and God are the easiest ways for our minds to comprehend the existence of the universe, but it doesn't help us understand the universe like we should. I consider God a cop out answer to such a large and complex question, it's the suspension of critical thinking for what feels right to the mind as well as what your parents told you growing up, they lie to you and then tell you to be honest.

God is possible, but so is the celestial teapot and flying elfs creating the universe, possibilities are infinite.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 19, 2011)

digibucc said:


> well without seeing it, i would assume the science was shoddy - so scientists didn't like it.
> 
> and religions, as wrigley said, already have all the answers.  anyone claiming something
> else is obviously wrong, or else why have we been listening to these people for thousands of years.
> ...



The science wasn't shoddy IMO. A lot of times they would say "we can't prove this" and they would chalk it up to fantasy. But when they did prove something it was awesome. They even had the red sea accounted for with a Neapolitan expedition and account. The whole thing had to do with the plates of the Earth shifting for some reason or another. Ill see if I can find the show. It was pretty mind blowing some of the stuff they were showing and proving and disproving. Sodom was one they couldn't prove. They theroized it was a meteor I belive. But the soil proved that wrong. Good stuff.

Anyway I GOT to get back to work. Ill rebuttle some of the other stuff tonight if I can.


----------



## The Witcher (Jul 19, 2011)

Since this thread will get locked anyway, let's me toss my opinion 

Well, regarding Dawkin's memes. I can clearly see that many of his concepts are being used here. But I've to ask the question, do some of you think about what you read or do you just believe it because it was said by a charismatic and a little bit authoritarian figure such as Richard Dawkins  ? I myself always think about the process of the human mind accepting new ideas and how it accepts it (That's a whole different topic).

I myself is torn apart by the sheer number of ideas regarding science/religion. I've a constant inner conflict, it's like one part of me start saying that Richard Dawkins ideas "for example" are right but then another parts jump and start saying that there is still a possibility that there is some kind of grand plan. 

The bottom line is, always be open minded and don't accept anything as a fact or close to a fact, because in the end you might get disappointed. Being neutral is good for me, at least in the mean time. 

Oh one last thing, I bow for MailMan because he is one of the few people I've seen that do look really open-minded unlike some people that convince themselves that they are open-minded when they are not "I'm talking in general here, I'm not directing this to anyone "


----------



## digibucc (Jul 19, 2011)

you're free to believe what you want witcher, but i disagree . not in your sentiment,
but in your analysis of the situation. being paralyzed by fear of the unknown is the
only reason to stay neutral.  

though there is no definite answer either way, there is enough information to take a side.
you can be open minded while at the same time not giving more credence than deserved
to faulty ideals.  

i mean, do you believe "god did it" is as good an answer as the theory of gravity, or general relativity?

atomic clocks are not worthless, they just aren't as infallible as we thought. and note, the article's title 
is misleading.  it may not be constant, but that doesn't mean the change isn't accountable.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jul 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Fixed.
> 
> So is bad science. The only thing they have in common is mans arrogance.



Yes ok I'll accept that because we are talking about organized religion not "spirituality" and things above and beyond our relatively puny consciousness and cognition.

What exactly is "bad" science anyway? And note I'm not talking about any kind of fraud or deliberate lies to fit a particular agenda. In this case, apparently a mistake was made re. the reliability of carbon dating and such. I don't know if I'd call that "bad science". Apply what has been learned and adjust what's necessary and move on.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 19, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Yes ok I'll accept that because we are talking about organized religion not "spirituality" and things above and beyond our relatively puny consciousness and cognition.
> 
> What exactly is "bad" science anyway? And note I'm not talking about any kind of fraud or deliberate lies to fit a particular agenda.



bad science is really anybody who uses the name of science but doesn't follow
the scientific principles.

for example, having a desired outcome and having tunnel-vision only seeing facts
that point to that outcome.  

as i said though, at least science has a good side.  all religion imo fits the above description.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jul 19, 2011)

Again, the reason science works so well is partly that built-in errorcorrecting
machinery. There are no forbidden questions in science,
no matters too sensitive or delicate to be probed, no sacred truths.
That openness to new ideas, combined with the most rigorous, skeptical
scrutiny of all ideas, sifts the wheat from the chaff. It makes no difference
how smart, august, or beloved you are. You must prove your
case in the face of determined, expert criticism. Diversity and debate
are valued. Opinions are encouraged to contend — substantively and
in depth.

--Carl Sagan


----------



## The Witcher (Jul 19, 2011)

digibucc said:


> you're free to believe what you want witcher, but i disagree . not in your sentiment,
> but in your analysis of the situation. being paralyzed by fear of the unknown is the
> only reason to stay neutral.
> 
> ...



I see many voids in both parties that's why I'm still neutral. It's like when one party is putting an argument there is an opposite argument from the other which might strong enough.

From the way I see it Religion do depend on unanswered question but in the same time I see scientists who became too radical in their beliefs of certain theories and made them as facts which in a way reminds me of fanatic religious figures, scientists who spread their ideas thru books and journals and many people do believe in most of these ideas because let's be honest the general public have a hard time resisting scientific ideas because simply they are not familiar or are not deep enough in these subjects to put an argument.

I forgot what I wanted to say..anyway I know that the way I think is not "efficient or effective" because like I said above I'm extremely skeptic about everything. I always try to think outside the box. 

Just take it easy on me


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jul 19, 2011)

Ok but-and I thought I covered this-I'd venture to say that those are bad _scientists_. It's not science itself that is at fault in these situations. Unlike religion which is BS from the get go, imo.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 19, 2011)

as mailman has been ... alluding to, look at the theories and not the men behind them.

which system of belief do you think has more in place to at least attempt to make it even, 
and open?  do you really see the scientific method and "intelligent design" to be on 
equal footing, forgetting the people associated?

as i said, "do you believe "god did it" is as good an answer as the theory of gravity, or 
general relativity?"

you talk about being open minded. forget individual scientists, that's what SCIENCE is 
ALL ABOUT!  do you see christianity, islam, and judaism as being open minded?


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 19, 2011)

digibucc said:


> as i said, "do you believe "god did it" is as good an answer as the theory of gravity, or
> general relativity?"



you are asking invalid questions. it's like asking an artist "what's the sum of those paintings?" or "whats the square root of a lady gaga song?"


----------



## digibucc (Jul 19, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> you are asking invalid questions. it's like asking an artist "what's the sum of those paintings?"



in the specific context of which more attempts to find the verifiable truth.

@ford

i guess i generally place more importance on these matters, practical for every day or not.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 19, 2011)

digibucc said:


> to find the verifiable truth



by definition there is no prove to religion
by definition science has no answers that cant be verified


----------



## digibucc (Jul 19, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> by definition there is no prove to religion
> by definition science has no answers that cant be verified



and that's my point.
science is designed to be tested, religion avoids that entirely.

in my mind, that makes science the more trustworthy, when there
is confusion.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 19, 2011)

digibucc said:


> and that's my point.
> science is designed to be tested, religion avoids that entirely.
> 
> in my mind, that makes science the more trustworthy.



trust is a diffuse concept that varies from person to person and you're comparing apples to oranges a space station


----------



## digibucc (Jul 19, 2011)

but there is also an objective truth, that can be shared and verified between people.

although i find inner truth important, i think it is only valuable when compared to
the more pure imo, truth that everyone can see and test.

they both attempt to answer the questions we hold important as a species:
why are we here, where did we come from, where are we going?

in my mind, that makes them competing ideals.

*and by trust i simply mean it makes me more willing to say "this set of ideals is
more likely to find me some sort of verifiable truth"*


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jul 19, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Why isn't this religion vs science thing being discussed on General Nonsense instead of here?



Good question, actually, but at least here at TPU we can apparently have a civil, non-reactionary discussion about these matters which is pretty much the opposite of all the other forums with which I'm familiar. XS had to specifically ban all religious and political talk from Wamps outright. And I supported that decision as it was aggravating.



W1zzard said:


> trust is a diffuse concept that varies from person to person and you're comparing apples to oranges a space station



Trust? Yes. Truth? No. 

Note I do not claim to know this truth, either. Just to question and wonder.


----------



## Kreij (Jul 19, 2011)

New thread for this discussion so the radioactive decay thread can go back on-topic.


----------



## DannibusX (Jul 19, 2011)

Religion and Science go hand in hand.  They're essentially the same thing.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 19, 2011)

DannibusX said:


> Religion and Science go hand in hand.  They're essentially the same thing.



Can you explain that?(unless it's a joke lol)


----------



## Captain.Abrecan (Jul 19, 2011)

I told a girl at work the other day (who was upset about this): "You came from a monkey, or a rib. Choose wisely."  LOL


----------



## DannibusX (Jul 19, 2011)

Fanatics are abound in both disciplines.  I take an outside view of both.  I am neither religiously inclined or scientifically abled.

It's like this.  Religion tells us that a god, or gods created the Earth and the heavens.  Science tells us that the heavens are actually the cosmos, the universe and it all started with a massive explosion billions of years ago.  Can you prove either?

If you wanted to get right down to it, you could say that god snapped his fingers and the universe exploded into being.  That's as good as explanation as any I've ever heard.


----------



## The Witcher (Jul 19, 2011)

DannibusX said:


> Fanatics are abound in both disciplines.  I take an outside view of both.  I am neither religiously inclined or scientifically abled.
> 
> It's like this.  Religion tells us that a god, or gods created the Earth and the heavens.  Science tells us that the heavens are actually the cosmos, the universe and it all started with a massive explosion billions of years ago.  Can you prove either?
> 
> If you wanted to get right down to it, you could say that god snapped his fingers and the universe exploded into being.  That's as good as explanation as any I've ever heard.



The Church Of The Snapped Fingers


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jul 19, 2011)

My opinion on this matter is this: Organised religion since it's inception has done far more harm than good. It has caused the most irrational acts of violence known to history, and even in today's society, where you think we would have learned some sort of lesson from the past, it is still causing wars and violence worldwide.

On the other hand, science has enabled more and more destruction in the hands of what in most occasions, is a religious purveyor of their own delusional justice.

In the end, they are working hand in hand to destroy everything. 

If their truly is a god, there would be no reason for it to do anything but sit back and watch. Seriously, why would it get involved in punishing us when we are doing an amazing job of doing that ourselves, and why intervene when we have collectively spit in it's face every opportunity we've been given to do so?

To summarize: Neither science nor religion are a good thing when put in the hands of the people that have somehow found themselves in control of them, and the endless debate about which is correct is pointless when they are joined together in unholy matrimony.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jul 19, 2011)

Wha? Wait a minute what the hell happened here? LOL

Mmm that's some creative moderating...


----------



## Red_Machine (Jul 19, 2011)

You know why Britain entered into the Catholic church?  Because the king at the time wanted more power over his subjects.  That says it all.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 19, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Wha? Wait a minute what the hell happened here? LOL
> 
> Mmm that's some creative moderating...



we split the religion debate out of the original thread and made this thread so you can keep going


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Jul 19, 2011)

i dont mean to get to much off topic but this thread is giving me a huge boner


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 19, 2011)

I don't get it. We know so much about the real and rather mundane historical origins of all religions now that it's no longer a defensible view point to have. So why would anyone continue to have religious beliefs? A) They need them for comfort. The idea of not existing and constantly having to worry about not existing at some point can be quite debilitating. Most likely why religious beliefs are an evolutionary necessity for any advanced race in the early days before they have a legacy of knowledge to build upon. Otherwise you'd spend too much time pondering why this or why that and being terrified of death. B) It's entrenched from childhood, and resistance to having the foundation of your beliefs removed is incredibly high. C) It's just much easier to be pig headed than to go research something with the intent of proving yourself wrong.


----------



## gumpty (Jul 19, 2011)

Science is the best method we have for producing useful knowledge about the world we live in. Religion does not produce meaningful, testable knowledge. If someone can demonstrate a better alternative to methodological naturalism for producing knowledge that benefits mankind and our planet then I'll back that instead.

Religion was useful once for uniting a society and prevent parts splintering off or joining another rival group. It is redundant now that we have massively organised sports teams and competitions.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 19, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> I don't get it. We know so much about the real and rather mundane historical origins of all religions now that it's no longer a defensible view point to have. So why would anyone continue to have religious beliefs? A) They need them for comfort. The idea of not existing and constantly having to worry about not existing at some point can be quite debilitating. Most likely why religious beliefs are an evolutionary necessity for any advanced race in the early days before they have a legacy of knowledge to build upon. Otherwise you'd spend too much time pondering why this or why that and being terrified of death. B) It's entrenched from childhood, and resistance to having the foundation of your beliefs removed is incredibly high. C) It's just much easier to be pig headed than to go research something with the intent of proving yourself wrong.



Its more of a man knowing his limitations.......man as a whole doesn't seem to know his yet. Therefore religion will always come into play. This is the main reason I question everything man says. Be it scientific or religious.



gumpty said:


> Science is the best method we have for producing useful knowledge about the world we live in. Religion does not produce meaningful, testable knowledge. If someone can demonstrate a better alternative to methodological naturalism for producing knowledge that benefits mankind and our planet then I'll back that instead.
> 
> Religion was useful once for uniting a society and prevent parts splintering off or joining another rival group. It is redundant now that we have massively organised sports teams and competitions.



We had that before Rome. Hell we had that in Sumeria. Religion at its core is needed for man to survive as much as science is. Its that damn pesky ego that keeps the two from uniting.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jul 19, 2011)

This was bound to happen. Eventually there would be a TPU vs GN thread.


----------



## gumpty (Jul 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Religion at its core is needed for man to survive as much as science is.



What is religion at it's core?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 19, 2011)

gumpty said:


> What is religion at it's core?



Faith that there is more then we understand. Much like Quantum Physics.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 19, 2011)

gumpty said:


> What is religion at it's core?



it dangles a magical carrot in front of you that promises a great reward for fitting a certain profile during your life


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 19, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> it dangles a magical carrot in front of you that promises a great reward for fitting a certain profile during your life



Unlike Quantum Physics which dangles a magical cat in front of your face and promises you nothing.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jul 19, 2011)

How many of you would be alive today if not for antibiotics,
cardiac pacemakers, and the rest of the panoply of modern medicine?

Science saves more lives then it has destroyed. However, I cannot attest the same for religion.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 19, 2011)

AphexDreamer said:


> How many of you would be alive today if not for antibiotics,
> cardiac pacemakers, and the rest of the panoply of modern medicine?
> 
> Science saves more lives then it has destroyed. However, I cannot attest the same for religion.



All the missions in third world nations bringing those anti-biotics to people disagree.


----------



## gumpty (Jul 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Faith that there is more then we understand.



Yeah, but at it doesn't provide any mechanism for discovering what that is. And in it's organised form often actively discourages people from striving to know more.

Science on the other hand provides us a mechanism for bettering our situation. I don't see how religion provides that.




TheMailMan78 said:


> All the missions in third world nations bringing those anti-biotics to people disagree.




It could be argued that it is people's innate humanity brings those meds to people. The "faith that there is more then we understand" doesn't seem to speak about distributing meds to third-world countries.


This thread is going to run and run.

I'll try and read the hundreds of posts in the morning. Night night people.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 19, 2011)

gumpty said:


> Yeah, but at it doesn't provide any mechanism for discovering what that is. And in it's organised form often actively discourages people from striving to know more.
> 
> Science on the other hand provides us a mechanism for bettering our situation. I don't see how religion provides that.



I agree to a point. But Science doesn't give comfort to people in dire situations to continue fighting to survive. Only religion does that. Religion and instinct. But instinct will never give comfort. No one in a fox hole says "Man I can wait to read Hawkins next book on quantum mechanics. I better stay alive." no its more of "G-d if you can pull me through this alive I swear Ill be a better man.".

See where I'm coming from?

Both are needed for man. Pure religion and pure science are equally bad. The human race needs both in moderation to survive.


----------



## Phxprovost (Jul 19, 2011)

AphexDreamer said:


> Science saves more lives then it has destroyed. However, I cannot attest the same for religion.



your kidding me right? for every life saving advancement that has been brought about by science there is also weapons that can eliminate whole regions with the push of a button.  Both Science and Religion are inherently neutral, the key is human nature and how we use them to our advantage.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 19, 2011)

Phxprovost said:


> your kidding me right? for every life saving advancement that has been brought about by science there is also weapons that can eliminate whole regions with the push of a button.  Both Science and Religion are inherently neutral, the key is human nature and how we use them to our advantage.



Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner.


----------



## gumpty (Jul 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I agree to a point. But Science doesn't give comfort to people in dire situations to continue fighting to survive. Only religion does that. Religion and instinct. But instinct will never give comfort. No one in a fox hole says "Man I can wait to read Hawkins next book on quantum mechanics. I better stay alive." no its more of "G-d if you can pull me through this alive I swear Ill be a better man.".
> 
> See where I'm coming from?
> 
> Both are needed for man. Pure religion and pure science are equally bad. The human race needs both in moderation to survive.



You call it religion ... I call it humanity. I agree, just differ in the name we give it. I guess I'm a humanist, explains the same things without pretending there is a invisible sky-daddy.

Anyway, have fun with this. I'm going to bed.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jul 19, 2011)

Given the other zealotry (for both sides), let's look at this with a critical eye.

Our original topic was about nuclear decay being a non-constant.  The article cited a decrease in the decay rate whenever the solar activity increased.  Let's assume that this is a 100% true trend that did not evolve from anywhere else.

If you dated a fossil's radioactive carbon content, assuming a constant decay rate, you would have a logarithmic curve.  This curve is used to determine how old a given specimen was whenever it stopped taking in radioactive carbon isotopes (death or finished good).  

Assuming the decay rate changes with solar activity the curve would not apply.  This does not account for either upswings in decay (low solar activity) or downswings (extreme solar activity).  Before anyone trumpets for either side, let's get our facts in line.


Now zealots on both sides, look at the numbers.  You don't know what the influence is, and don't have hard facts to support either side.  Taking either the religious extreme (we were created by g_d 2000 years ago), or the scientific extreme (life has been around longer than we thought), is foolish.

In short, calm the flaming.  Wait until people who know better can do the math, and give us a more accurate picture.  Hate like this is why the undecided middle can't side with either set of fundamentalists.


Full disclosure: I believe in a higher power, but not the Judeo-Christian or Muslim interpretation.  Science is damn good at explaining things, and should always be the first thing we develop (before we bow to a superior pawer).


----------



## TIGR (Jul 19, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> nothing in science speaks about a creator nor can science ever make any statements to that



That assumes that God and science are and always will be mutually exclusive.


----------



## _Zod_ (Jul 19, 2011)

Question religion and you might be beheaded, question science and you might win a nobel prize.

I'll just leave this here.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 19, 2011)

TIGR said:


> That assumes that God and science are and always will be mutually exclusive.



yes, per definition


----------



## TIGR (Jul 19, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> yes, per definition



Such a narrow definition of God seems unscientific to me as it ignores many possibilities; e.g. the possibility of a god existing though not exactly as perceived by some. See cargo cults.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jul 19, 2011)

Phxprovost said:


> your kidding me right? for every life saving advancement that has been brought about by science there is also weapons that can eliminate whole regions with the push of a button.  Both Science and Religion are inherently neutral, the key is human nature and how we use them to our advantage.



Everyday Science helps successfully give birth and maintain/ensure the survival of the human race via medicine, hospitals, security systems, etc... etc... 

Only in rare cases like the nuclear bomb (twice) and random spurs of war (usually caused by religious extremists from the start) where science is accompanying man to destroy themselves.


----------



## Rule-R (Jul 19, 2011)

Religion explains the existence of men.
Science tries to explain the existence of men.

Objectively i would rather believe in the faith (either in God or Science) by which i gain the most in the long run. (I also buy the best price/quality parts for my pc) Science is fun fun fun, me like computers!, but the idea of the possibility suffering in hell almost fries my circuitry.
Subjectively i am pleased that science is more and more backing up my religion and less and less supporting everything else. Not that it would matter, because faith is.. faith.


----------



## TIGR (Jul 19, 2011)

Rule-R said:


> Religion explains the existence of men.
> Science tries to explain the existence of men.
> 
> Objectively i would rather believe in the faith (either in God or Science) by which i gain the most in the long run. (I also buy the best price/quality parts for my pc) Science is fun fun fun, me like computers!, but the idea of the possibility suffering in hell almost fries my circuitry.
> Subjectively i am pleased that science is more and more backing up my religion and less and less supporting everything else. Not that it would matter, because faith is.. faith.



Respectful, not adversarial questions:

Does religion explain our existence any better than science, or does it just delay the jump from nothingness to existence by introducing an intermediate step—that intermediate step being in many cases a supernatural being?

A second question is: does aligning one's self with a religious belief system based upon fear (rather than upon confidence in the underlying truth of that belief system) constitute true religious belief? If the threat was removed, would you still believe? And what if science invented its own hell and the threat of its hell seemed equally convincing?

I think of us as being born with lenses so rough they are almost opaque between ourselves and reality. As we learn, we are grinding away at the imperfections in the lens, revealing a clearer and clearer vision of truth. Science and technology are tools for grinding the lens ever more finely and if there is a god out there, perhaps they are what will lead us to that god.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jul 19, 2011)

Dammit, 2nd time of writing this as I just mistakenly pressed escape and my 10 min 3 paragraph post disappeared 

Anyway, i believe science and religion are more closely related than many of us would believe or admit to. For instance, most biblical readings deem the earth was created in so many days and there is an omnipresent being who created it all, this isn't a million miles away from some of science's explanations where there was a big bang (god?) billions of years ago (7 days?) that created the universe... 

People tend to get caught up in the detail rather than the larger picture. I mean who says the bible, koran, tora etc were all meant to be taken literal (7 days in biblical terms could be billions of years in himan terms), infact there are so many comparisons in science and religion it's not even funny, mankind just seems to get bogged down in detail and focused on it that we kind of forget to take a look at the bigger picture. 

Whos to say science and religion can't dwell in the same house, both have people that follow them that would die for what they believe both believe in something yet neither is quite sure what that something is and both look for answers to questions that have been asked since the dawn of man (or monkey/fish/microbacterial etc etc) 

Regardless of whether science is your religion or religion is your science we can agree that neither side has all of the answers and there may be more similarities between science and religion than people would care to admit, which is a shame. 

Damn really feel like having a spliff now and getting all hippy-fied


----------



## micropage7 (Jul 19, 2011)

wow. personally i think religion and science should run on the same way. religion however teachs us to think and figure out all that happen in our life, but at some point it wont get explained coz its like philosophy


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jul 19, 2011)

Obviously that picture is not accurate, but it is funny!  I think it's important to mention that some people really do believe that (though usually only one or the other).


W1zzard said:


> it dangles a magical carrot in front of you that promises a great reward for fitting a certain profile during your life


We're talking about religion, not your coke addiction.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jul 19, 2011)

AphexDreamer said:


> How many of you would be alive today if not for antibiotics,
> cardiac pacemakers, and the rest of the panoply of modern medicine?
> 
> Science saves more lives then it has destroyed. However, I cannot attest the same for religion.





TheMailMan78 said:


> All the missions in third world nations bringing those anti-biotics to people disagree.



Nice reply MM, again I think science and religion can get on like buddies  

And btw my 4 year old boy has had a pacemaker for 2 years so I appreciate science as much as anyone here for if it wasn't for science he wouldnt be. Did that stop me praying during his last open heart surgery he would be ok? ...........


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 19, 2011)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Nice reply MM, again I think science and religion can get on like buddies
> 
> And btw my 4 year old boy has had a pacemaker for 2 years so I appreciate science as much as anyone here for if it wasn't for science he wouldnt be. Did that stop me praying during his last open heart surgery he would be ok? ...........



I honestly don't see how the two can coexist in terms of factual support. No doubt Science and Religion have coexisted for a long time, but they serve two different purposes in my mind, one is used for the discovery of our universe and the other based on emotional appeal.

It's great that you prayed for your son and in general prayer does show compassion and love, it's fine if it makes you feel better. But of course to me, prayer has no affect, one person helping can do more then 1000 hands together in prayer.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jul 19, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> I honestly don't see how the two can coexist in terms of factual support. No doubt Science and Religion have coexisted for a long time, but they serve two different purposes in my mind, one is used for the discovery of our universe and the other based on emotional appeal.
> 
> It's great that you prayed for your son and in general prayer does show compassion and love, it's fine if it makes you feel better. But of course to me, prayer has no affect, one person helping can do more then 1000 hands together in prayer.



Are you telling me that hope and human will (praying) do nothing? how many wars were won on the premise of hope when a man has nothing else left but hope, what can't be done by human will? dont confuse my concept of religion with what the modern concept of religion is and what the media portrays everyday, dare tell me my prayers and hopes had nothing to do with my son being here today....... you werent there when he pulled out his external pacemaker and breathing tubes (science) 12 hours after being opened up for heart surgery in intensive care whilst being heavily sedated by anaesthetics and stood out of his bed and would have died had it not been for my extreme calm and constant comforting of him, I could only do that by drawing strength from something external to myself. 

Heck I am delusional, he would have been fine regardless, wouldn't he? Like I said dont mistake my description of religion with organised religion like we see everyday in the news and the papers, Ithough don't tell me there is no such thing cause as much as I can't disprove theories like "the big bang" which funnily enough seems to be plausible to people yet the notion of a higher being is just laughable..........


----------



## Mr McC (Jul 19, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> I honestly don't see how the two can coexist in terms of factual support. No doubt Science and Religion have coexisted for a long time, but they serve two different purposes in my mind, one is used for the discovery of our universe and the other based on emotional appeal.



A stick appears bent when partially placed in water, we often "hear" things when no sound occured and many people continue to feel an amputated limb: our senses can and often do deceive us. Following the tenets of Cartesian solipsism, the only thing that you can be sure of is your own existence. Moreover, given that we can only perceive and comprehend our world through our senses, I would be wary of placing too much importance on what we refer to as "facts". Perhaps with the exception of mathematical truths, science often points us towards the most probable interpretation rather than providing an irrefutable answer and many thinkers argue that where we attempt to observe something, the process of observation changes it, once again calling into question our "facts".

To a religious person, discoverying the universe and belief in a divinity or divinities are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, the foundations of Platonic philosophy rest firmly on the belief that true discovery necessarily entails a metaphysical element. Reason and emotion have not always been considered as being in conflict.



NdMk2o1o said:


> Are you telling me that hope and human will (praying) do nothing?.



Bear in mind that placebos are effective.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 20, 2011)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Are you telling me that hope and human will (praying) do nothing? how many wars were won on the premise of hope when a man has nothing else left but hope, what can't be done by human will? dont confuse my concept of religion with what the modern concept of religion is and what the media portrays everyday, dare tell me my prayers and hopes had nothing to do with my son being here today....... you werent there when he pulled out his external pacemaker and breathing tubes (science) 12 hours after being opened up for heart surgery in intensive care whilst being heavily sedated by anaesthetics and stood out of his bed and would have died had it not been for my extreme calm and constant comforting of him, I could only do that by drawing strength from something external to myself.
> 
> Heck I am delusional, he would have been fine regardless, wouldn't he? Like I said dont mistake my description of religion with organised religion like we see everyday in the news and the papers, Ithough don't tell me there is no such thing cause as much as I can't disprove theories like "the big bang" which funnily enough seems to be plausible to people yet the notion of a higher being is just laughable..........



That's more then reasonable, prayer helps some to psychologically deal with situations that they find challenging in life. I do reject that war notion though considering winning wars are meaningless to me(but that's a whole different topic). I did make the assumption that you prayed to your particular God for help and for that i'm sorry, i think striving over challenges in life, and striving over the ills of the world can not be done with hope or with faith, and while positive motivation can be derived from such things, it fundamentally does nothing in reality besides allow people to cope with their own issues.

Prayer and hope do motivate for good, but it takes more to help then what prayer and hope offers in the face of challenge.



Mr McC said:


> A stick appears bent when partially placed in water, we often "hear" things when no sound occured and many people continue to feel an amputated limb: our senses can and often do deceive us. Following the tenets of Cartesian solipsism, the only thing that you can be sure of is your own existence. Moreover, given that we can only perceive and comprehend our world through our senses, I would be wary of placing too much importance on what we refer to as "facts". Perhaps with the exception of mathematical truths, science often points us towards the most probable interpretation rather than providing an irrefutable answer and many thinkers argue that where we attempt to observe something, the process of observation changes it, once again calling into question our "facts".
> 
> To a religious person, discoverying the universe and belief in a divinity or divinities are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, the foundations of Platonic philosophy rest firmly on the belief that true discovery necessarily entails a metaphysical element. Reason and emotion have not always been considered as being in conflict.
> 
> ...



That's true, really the ultimate goal of the process of science is what leads us to the most probable conclusion with the available resources at the time, there is something a bit more absolute about truths which is what science generally aims for. I mispoke saying that science has facts as opposed to the actual reality of achieving a general better understanding of the universe which is what is works towards incrementally as opposed to finding whole truths immediately.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 20, 2011)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Are you telling me that hope and human will (praying) do nothing?



What those things do for yourself is one thing, but technically speaking praying and being hopeful doesn't actual affect anything externally. Well except perhaps another person if they have a positive emotional response to knowing that you're praying/feeling hopeful. Positive emotions in the patient may have a positive effect on recovery, though I can't recall if I've ever seen a proper study on that effect.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jul 20, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> All the missions in third world nations bringing those anti-biotics to people disagree.



And then I wonder about the Vatican condemning condoms, and the Islam preachers in north Nigeria (and other parts of Africa) saying that the Polio vaccine is actually sterility drugs used by the west to kill the "true believers".


----------



## shlesscamp (Jul 20, 2011)

TIGR said:


> Does religion explain our existence any better than science, or does it just delay the jump from nothingness to existence by introducing an intermediate step—that intermediate step being in many cases a supernatural being?



i feel dumb now but honestly i never even though of that. good point +1


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 20, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> What those things do for yourself is one thing, but technically speaking praying and being hopeful doesn't actual affect anything externally



human interaction with the world by just seeing it has a scientifically proven impact on the world(3 slots experiment) that to me dictates we do not understand the universe, to me peoples theories are built up on shit thats continually on the edge of oblivon relevatively
my simple understandings are that many choose religion to explore the world many dont but the 2 get on fine in my head.

to me an RC cathlic ish id say science is on the edge of describing exactly what jesus said that we are all 1 entangled inseperable (10 dimension says hes right) thing not at least on one level independant and whos to say our univers isnt a germ in the body of something we might call god

also ive seen experiments throwing love at ice cristals that were interesting


----------



## Thefumigator (Jul 20, 2011)

I'm christian catholic myself, mmmm more christian than catholic but in South Americamost churches are catholic, but anyway I don't care much, its not the important thing.

Actually I had several bad moments in my life. The third world is not everyone's piece of cake. So yes I had to rely on a church. I had to, if it wasn't by them and their help, I wouldn't have made it. 

Look, the kindom of god is within you. That said Leo Tolstoi in his book of the same name. Mahatma Ghandi was very captivated by this book and other Tolstoi works I assume. He managed to get a huge bunch of people to kick the english empire out of India with just 2 ideals: no violence and no resistance. 

That's a miracle to me. But the real miracle would be the day all humanity takes its example to solve things and start forgiving to stop rage. 

God, or Jesus or Allah or whatever, He always wanted to explain this from the begining. But many didn't heard, and many didn't got it right and started to use violence in the name of God.

Think at the *"holy inquisition"* for one moment. Half of the victims were christian catholic, that were against their own church, and in the process they were killed in the most awful ways. Joan of Arc was the begining of the end of the "holy inquisition". And hopefully, for the best of us all, the holy inquisition ended. How would Catholic Church survive after such atrocity? because it wasn't the Church to blame, but those who were in command at the time.

But is religion to blame? or just men are to blame?
Is it that god abandoned the planet long ago that made this planet break onto suffering? or is it men that aren't doing their homework?

Is it science one of our homeworks to make a better life for us all? YES!
Can we use all of our time to make science go in favour of humanity? YES!
Can we use all of our time to make _religion_ go in favour of humanity? AGAIN YES!
And we should.
I hope, whatever religion you are into, or maybe you aren't into any, that anyone uses his life for the best of all of us. Whatever it is, just do it, maybe its taking care of your father, maybe is studying science, *maybe its folding at home* (for tpu of course ;-)) you know.

Whatever are your beliefs, and whatever this thread ends.


----------



## Steevo (Jul 20, 2011)

NdMk2o1o said:


> how many wars were



The fault of religion?


----------



## erocker (Jul 20, 2011)

Steevo said:


> The fault of religion?



I'm pretty sure that land and resources takes the cake on that one.


----------



## mastrdrver (Jul 20, 2011)

In both instances (both science and religion) the one who claims to understand it does not understand that they know nothing.

Religion and science are not dangerous. It is this race we call humanity. It is a dangerous thing for one to find books, information, etc that challenges what we think we know. The reason being that we may find out that we have wasted a portion of our life in error.

The reason for all this is pride. No one wants to be told they do not know what they are talking about when they have spent a life studying it and teaching it.

The best analogy (not very good so forgive me) I can give is politics in the US. Outside of the very few that listen to the people who elect them, debating on capital hill is an exercise in futility. Everyone has already made up their minds (party lines). The debating is for appearance sake. The people who "change sides" only do it because they got something they wanted, not because of some persuasive argument.

In a similar manner, arguments between religion and science end the same. "Everyone" has made up their mind and the idea of _being wrong_ is just too hard of a shock (either way) to the mind. Thus, we stand in our pride and pronounce the other side wrong without give weight and thought to the argument of whether it is right or wrong.

Even while it may sound like I understand this, I don't. There are so many twists and turns on this it is mind boggling.

The real question is, is there someone who understands it all?

If so, then "it/they" have to be God since anyone who would understand it and know it all would be by the very definition.


----------



## The_Ish (Jul 20, 2011)

I must highly recommend http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1418108/

Whether you believe or not.. I watch a new documentary every day without exaggerating. That is to say, I've seen my share. Take my word for it, this is an excellent documentary series.

edit/removed spoilers


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 20, 2011)

Everything is either made up by humans or ran by humans.

Science i can understand because its the quest to find an answer for things. Religion is looking at a book and having faith when looking for answers. To me blind faith is less reliable than having real world experience to back something up. Either way humans cloud everything so all these things can just be one persons experience that is why we debate science and why there are so many different denominations of religion.

I take a lot of things on faith like are the ingredients in a drink as they claim? Are there actually people at the other end reading this on TPU? Yes i can go and discover this if i wanted but with religion i cant i have to take it on blind faith that something actually exists like what was in a scripture.

Technology and science are slightly different, technology is something i can touch or use where as science is just theories that are constantly being challenged and debated. Technology by definition is just knowledge that is put to practical use.

EDIT: I grew up a Catholic but ive almost stopped following it. Practically i felt i had no use for following a religion. Also i just don't believe in any of the old testament as being fact but most of the bible is just a story designed to tell us how to live our lives. Its just a series of peoples experiences and i can go and find any number of books and get the same effect.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 20, 2011)

WhiteLotus said:


> And then I wonder about the Vatican condemning condoms, and the Islam preachers in north Nigeria (and other parts of Africa) saying that the Polio vaccine is actually sterility drugs used by the west to kill the "true believers".



The current pope actually said the use of condoms to prevent infection was okay in exceptional circumstances.
To use condoms to prevent pregnancy goes against teachings of Catholicism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11804398


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jul 20, 2011)

With time and as science expands religion will become obsolete. 

We will simply require less and less of it as our knowledge expands. 

For the survival of the human race will not come down to how many times we went to church or practiced our faith, but how far we've advanced in science and technology and with that our understanding of the universe and its contents.

"If you want to save
your child from polio, you can pray or you can inoculate. If you're interested
in the sex of your unborn child, you can consult plumb-bob
danglers all you want (left-right, a boy; forward-back, a girl —or maybe
it's the other way around), but they'll be right, on average, only one
time in two. If you want real accuracy (here, 99 percent accuracy), try
amniocentesis and sonograms. Try science.
Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with
prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however
vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet
has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability
of science? There isn't a religion on the planet that doesn't long
for a comparable ability—precise, and repeatedly demonstrated before
committed skeptics —to foretell future events. No other human institution
comes close."

Carl Sagan


----------



## TIGR (Jul 20, 2011)

The_Ish said:


> I must highly recommend http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1418108/
> 
> Whether you believe or not.. I watch a new documentary every day without exaggerating. That is to say, I've seen my share. Take my word for it, this is an excellent documentary series.
> 
> edit/removed spoilers



Be careful trusting anything that comes from Erich von Däniken. A bit of searching online will explain why. Ancient Aliens contains more than its share of exaggerations and sensationalism. Doesn't qualify as objective or scientific in my book. But do I recommend watching it? Absolutely. I've just recently watched the entire series and it's fascinating. Just take it with a grain of salt and do your own research on the side.


----------



## The_Ish (Jul 20, 2011)

I just find it it interesting.


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 20, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Religion is not the epitome of ignorance. Mans arrogance is. Be it his faith in an interpretation of mans science. Or his faith in mans interpretation of a book. Its all self severing stupidity and the message is always lost.
> 
> Some say man uses religion to explain the unknown. Some say man uses science to explain away his misunderstanding of G-d. Bottom line? Nobody knows and anyone who holds judgment over one or the other is worse then who he holds judgment over.
> 
> Both science and religion are about having an open mind. Yet both extremes seem to be the most closed.



Religion is inarguably the epitome of ignoracne, there not debating that point. When someone claims to have divine knowledge of the unproveable. Thats ignorance if you belive it.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jul 20, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> Religion is inarguably the epitome of ignoracne, there not debating that point. When someone claims to have divine knowledge of the unproveable. Thats ignorance if you belive it.



Ignoracne? Is there a cure for that?


----------



## xenocide (Jul 20, 2011)

As I see it, Religion exists to fill the Human desire to feel as if they are part of something bigger, and give purpose.  Religion was originally a tool to help give people a reason to do certain things, but since then it has been twisted into something completely different.  I think Religion in theory, and Religion in practice, are also two completely different things.  Religion in theory can easily co-exist with the Scientific community, but Religion in practice continually rejects it.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jul 20, 2011)

AphexDreamer said:


> With time and as science expands religion will become obsolete.
> 
> We will simply require less and less of it as our knowledge expands.
> 
> For the survival of the human race will not come down to how many times we went to church or practiced our faith, but how far we've advanced in science and technology and with that our understanding of the universe and its contents.


The thing I dislike about Richard Dawkins is that he is a broken record, always repeating his "god doesn't exist; religion is bad; down with religion" mantra.  Never did he ask, "why religion?"  Fortunately for people like me, science is not so easily deterred and such questions have been and continue to be examined . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science_of_religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_morality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_religion

Will progress in science eventually dispel religion from human society?  That question can only be answered if we understand why religion exists in the first place.

If religion is an evolved trait, will we eventually lose it?  No idea.

_Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind._ -- Einstein
_My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind._ -- Einstein

Kudos for quoting Carl Sagan though.


----------



## Lionheart (Jul 20, 2011)

Consciousness FTW


----------



## Drone (Jul 20, 2011)

It's just another dead end. 

Science and religion got nothing to do with each other. For some people their religion is their science and for other people their science is their religion. Religion doesn't need any explanation at all. It has "take it or leave it approach". While science is a totally different thing.

Actually what's the real goal of science? Right it's knowledge, absolute truth, M-theory, universal formula ... you name it. Does this all have to do anything with god? Not necessarily. Atm nothing really can prove or disprove god's existence while zealots or atheists still foaming at the mouth the real truth won't change. And maybe there isn't even any truth at all. Maybe everything is random and chaotic and has no meaning at all just like in quantum world. Maybe it all like Mr. Feynman says, is about sums of possibilities and nothing more. As for myself ... I'd rather be spending my life on thinking and seeking for answers which I want to know, being happy or sad, feeling lost or found than fearing shaking and waiting for the heaven or eternal salvation. Ok.. end of rant.

btw, nice said Lionheart. Self-awareness is the great gift.


----------



## Lionheart (Jul 20, 2011)

Drone said:


> It's just another dead end.
> 
> Science and religion got nothing to do with each other. For some people their religion is their science and for other people their science is their religion. Religion doesn't need any explanation at all. It has "take it or leave it approach". While science is a totally different thing.
> 
> Actually what's the real goal of science? Right it's knowledge, absolute truth, M-theory, universal formula ... you name it. Does this all have to do anything with god? Not necessarily. Atm nothing really can prove or disprove god's existence while zealots or atheists still foaming at the mouth the real truth won't change. And maybe there isn't even any truth at all. Maybe everything is random and chaotic and has no meaning at all just like in quantum world. Maybe it all like Mr. Feynman says, is about sums of possibilities and nothing more. As for myself ... I'd rather be spending my life on thinking and seeking for answers which I want to know, being happy or sad, feeling lost or found than fearing shaking and waiting for the heaven or eternal salvation. Ok.. end of rant.



Very well said


----------



## twilyth (Jul 20, 2011)

Science and truth have nothing to do with one another.  Truth in it's absolute sense is a purely metaphysical construct.  Science does not provide truth.  It provides a relative degree of certainty, which is not, by any stretch of the imagination the same thing.


----------



## hoax32 (Jul 20, 2011)

Lionheart said:


> Very well said




Your Avatar is so Damn Hot!!!!
Holy shit! 
Call the fire station!!!


----------



## Drone (Jul 20, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Science and truth have nothing to do with one another.  Truth in it's absolute sense is a purely metaphysical construct.  Science does not provide truth.  It provides a relative degree of certainty, which is not, by any stretch of the imagination the same thing.



orly? Truth has many different meanings, here's one of them:



> *truth* _noun_ \ˈtrüth\
> a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true



I see nothing metaphysical here.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jul 20, 2011)

Drone said:


> orly? Truth has many different meanings, here's one of them:
> 
> . . .
> 
> I see nothing metaphysical here.


Equivocation
The whole metaphysical truth thing is a big bother.  For instance, if nothing can be proved to be true, then how can I be sure that nothing can be proved to be true?  Consequently this is reduced to truth = scientific truth = large body of evidence supporting a theory = indisputable conclusion.  Damned paradoxes .


twilyth said:


> Science and truth have nothing to do with one another.


Though I agree with the rest of your post I disagree with this.  In science some events are said to be so unlikely that they are scientifically impossible.  In the same manner, something that is supported by a large body of evidence is considered to be scientific truth.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 20, 2011)

Drone said:


> orly? Truth has many different meanings, here's one of them:
> 
> 
> 
> I see nothing metaphysical here.


That's why I said in it's absolute sense.  Translation, absolute truth.

edit:  This is the standard to be used in the context of religion since religion claims to convey precisely that - absolute knowledge - absolute truth.


streetfighter 2 said:


> Equivocation
> 
> Though I agree with the rest of your post I disagree with this.  In science some events are said to be so unlikely that they are scientifically impossible.  In the same manner, something that is supported by a large body of evidence is considered to be scientific truth.


And yet things that one generation may find as having been proven beyond any doubt, may turn out, years or even centuries later, to have been either erroneous or at least incomplete.  There are so many examples of this that it is virtually cliche.  If you doubt that, pick up this excellent book - "The structure of scientific revolutions."

But it's irrelevant in any event since science does not even pretend to show us absolute truth - only relative truth that happens to adequate to our needs at a particular point in time.


----------



## Drone (Jul 20, 2011)

streetfighter 2 said:


> Equivocation



Equiwhat? 

If I say that numerical value of e is 2.71828 (without writing all that infinite amount of digits) it doesn't mean that is not true. It's only a part of "true". Every little piece of _truths_ added up to one will make the truth. "The universe doesn't have a single history, but every possible history" that's how it works. Even if it's impossible to find this it doesn't mean that it's metaphysical or doesn't exist. The universe as we see it, is not as it seems. It still doesn't mean that science is wrong because in this frame of reference it's all right. Just like tiny world and macro world which have totally different laws if you have a clue what I'm talking about. And calling scientists' attempts to find uniform field theory metaphysical is rather stupid.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jul 20, 2011)

twilyth said:


> And yet things that one generation may find as having been proven beyond any doubt, may turn out, years or even centuries later, to have been either erroneous or at least incomplete.  There are so many examples of this that it is virtually cliche.  If you doubt that, pick up this excellent book - "The structure of scientific revolutions."


 No, I don't doubt it.  It's that which is the spirit of the post you responded to.


twilyth said:


> But it's irrelevant in any event since science does not even pretend to show us absolute truth - only relative truth that happens to adequate to our needs at a particular point in time.


Due to the problems I've had with certain terms (like truth, fact, knowledge) I've grown accustomed to using them purely in their scientific form, ergo,
true = according to all evidence; accepted as fact​It rarely occurs to me that many people do not use these words in this way.


Drone said:


> It still doesn't mean that science is wrong because in this frame of reference it's all right.


I never said it was wrong; I believe many scientific theories are as true as true can get.

Let me tell you a little story about a cave  . . . 


Drone said:


> And calling scientists' attempts to find uniform field theory metaphysical is rather stupid.


Straw man 
Seriously though, I'm too tired to continue this discussion but I'm enjoying it a lot.


----------



## bostonbuddy (Jul 20, 2011)

twilyth said:


> science and truth have nothing to do with one another.  Truth in it's absolute sense is a purely metaphysical construct.  Science does not provide truth.  It provides a relative degree of certainty, which is not, by any stretch of the imagination the same thing.



fma: b?


----------



## Drone (Jul 20, 2011)

twilyth said:


> That's why I said in it's absolute sense.  Translation, absolute truth.



Yeah I know. That philosophical concept of absolution is rather perplexing. If there are 10^500 universes and each of them has its own laws then of course our truth got nothing to do with theirs.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 20, 2011)

streetfighter 2 said:


> No, I don't doubt it.  It's that which is the spirit of the post you responded to.
> 
> Due to the problems I've had with certain terms (like truth, fact, knowledge) I've grown accustomed to using them purely in their scientific form, ergo,
> true = according to all evidence; accepted as fact​It rarely occurs to me that many people do not use these words in this way.


That's completely understandable, but any philosophical discussion requires precision in one's terminology.  If we posit that scientific truth and religious truth bear no similarity, then how can a thread titled "truth: science vs religion" lead to any sort of deeper understanding.  It is doomed to devolve into yet another pissing contest.


bostonbuddy said:


> fma: b?


a & b, but no, not the source of my information.


Drone said:


> Yeah I know. That philosophical concept of absolution is rather perplexing. If there are 10^500 universes and each of them has its own laws then of course our truth got nothing to do with theirs.


No, it's much worse than that.  Scientific truth by it's very nature is empirical.  Religious truth by it's very nature is metaphysical.


----------



## Drone (Jul 20, 2011)

streetfighter 2 said:


> I never said it was wrong; I believe many scientific theories are as true as true can get.
> 
> Let me tell you a little story about a cave  . . .



Nice story. I also like how Stephen Hawking stated an analogy that we're like fishes who live in a fish tank which glass distorts everything. Illusion vs reality. For those who live inside the illusion, the illusion becomes reality. Ok ok ... it's kinda Inception lol.   



twilyth said:


> No, it's much worse than that.  Scientific truth by it's very nature is empirical.  Religious truth by it's very nature is metaphysical.


It's worse indeed. For example if they say that god gave people choice but knows everything that will happen then how is this a choice? While others say that god can know everything but he chose not to, so people would have a REAL choice. This for the millionth time will rise a "war" did people create religion or it was all given by god. And even worse does religion got to do anything with real god? Maybe real god is not like that god who was described in Muslim/Christian/Jew/etc religion? Maybe today talking about this will be considered a blasphemy and can initiate a flame war or even fist fight while in the past people easily got killed for this.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 20, 2011)

Drone said:


> It's worse indeed. For example if they say that god gave people choice but knows everything that will happen then how is this a choice? While others say that god can know everything but he chose not to, so people would have a REAL choice. This for the millionth time will rise a "war" did people create religion or it was all given by god. And even worse does religion got to do anything with real god? Maybe real god is not like that god who was described in Muslim/Christian/Jew/etc religion? Maybe today talking about this will be considered a blasphemy and can initiate a flame war or even fist fight while in the past people easily got killed for this.


The prescience prohibits free will argument is bogus.  But that's irrelevant. Religion claims to tell you the absolute truth about god, the soul, etc, etc.  The fact that religions disagree over all things metaphysical proves nothing and is hardly a criticism.  The issue is whether religious truth bears any relationship of any kind to scientific truth, and the fact of the matter is that it does not.  Therefore discussing one type of "truth" versus another completely different kind of "truth" is nothing short of pointless and misguided.

I would also point out that religious truth is not limited by what is logically permissible.  At the core of every religion are certain "mysteries" that require you to accept as fact things that are in blatant contradiction.  Jesus was god and man - contradiction.  God the father, son and spirit are all the same entity and yet all distinct entities at the same time - contradiction.

And before you start complaining that there are no contradictions in science, read up a little on something like quantum mechanics.  In QM, a single particle can exist in multiple, mutually exclusive positions simultaneously.  A particle can simultaneously travel several separate paths.  Two entangled particles can communicate instantaneously over any distance regardless of whether it is measured in miles or billions of light years.  

Beyond that, there are Godel's famous completeness theorems.  It basically states that any axiomatic deductive system cannot derive all true conclusions unless one or more of the axioms are inconsistent.  What this means to me is that an inherent contradiction is necessary in order for a deductive system to be complete.

Of course since you can derive any conclusion from a contradiction, that doesn't mean much in practical terms.  But it should be a clue to the limits of our logic and reason.


----------



## Drone (Jul 20, 2011)

twilyth said:


> The prescience prohibits free will argument is bogus.  But that's irrelevant. Religion claims to tell you the absolute truth about god, the soul, etc, etc.  The fact that religions disagree over all things metaphysical proves nothing and is hardly a criticism.  The issue is whether religious truth bears any relationship of any kind to scientific truth, and the fact of the matter is that it does not.  Therefore discussing one type of "truth" versus another completely different kind of "truth" is nothing short of pointless and misguided.
> 
> I would also point out that religious truth is not limited by what is logically permissible.  At the core of every religion are certain "mysteries" that require you to accept as fact things that are in blatant contradiction.  Jesus was god and man - contradiction.  God the father, son and spirit are all the same entity and yet all distinct entities at the same time - contradiction.
> 
> ...




Like I said before religion doesn't need any proof, because it's based on belief and dogma. And it accepts miracles and other supernatural things. Contradictions appear if either judgment/theory is vague (or wrong) or when one doesn't understand it. It happens in science and in religion. 

And why you tell me about QM?  If you haven't noticed I've talked about this in previous posts. Theory says that even time doesn't matter in quantum world. I perfectly know what quantum entanglement is.

http://www.braungardt.com/Physics/Quantum Nonlocality.htm


----------



## twilyth (Jul 20, 2011)

Drone said:


> Like I said before religion doesn't need any proof, because it's based on belief and dogma. And it accepts miracles and other supernatural things. Contradictions appear if either judgment/theory is vague (or wrong) or when one doesn't understand it. It happens in science and in religion.
> 
> And why you tell me about QM?  If you haven't noticed I've talked about this in previous posts. Theory says that even time doesn't matter in quantum world. I perfectly know what quantum entanglement is.
> 
> http://www.braungardt.com/Physics/Quantum Nonlocality.htm


Then you should have gotten the point that even logic and reason breakdown on certain levels of reality.  Therefore, logic and reason cannot be the standard by which we judge a system that claims to provide insight into things that are beyond logic and reason - in other words, metaphysical systems like religion.

The other point is that even scientific truth is fungible.  We accept the contradictions inherent in QM because we find it useful to do so.  But they are still contradictions.  There's no way to gloss over that fact.

Religion tends to be based on dogma, that's true.  But so what?  Why does that impugn the truth that it claims to possess?  It doesn't.

Finally, religion can also be based on personal experience.  I'm sure everyone has heard the expression "religious experience."  The ultimate validation of any believe is first hand experience.  You may criticize the experience as delusional, but your criticism does not make it fact.


----------



## mauriek (Jul 20, 2011)

nah..science doesn't always contradict religion..its only current human ego, perception and imagination cant reach the essence of religion or its teaching. 

religion said that human come from dust/dirt..there is a time when this religion dogma didn't have scientific proof and some scientist at that time wont agree but now with our new technology we can conclude that human and dust are both Carbon based and science can proof religion teaching..and we can find many more example like this.

Religion on the other hand always one of the source of Scientific driver of change, no modern medicine, antibiotics, anesthetic, mathematics, astronomic discovery ever found by scientist without religion impulse, even many great war caused by religion eventually led to scientific discovery.

i have no problem with Scientist and God, only the ignorance of their supporters.


----------



## Drone (Jul 20, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Then you should have gotten the point that even logic and reason breakdown on certain levels of reality.  Therefore, logic and reason cannot be the standard by which we judge a system that claims to provide insight into things that are beyond logic and reason - in other words, metaphysical systems like religion.
> 
> The other point is that even scientific truth is fungible.  We accept the contradictions inherent in QM because we find it useful to do so.  But they are still contradictions.  There's no way to gloss over that fact.
> 
> ...



Every system has its own logic and reasons. Micro and macro worlds are two different things even tho macro world is formed by micro world. The things that we find spooky or contradictory are normal in that world. It's like when people hear that our world is 10D and not 3D they just freak out.

Religion does also have its own logic and reasons. I don't hear of "religious experience" you talk about and other revelations. Most people I know are religious because their parents were religious and parents of their parents were religious as well and so on. There are many different religions after all. Norse mythology told that even their gods obeyed some ultimate rules and (physical) laws. That order came from chaos (a bing bang if you will). Some geeks think that god is beyond event horizon so physically out of reach but he can still alter this space-time. Everyone has own views. And nobody says that religion is sheer fallacy or fiction. Just like no one can say do heaven and hell exist or not, because no one came back from there.



mauriek said:


> religion said that human come from dust/dirt..there is a time when this religion dogma didn't have scientific proof and some scientist at that time wont agree but now with our new technology we can conclude that human and dust are both Carbon based and science can proof religion teaching..and we can find many more example like this.



Religion isn't always meant to be understood literally. Some things can always be metaphorical. For example "I am nothing but dust and ashes". Doesn't exactly mean this. It says that we are just another for of life, that the universe doesn't revolve around us (Earth)


----------



## twilyth (Jul 20, 2011)

Drone said:


> Every system has its own logic and reasons. Micro and macro worlds are two different things even tho macro world is formed by micro world. The things that we find spooky or contradictory are normal in that world. It's like when people hear that our world is 10D and not 3D they just freak out.
> 
> Religion does also have its own logic and reasons. I don't hear of "religious experience" you talk about and other revelations. Most people I know are religious because their parents were religious and parents of their parents were religious as well and so on. There are many different religions after all. Norse mythology told that even their gods obeyed some ultimate rules and (physical) laws. That order came from chaos (a bing bang if you will). Some geeks think that god is beyond event horizon so physically out of reach but he can still alter this space-time. Everyone has own views. And nobody says that religion is sheer fallacy or fiction. Just like no one can say do heaven and hell exist or not, because no one came back from there.
> 
> ...


Then it would seem that we agree.  We can't judge the quantum world by our corporeal sensibilities and similarly we can't judge the higher reality described in religion by mundane rules and conventions.  I'm glad we straightened that out.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

my problem with religion in general can be summed as this:

if you are willing to base your life around a belief that has no real world evidence,
no verifiable truth, no way to prove "THIS EXISTS" , then how can I trust anything
else you say or do?  you are irrational and illogical now in my book, because you base
your world off something nobody else can verify, even if they were to agree.

i accept there could be more to the universe than observable verifiable science, but look at
it like a game, and once you play the "god did it" card, the game is over.  what specifically
happened, on an atomic level?  how did it occur? why?  what will happen next?  what else does
this mean?  

none of those questions can be answered once that card is played.so let's try and hold 
off from playing that card as long as possible, and try and gain some actual scientific
understanding & insight for this place we live.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> my problem with religion in general can be summed as this:
> 
> if you are willing to base your life around a belief that has no real world evidence,
> no verifiable truth, no way to prove "THIS EXISTS" , then how can I trust anything
> ...



Thats a very close minded view.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Thats a very close minded view.



how so? i would appreciate elaboration?

I am always open to having my mind changed, but nothing has had that impact.
it's a view that has been formed over my lifetime based on what i have seen and
experienced.

i don't automatically assume you're wrong - that's the point.  I don't know. but
neither do you!  and when you assert a faith-based life-view versus a science
based one, i have to disagree with you.

look at it this way: even if you are right, how can i ever know that?  I would
rather know a million inconsequential scientific details, than just sit and wonder
about the big question with no way to ever know if you are right.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> how so? i would appreciate elaboration?
> 
> I am always open to having my mind changed, but nothing has had that impact.
> it's a view that has been formed over my lifetime based on what i have seen and
> ...



Whats constant in science?


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

testing, retesting.  verification. open-ness to new and contradictory ideals.

the mindset that we CAN figure it out, we just have to try. versus the mindset 
that we CAN NEVER figure it out, so let's just wait for the rapture.

i realize not every religious being believes in rapture, but there is the pervasive
belief that it is pre-ordained by god, and there is no reason to try and learn or
fix the world we have destroyed.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> my problem with religion in general can be summed as this:
> 
> if you are willing to base your life around a belief that has no real world evidence,
> no verifiable truth, no way to prove "THIS EXISTS" , then how can I trust anything
> ...



That is absolutely not true.  Some of the greatest scientists have had strong religious convictions and some have been ardent atheists.  You seem to be under the impression that the only purpose of religion is to explain how the world came to be.  They got out of that business a long time ago.  Well, excluding the Creationists of course.


----------



## razaron (Jul 20, 2011)

Can someone explain to me why people argue between something based on empirical data and something based on faith? 
It's like saying my rock song is better than your omelette. They have nothing to do with each other.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

the greatest scientists who were religious? like newton, who was wrong?
einstein, who was not?  darwin, galileo, who both earned the wrath of their
respective religions for putting forth ideas that contradicted them?

you also have to recognize we are at a different time now.  for the first time
in history, we can speak our minds about this ideal without being slaughtered
or imprisoned for life.  

i don't think you can realistically compare the belief in a creator across centuries,
we have knowledge now that we didn't then, and i wouldn't be surprised if most great
historical scientists changed their views in because of that.



razaron said:


> Can someone explain to me why people argue between something based on empirical data and something based on faith?
> It's like saying my rock song is better than your omelette. They have nothing to do with each other.




well i already did once, but here goes:

they are competing ideals.  they both seek to explain the nature of existence.  they both seek to answer
the big questions in life: why are we here, where are we going? etc. 

how can THEY NOT be compared when they seek to accomplish the same thing? they have absolutely
EVERYTHING to do with each other.  there is more than one occasion where you have to choose between
which of the two to believe in.  faith healing for example.  abortion, etc.

truthfully i can't for the life of me understand how you guys can say they are not related.  it's too obvious they are.

and can you seriously not think of a way to compare a rock song and an omelet? how about: which of these are
better to eat in the morning?  which of these are better to listen to on the radio?  there, compared.  not being
snarky, but say: which of these ideals is more likely to give me a verifiable answer?  which of these ideals is more
likely to give me platitudes & supernatural belief, without any observable evidence to verify it?


----------



## twilyth (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> the greatest scientists who were religious? like newton, who was wrong?
> einstein, who was not?  darwin, galileo, who both earned the wrath of their
> respective religions for putting forth ideas that contradicted them?
> 
> ...



Do you even know the point we're discussing?  You said that once you bring god into a discussion, the science goes out the window and I called bullshit.  You certainly haven't said anything more to prove your point except to selective point to specific cases that have no relevance whatsoever.

And no they both don't seek to explain the nature of existence - at least not with the same meaning of those words.


----------



## razaron (Jul 20, 2011)

The meaning to life and those sort of questions lie more in philosophy than in science or religion. Science seeks to answer how not why and religion dictates an answer. Philosophy would be the proper thing for meaning of life etc. debates.

So who wants to argue philosophy with me...


----------



## twilyth (Jul 20, 2011)

razaron said:


> The meaning to life and those sort of questions lie more in philosophy than in science or religion. Science seeks to answer how not why and religion dictates an answer. Philosophy would be the proper thing for meaning of life etc. debates.
> 
> So who wants to argue philosophy with me...



Exactly.  Religion deals with the metaphysical world.  Science deals with the physical world.  The 2 couldn't be different if they tried.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Do you even know the point we're discussing?  You said that once you bring god into a discussion, the science goes out the window and I called bullshit.  You certainly haven't said anything more to prove your point except to selective point to specific cases that have no relevance whatsoever.



wow, calm down. no need to get heated.

I said once you give the answer "god did it", then by default yes, 
science is no longer involved.

i would argue the people who do not see it that way, have a sort of duplicitous belief
system in their mind, fragmented allowing them to switch between the two.

the more pure separation of beliefs can be seen in history, with our time being muddled.
god and religion plays a fraction of the role in people's lives as it used to. 

i say that so you can see my thinking, the idea is that if you truly believe "god did it",
then where does the scientific inquiry come from?  

*if the question is already answered for you, why are you still questioning?  well, either
the answer did not satisfy you, or you're crazy.  imo.*


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

razaron said:


> The meaning to life and those sort of questions lie more in philosophy than in science or religion. Science seeks to answer how not why and religion dictates an answer. Philosophy would be the proper thing for meaning of life etc. debates.
> 
> So who wants to argue philosophy with me...



i''m up for that too   always up for philosophy...

but i do disagree, in that religion makes scientific claims.

the nature of life after death, when life begins, whether homo-sexuality
is natural or not?

these are scientific claims made by religion.  and they should just be ignored because..
why again?


----------



## twilyth (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> wow, calm down. no need to get heated.
> 
> I said once you give the answer "god did it", then by default yes,
> science is no longer involved.
> ...


Honestly, I don't know what you're talking about.  Why are you unable to distinguish between physical and metaphysical.  If you get that difference, then you should see your argument has no merit.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> testing, retesting.  verification. open-ness to new and contradictory ideals.
> 
> the mindset that we CAN figure it out, we just have to try. versus the mindset
> that we CAN NEVER figure it out, so let's just wait for the rapture.



When the shit hits the fan and there is a good chance you are going to die is it testing that pull your through? Does verification of scientific principles give you comfort when you are powerless to change a given dire situation? No. Nobody reads a book about the Hubble telescope when a bugler breaks into their house. 

See thats the issue I have with pure scientific thought. We are not robots. In the end we are animals. We have emotion. We decide on it far more then logic. To deny that you do no good for yourself. Religion is a constant that can give you the psychological tools to survive an emotional attack on your normal existence. It can also do great good for your fellow man IF you follow the principles it teaches. NOT the principles of a mans interpretation.

When you complain about "the mindset that we CAN NEVER figure it out, so let's just wait for the rapture" is a mans interpretation. The Bible for example never taught that. Hindus don't even have the word rapture in their vocabulary. Yet they both have peace and the concept of good will toward man written. I can list many atrocities that have been committed in the name of junk science. Millions of people dead. HOWEVER thats not sciences fault. Thats the fault of man misusing it. Much like religion. Man is a child when in a group. Like a child he missuses the tools given to him. 

Its easy to say "there is no G-d" because you have seen no proof. Yet science tells you it will rain tomorrow and yet it doesn't. My point is there are facts and there is emotion. Man needs both to survive. Emotion is to G-d what math is to science. Deny one and you deny yourself.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

@twilyth
so abortion, what happens to our consciousness when we die, or whether gay terry chooses to be gay or , are not questions with scientific merit?

i would disagree.

@ mailman

see this is why i LOVE talking with you!  in the beginning, almost
always - we are stark opposite.  but then by the end (if we make it)
i come to see that you see the same things as me, and just wind up
on a different side of the coin.  fascinating 

i'm really talking about the abrahamic religions.  i do believe that
telling yourself you know for a fact that something exists which
cannot be verified, whatever religion - isn't great.  but it's the big
three that take this belief and do BAADD things with it, and they 
also happen to hold the majority of people of the world, in their grips.

i don't give every scientific claim full merit though.  i know that meteorologist
can be just as likely wrong based on past experience.

but i think the schism here is your separation of man from his creations.

he created science, and he created religion.  in science he created a method
to weed out bad science, and to let everyone who wants be involved.

in religion he created a structure that speaks from authority, and in the
vast majority doesn't condone disagreement, or people speaking against it.

as for hard times, etc.  it does give me comfort.  knowing that all i've
accomplished has not been ordained.  it wasn't me being watched over,
it was me getting hard knocks and dusting myself off and keeping on.

yes the harsh indifference of the universe can be cold and scary.  or it
can be awesome and amazing.  i think each person has to find it within]
themselves to have the strength to see it for what it MOST LIKELY is.

if i was wrong, oh well.  i worked with what i had.  any creator who would
punish me for that doesn't deserve my praise in the first place.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> @twilyth
> so abortion, what happens to our consciousness when we die, or whether gay terry chooses to be gay or , are not questions with scientific merit?
> 
> i would disagree.
> ...



LOLWUT?

What exactly was the question there?  Is life after death a metaphysical question and therefore the province of religion?  Sure.  But that should be obvious.

Look.  Observable phenomena are the province of science.  Issues not subject to empirical inquiry are the province of religion.  And never the twain shall meet.

You're the one who said we shouldn't be going back centuries for examples.  Fine.  How many mainstream Christian denominations read Genesis or any part of the bible literally?  Virtually none.  Do any of them use religious dogma to explain things that can be investigated empirically?  No.

Therefore your objections are inapposite.  They don't apply to anything being discussed.


----------



## razaron (Jul 20, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Exactly.  Religion deals with the metaphysical world.  Science deals with the physical world.  The 2 couldn't be *different* if they tried.


I think you meant "the same even".




digibucc said:


> whether homo-sexuality is natural or not?


Homosexuality is natural... for a hydra... 




TheMailMan78 said:


> Yet science tells you it will rain tomorrow and yet it doesn't.


Heisenberg uncertainty principle/chaos theory... sorry...


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

well you're the only one who seems to think so, and it seems rather convenient
that my thoughts - that obviously bother you - simply aren't part of the discussion.

i don't care.  don't reply if you want.  i don't care.  i'm still here.


----------



## Red_Machine (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> or whether gay terry chooses to be gay



You don't choose to be gay, you either are or you aren't.


----------



## erixx (Jul 20, 2011)

So far all religions, specially the most known, are so extremely man-made and local it is laughable.
And the goal was not any truth, but dominance... 
Believers should be beaten until they abandon faith. Or helped to quickly enter their netherworld.
I leave it here as I am eating and don't want to waste it.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

Red_Machine said:


> You don't choose to be gay, you either are or you aren't.



my point.

religion would disagree, science agrees
that's a physical example of science and religion clashing in a real way, that twilyth chooses to ignore.

for clarity, obviously you're right - to any rational person.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 20, 2011)

razaron said:


> I think you meant "the same even".


It should have read 'couldn't be more different if they tried'  - thanks.


digibucc said:


> well you're the only one who seems to think so, and it seems rather convenient
> that my thoughts - that obviously bother you - simply aren't part of the discussion.
> 
> i don't care.  don't reply if you want.  i don't care.  i'm still here.


I can be afraid of your argument if I don't know what it is.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

twilyth said:


> I can be afraid of your argument if I don't know what it is.



i never said afraid.  interesting you did though.

this is a joke, i'm trying to calm you down. 

i thought you were angry, not afraid.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> my point.
> 
> religion would disagree, science agrees
> that's a physical example of science and religion clashing in a real way, that twilyth chooses to ignore.
> ...


Absolutely not.  You are taking the views of extreme right wing fundamentalist Christians and trying to paint all of Christendom with that brush.  That is bullshit.  I would disown fundamentalists as legitimate Christians.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> i never said afraid.  interesting you did though.
> 
> this is a joke, i'm trying to calm you down.
> 
> i thought you were angry, not afraid.



Really? :shadedshu


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Absolutely not.  You are taking the views of extreme right wing fundamentalist Christians and trying to paint all of Christendom with that brush.  That is bullshit.  I would disown fundamentalists as legitimate Christians.



no, i'm not.

religion gives them a backdrop to not be called on their BS.
and i'm trying to paint all religion with that brush, not just christendom.

religion makes the israeli-palestinian conflict "muddy waters" and fosters inaction, when it is anything but.

religion dis-allows athiests to take office. you guys HATE us!  look at the polls.  try not believing and
see how you are treated in this "moderate" america.  that's a joke.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> no, i'm not.
> 
> religion gives them a backdrop and not be called on their BS.
> and i'm trying to paint all religion with that brush, not just christendom.
> ...


There are 2 issues here.  Is it possible for certain groups of morons to use religion as a foil for their true agendas?  Absolutely.  So what?

Are most people of faith the sort of moron who engage in such perversions of their faith?  Absolutely not.

Until you can make that distinction, you won't understand anything about faith.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

oh i make the distinction, but i also make the one
that you don't look down on them as much as you look down on me.

if you had to choose between those who are still kinda like you, but not entirely - or me,
you would choose them.  it's human nature, and that's the way it has always been.


----------



## entropy13 (Jul 20, 2011)

Would have been nice if there are just as many members posting here in this thread and in the GN forums.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

there's not that many people posting here, just us repeatedly.


----------



## entropy13 (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> there's not that many people posting here, just us repeatedly.



lolwut?


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> lolwut?



i don't know, i thought you were saying it would be nice if all the
people posting here were in GN instead/also.  I was saying there
are not that many people posting here.  there have been 4 i think, plus you.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> oh i make the distinction, but i also make the one
> that you don't look down on them as much as you look down on me.
> 
> if you had to choose between those who are still kinda like you, but not entirely - or me,
> you would choose them.  it's human nature, and that's the way it has always been.



Irrelevant and off topic.  I'm an agnostic by the way.

My point is that religion can be abused.  But that goes as much for science.  There is all sorts of quackery and pseudo science posing as real science.  Do I get to use those idiots as counter examples?  No of course not.  So as long as I can't use pseudo science to impugn the value of science, you can't use religious extremists to validate your arguments and impugn the value of religion.  I think that's more than fair.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

yes but as i said, science is made with a mechansim to filter that out.
if you have a basic understanding of the scientific method, all that
pseudo-science is obviously fake.

it's when you give the super-natural such power, and you don't
have a filter to weed out fake crap, that it becomes dangerous.

and science gives you that filter, religion counts on your not
developing it.

are you agnostic about unicorns? the tooth fairy?
just because you can't prove it false, doesn't mean they're equally likely to exist as not.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> yes but as i said, science is made with a mechansim to filter that out.
> if you have a basic understanding of the scientific method, all that
> pseudo-science is obviously fake.
> 
> ...


and your point would be?  What exactly.  Because religion isn't self correcting it is therefore invalid?  Really?  Why don't you try to make that argument in a little more detail.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

um, i already did.  you have basically had me repeat it.

i said earlier, more than once.

you can't KNOW, obviously it's POSSIBLE, but i will put my trust
in the system that is verifiable, and is built on open-ness and testing.
rather than the one that is built on faith, and the very crux of the ides
is that it CANNOT be verified.  that's just a no go for me.

seriously though, you've been a bit of an ass this whole time. i'd 
appreciate it if you'd stop being so antagonistic.


----------



## gumpty (Jul 20, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Because religion isn't self correcting it is therefore invalid? Really?



Just to throw my 2c in.

I wouldn't call it 'invalid', but I would call it 'of no use' for improving our condition.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> um, i already did.  you have basically had me repeat it.
> 
> i said earlier, more than once.
> 
> ...


And that my friend is your personal choice.  Do you know what that proves?  Absolutely NOTHING.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 20, 2011)

gumpty said:


> Just to throw my 2c in.
> 
> I wouldn't call it 'invalid', but I would call it 'of no use' for improving our condition.



And likewise, that is a perfectly valid personal choice but one which has no bearing on this debate.


----------



## entropy13 (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> i don't know, i thought you were saying it would be nice if all the
> people posting here were in GN instead/also.  I was saying there
> are not that many people posting here.  there have been 4 i think, plus you.



By my count there have been at least 8 people (Mr. MCC, ndmk, bostonbuddy, theoneandonlydub, you, the thread starter, LAN, Witcher, etc.) who posted in this thread, plus 5-6 more who are active in GN.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

most were yesterday, i meant now.
i didn't know it was in GN as well.



twilyth said:


> And that my friend is your personal choice.  Do you know what that proves?  Absolutely NOTHING.



and what does your personal choice prove? oh... NOTHING? ok.

just so we're on the same page.


----------



## gumpty (Jul 20, 2011)

twilyth said:


> And likewise, that is a perfectly valid personal choice but one which has no bearing on this debate.



Personal choice?

It's not personal choice, it's a reality due to the nature of the philosophical systems behind each position.

It's reality that religion cannot demonstrate whether one answer is more correct than another - because it deals in things that are supernatural (outside reality - unable to be tested). Whereas science is strictly within the natural world (things that can be tested), so objective analysis can be made as to which answer is more likely to be true.

It is these restrictions that give each position their utility in the reality we live in. Some, like mailman (I think), claim that religion gets it's utility from the ... ahem ... _spiritual comfort_ that 'faith' provides. I feel that that is more innate in us due to our brain chemistry and structure, which brings it back into the realm of science.

(footnote for general consumption: note that science does not deal with absolute truth - it is always about what is _more likely_ to be true)


----------



## twilyth (Jul 20, 2011)

gumpty said:


> Personal choice?
> 
> It's not personal choice, it's a reality due to the nature of the philosophical systems behind each position.
> 
> ...


I think I agree with all of that and you have made precisely the point I have tried to make.  Science deals in what is empirically discoverable.  Religion deals with the realm beyond the physical world - beyond logic and reason.

Historically, that statement was not true.  But as to virtually all mainstream denominations of all religions, it is today.  Well, let's say Western religions, since the nature of reality in Eastern religions is much more pliable.

In any event, the type of truth that each discipline seeks is completely different.  As you say, scientific truth is about what is reasonably certain.  It does not deal in absolutes.  Religion does.  So asking whether religious truth is better than scientific truth is pointless since they have nothing in common.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> oh i make the distinction, but i also make the one
> that you don't look down on them as much as you look down on me.



Nice inferiority complex. 

Anyway junk science is used as an excuse just as much as religion. So should I paint all scientists as pencil pushing kooks? No. I look at everyone as an individual and treat them how they treat me. The Bible told me so


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

they have plenty in common in that those truths - absolute or probable - affect how we live
our lives.  that alone is enough to take stock and see what value they hold.

the problem i see is that from all the knowledge we have gained, the ONE thing we know
"for certain" is that NOTHING is absolute.  so immediately, when anything says it has the 
absolute answer for something - you should be skeptical.

just because you and many others have minimized religion to be almost ... meaningless
doesn't take away the fact of what it is at it' core.

you can't jsut say what extremists and popes say don't matter, because they are part
of it.  you can't just separate  what you see as the good from the bad and say "this is
religion, that is humanity"  it's  all part of the same construct.  they are all human inventions,
and as such interact with each other regularly.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Nice inferiority complex.
> 
> Anyway junk science is used as an excuse just as much as religion. So should I paint all scientists as pencil pushing kooks? No. I look at everyone as an individual and treat them how they treat me. The Bible told me so



again, junk science is meaningless.  real science shows you what is junk and not, and
it's still within the body of science.  

religion has no such mechanic.  whether you hold something to be true is not based on
whether it IS true, or LIKELY to be true, but simply what you want to believe.

if einstein were an ass to you and lied about stealing your lunch money, you'd be inclined
to not believe anything he had to say.  religion doesn't encourage but let
s it slide, science would completely ignore your personal feelings.

yes they matter, but they don't help in determining the objective truth.  they're always
a part of us, but to think we can't be logical or rational with training and effort is simply
false.  we can't all of the time, but we can at any time.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> they have plenty in common in that those truths - absolute or probable - affect how we live
> our lives.  that alone is enough to take stock and see what value they hold.
> 
> the problem i see is that from all the knowledge we have gained, the ONE thing we know
> ...



How do you know the difference between junk science and real science? So much junk science was "fact" for so many years only to be disprove later or worse used for political gain? Same with religion. You have real faith and junk faith. But I refuse to pigeon hole ether with such a broad brush. That goes against the fundamentals of both science and religion (If you know how to read).

As I said before. Absolute science is a nice concept in theory. Not in practice. Same with religion. Balance between the too and man will move forward. To much of ether and we will fail as a species.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

you tell junk science by using real science.  you test it, and when it fails to meet
the test you no longer regard it as real science.

how do you distinguish between real and junk faith?  how do you know chirstianity
is real and not islam, or homeopathy for that matter?

between the two the system that give us answers that mean anything in the real 
world is science.  religion soothes our hearts but does not help us progress as a
species.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> they have plenty in common in that those truths - absolute or probable - affect how we live
> our lives.  that alone is enough to take stock and see what value they hold.
> 
> the problem i see is that from all the knowledge we have gained, the ONE thing we know
> ...


I've tried to draw a sharp distinction for the sake of clarity.  If you want me to concede that even mainstream groups see god's hand in world events and even in their daily lives, then sure, you win.  That is part of the religious experience.  But the distinction is still valid.  Even religious people don't consult their pastor to find out what the weather will be or if they win the lottery or if their favorite show will be renewed for another season.  So to try to go to the opposite extreme and say there is no difference, or no significant difference is obviously bogus.  Even you have to be able to see that.

You talked about what is at the core of religion.  The answer is simple.  The core of religion, or any belief system, is a belief in something beyond the physical world, beyond the realm of our senses.  That is it's distinguishing characteristic.  You can try to obfuscate the importance of this, but this is the core and this is why religion has nothing to do with empiricism - not always and everywhere for all people, but virtually so.

The fact that science and religion are human inventions has no significance of any kind.  They arose for different purposes and to meet different needs.  But their genesis isn't the issue here, their substance is.  What makes each unique and makes each the polar opposite of the other is.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> you tell junk science by using real science.  you test it, and when it fails to meet
> the test you no longer regard it as real science.
> 
> how do you distinguish between real and junk faith?  how do you know chirstianity
> ...



Think of a world with absolute science. Think of what would happen without the balance of faith. What do you think would happen?


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

even i have to be able to see that?  as though i am being unreasonable and blind?

mailman calls it inferiority but you have been talking down to me since we started, only
to have conceded my point.

you said they were completely separate, they are not.  regardless of how little, they 
interact.  that means any rational being should evaluate what they mean, individually
and compared to each other.  even you have to see that.

then what good is religion, if it's immaterial?  it's beyond the realm of our senses,
therefore it exists in our minds.  we have a word for that.

it's relegated to making people feel comfortable about the fear that science seems
to create.  but if it is not true, then what good does that do us? i say we are better
off learning to handle that fear rationally, rather than resorting to supernatural beliefs
that by their very nature, cannot be grasped in any way other than in our minds.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jul 20, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Think of a world with absolute science. Think of what would happen without the balance of faith. What do you think would happen?



A fucking enlightened utopian paradise. Provided faith = organized religion as we know it today and not spirituality in general.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> even i have to be able to see that?  as though i am being unreasonable and blind?
> 
> mailman calls it inferiority but you have been talking down to me since we started, only
> to have conceded my point.
> ...



I'm not going to deal with trivial points you think are significant.  If you want to believe I made some major concession, knock yourself out.  

The questions you pose are biased and designed to imply that there is only one conclusion - yours - whatever that happens to be.  If you want to pretend to not understand anything I've said - or rather, to have "understood" it as meaning precisely the opposite, then there is no point in talking to you.  Consider this the victory you were after and go celebrate.  I'll even knock back a cold one for you.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Think of a world with absolute science. Think of what would happen without the balance of faith. What do you think would happen?



in the beginning, it might be chaos.  i do think we would eventually get past this, as
i believe most of us already are without admitting it.

are you trying to say , you personally, if there were no god - would go out
and rape and murder either because you think it doesn't matter anymore or
simply out of crazed fear? i don't think so.  i think less people would do that than
you think.

and regardless, that's a utilitarian argument, which says nothing about whether
religion has any basis in reality.  

if your doctor knew you had cancer, and were going to die in 2 days - do you think
it ok that he doesn't tell you? so as not to frighten you? to keep you comfortable?

i don't think so.  i think no matter how bad the news we should meet it head on and
assess the situation based on reality, not stories in our head.


@twilyth - you are REALLY good.  if you want to pretend that every point i have
made is out of place or wrong, you can do that.  i have NOT done that to you, but
i am used to it.


----------



## razaron (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> you tell junk science by using real science.  you test it, and when it fails to meet
> the test you no longer regard it as real science.
> 
> how do you distinguish between real and junk faith?  how do you know chirstianity
> ...



This comes back to science being based on fact (rather the pursuit of fact but meh) which can be right or wrong and religion being based on faith, which is an opinion and therefore cannot be right or wrong. Science being the physical and religion being the metaphysical. Science being the rock song and religion being the omelette. They cannot be compared.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

which would be fine in theory, but that's not how we work.

some ideas take more of a hold than others in our minds. we
can theorize about them being separate all we want, but at the
end of the day they offer different ways to see the world:

science says take what you see and make it make sense, religion
says make it make sense even if you have to add stuff you can't
see.

they are both about making sense of the world and our existence.
physical or spiritual - they are both mental constructs that affect
our thinking.  in that way they cannot be completely separate.


----------



## razaron (Jul 20, 2011)

Omelette's and rock songs can't be completely separate because they both consist of matter-energy. 
Wait a minute i think i just had an epiphany. Based on my first sentence we're all arguing semantics. 

Also you can't have a world based on pure science for the same reason their is no such thing as pure logic (stupid vulcans...). You need a goal (which is a bias) to apply the logic to. Think yin-yang.


----------



## razaron (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> which would be fine in theory, but that's not how we work.
> 
> some ideas take more of a hold than others in our minds. we
> can theorize about them being separate all we want, but at the
> ...



Wait wait wait wait. Don't tell me this thread is about the effects of science and religion on our mentality? If so I feel like an idiot.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

i don't expect a world based on it.  i recognize that there is an unknown
to life and that most people are not comfortable with leaving it that way.

i am. i don't need to fill unknowns with myths, and i don't think anyone
else NEEDS to either.  i think as i said most people are simply not comfortable.
oh well.  as i also already said that's not the most important thing. if you do
think being comfortable is more important than knowing the truth... i think you
are wrong and i understand, but don't accept, why you would feel that way.

well what does truth matter unless it's in our mentality for it to?  
truth : science versus religion
what truth, and do you care?  science and religion directly influence
your MENTALITY to form the answers to those questions.

and that's not even what the thread started as, it was the name given
when it was moved to it's own thread from the other one.


----------



## razaron (Jul 20, 2011)

I see. Then about the "Truth: Science vs Religion" thing, science gives you factual truth and religion gives you an opinion based on faith. Which is what more or less everyone who's posted in this thread has said albeit in different ways. 



digibucc said:


> i don't expect a world based on it.  i recognize that there is an unknown to life and that most people are not comfortable with leaving it that way.



I was being general because a few people were mentioning it. Twas not directed at you.
Also to clarify I wasn't referring to the unknown, I was referring to the fact that-in a world based on pure science/logic- you need a bias to apply the science/logic to. The bias being the end to your means (world domination, keeping the planet healthy etc.) and the logic being the means to your end (in the case of keeping the planet healthy just wipe out humanity, that's about as efficient and logical as you can get...).


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

i thought i answered that, i must have deleted it.

but it was basically: what if your bias, your goal, is
to get the most objective truth possible?  granted that
isn't always, but i would say it's false if you think it's
never the goal, or even that that isn't often the case.

your example is unlikely.  only hippies care more
about the environment than humanity, and they aren't
scientists.  i do get your point though.

and as i have said i few times:

this is not a difficult concept. i am not "pretending" to get it.
physical / spiritual. defined as different things.

that could be true or not. seriously. but at it's core they are both constructs
of our mind.  they are both things we have created.  in that way
the one thing we CAN know, is that they are related.

they both seek to make sense of the world we live in.  that is their
end goal.  regardless of their methods, their goal is the same,
so how can any of you honestly call them completely separate?


----------



## razaron (Jul 20, 2011)

Rather than being the same their goals are parallel*. Their respective goals are similar but can never be the same. One tries to make a quantifiable and physical sense of the world, the other a spiritual and metaphysical sense of the world. Similar but different. 



*For the sake of my arguement non-Euclidean geometry doesn't exist => parallel lines don't meet at infinity...


EDIT: However this is an opinion, so yeah...


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jul 20, 2011)

If God has no creator why can't we stop at us and say we have no creator? 

If God does have a creator then who created him and then who created the God before him and so on and so forth. 

If we are to stop at any point and say it is this God who is the absolute God with no other creator. Then I'd just stop with us.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

@razaron
then why does it seem the more science we perform and knowledge
we gain, the less religion plays a part on our lives?  even looking
at the last 100 years, let alone the last 1000?

would you say that's a coincidence?

in theory they may have different goals, but i don't see it work 
that way in reality.  laws get based on one versus the other, 
people decide how to view the world based on one or the other.

maybe some people make use of science while seeing god as the ultimate,
but that's not hard. rather, it's hard to argue that god invented the
microwave, or cell phone, or satellite photos.  so religion just backs off a little more, to what is
_now_ the unknown , because that's where it resides, perpetually.


----------



## razaron (Jul 20, 2011)

Most religions were formed in times and places where life sucked. They were formed as a way of making said times and places suck less. The arguably first religion was made to make life as a hunter-gatherer suck less. It is our intelligence that allows us to realise how much suck we're surrounded by but it is also our intelligence which allows us to overcome it, whether that be by religion or science. They are both tools.

Also I agree laws shouldn't be based on the intricate parts of religion. However you have to agree that the general idea of religion (the don't be an asshole part) is basically what modern law comes from. 
Countries who are stupid enough to keep archaic laws that are based on the intricate parts of religion were probably asleep when secular humanism came about. But seriously when it comes to change humans generally choose not to unless it's absolutely necessary.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

razaron said:


> However you have to agree that the general idea of religion (the don't be an asshole part) is basically what modern law comes from.



i most definitely do not. that is what leads to the idea that atheism is bad and
immoral, and because i don't have religion i will hurt people.

it's also logically flawed.  if we made religion, then everything in it comes from
us. therefore it's in religion because it's in us, not the other way around.

and if you say "god gave us morality" , i say you are wrong.  god is the most
vindictive immoral "hero" i know.  if the bible did come from him then all the
hate and violence did as well.  and then we are the ones who weeded it out
and left what we saw as good, the don't be a dick part.

either way you look at it, i do not agree.

and to your first point, you can't just draw a line in the sand and say that was
then this is now.  are you really trying to argue that an increase in knowledge
does not lend itself to a decrease in faith/religion?  numbers would prove you false.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jul 20, 2011)

I think the main key thing that needs to be addressed here is, why Digibucc's posts only take up half the screen?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> A fucking enlightened utopian paradise. Provided faith = organized religion as we know it today and not spirituality in general.



Oh yeah it would be great. First on the agenda, population. We have way to many people on this planet. We cannot sustain them all. Thats what current science says......I mean thats what the majority of science says not all. So we need to always follow the majority of accepted fact. Therefore we need to start euthanizing populations.

Where to start? Well lets start with the already sick. No need for them. Almost all of Africa is now gone. Next China and India. Ok now that we have killed off a few billion people the world is a better place. Next up we need to control population and growth so we don't make the same mistake. We need IQ and DNA tests for everyone. If your IQ is to low no need for you to reproduce. Bad DNA? Same thing. However if your IQ is low but you are healthy  we still need manual labor to support the educated class so anyone with a low IQ will be bred and worked for the labor force.

We will also need some kind of ASVAB test for the educated class. Something to test children in early childhood for strengths and weakness. We don't want to waste a good mind on something trivial like art when it can be served for the betterment of man right? So all children will be tested and trained from early childhood in their tested strength. No need for dreams in this scientific world.

Thats means most entertainment should also be removed unless it has some kind of scientific merit. As a matter of fact ANYTHING that cannot be sustained or justified for the good of all man needs to be removed and anyone practicing such things needs to be more educated so they do not contaminate the populations logic. If they continue then they will be dealt with swiftly. Logic and the pursuit of truth cannot be disturbed.

Beautiful world indeed. Oh man I could go on for hours! Almost sounds like a book I read once.


----------



## razaron (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> and to your first point, you can't just draw a line in the sand and say that was
> then this is now.  are you really trying to argue that an increase in knowledge
> does not lend itself to a decrease in faith/religion?  numbers would prove you false.


That point was explaining why you're right (about religion becoming less important)...


Also I haven't used the word god or morality once (until now...) because I'm talking about the idea behind religion, not the individual religions themselves. I've basically been argueing philosophy this entire time hence why I haven't mentioned creationism or the afterlife either.

It's not nice to put words into other peoples mouths.



WhiteLotus said:


> I think the main key thing that needs to be addressed here is, why Digibucc's posts only take up half the screen?



Some people find it easier to read several short lines rather than one long line, so he uses the enter key a lot.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

that''s just so over the top mailman, and i think you know it.

@razaron - i did read it wrong - but i posed a question, exactly because i wasn't sure your point.
and re reading, it still sounds more like you are saying the process happened then but not now.

obviously that's not your point, i know that now.  but it reads that way to me.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> that''s just so over the top mailman, and i think you know it.
> 
> @razaron - i did read it wrong - but i posed a question, exactly because i wasn't sure your point.



Is it? Thats pure science and logic. Like I said checks and balances need to be made or man will not survive.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

so you are talking about a philosophical world of pure science, not simply a realistic world devoid of religion. i think both myself and 
wrigley thought the ladder.

of course if we weren't human, if we didn't have emotions and weren't capable of empathy that would be the case.  but it is not a reasonable
possibility.

bam, longer.  it goes off my view so i hit enter so i can read it... then it comes out like that.  i don't care what you guys read


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jul 20, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Think of a world with absolute science. Think of what would happen without the balance of faith. What do you think would happen?


Those are two different scenarios, re:
1) Think of a world with absolute science.
2) Think of a world without faith religion.​1) Science isn't absolute, as a couple people mentioned, but it's the closest we can get to truth at any particular point in time.  If science were absolute, that is it was always correct (infallible), then I can't imagine we would have any problems .
2) I'm assuming you are using faith as a synonym for religion (just so we're all using the same definitions).  Therein lies a problem because in order to imagine a world without religion you need to have a very clear picture of what religion is.  Religion appears to encompass a very large gamut of beliefs and behaviors and removing any one aspect of it would not critically impede the effects of the whole.  Many religious beliefs overlap with philosophy.  

It has been my experience that there are impious people who believe unscientific things, such as superiority of the white race or that man never landed on the moon.  In this way it is my belief that even if you used a heavenly microscope to remove religion, you'd still end up with plenty of crazy unscientific people (and not a whole lot changed).


AphexDreamer said:


> If God does have a creator then who created him and then who created the God before him and so on and so forth.


Turtles all the way down


TheMailMan78 said:


> Therefore we need to start euthanizing populations.


That's ethics, which is philosophy.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jul 20, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Oh yeah it would be great. First on the agenda, population. We have way to many people on this planet. We cannot sustain them all. Thats what current science says......I mean thats what the majority of science says not all. So we need to always follow the majority of accepted fact. Therefore we need to start euthanizing populations.
> 
> Where to start? Well lets start with the already sick. No need for them. Almost all of Africa is now gone. Next China and India. Ok now that we have killed off a few billion people the world is a better place. Next up we need to control population and growth so we don't make the same mistake. We need IQ and DNA tests for everyone. If your IQ is to low no need for you to reproduce. Bad DNA? Same thing. However if your IQ is low but you are healthy  we still need manual labor to support the educated class so anyone with a low IQ will be bred and worked for the labor force.
> 
> ...




Seriously dude? This is just wacko overreaction and pure speculation. Who the hell said science = no morality? No you don't KILL people you ALLOW and ENCOURAGE use of birth control and family planning. You know, like the Pope doesn't? Jeez.

And I'm not trying to change the subject again (which is how we ended up here in the first place) but as to your first subject there this is a *serious* issue facing our (and other species) existance whether or not you "believe" in global warming etc. 

The Impact Of Seven Billion People


----------



## razaron (Jul 20, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Oh yeah it would be great. First on the agenda, population. We have way to many people on this planet. We cannot sustain them all. Thats what current science says......I mean thats what the majority of science says not all. So we need to always follow the majority of accepted fact. Therefore we need to start euthanizing populations.
> 
> Where to start? Well lets start with the already sick. No need for them. Almost all of Africa is now gone. Next China and India. Ok now that we have killed off a few billion people the world is a better place. Next up we need to control population and growth so we don't make the same mistake. We need IQ and DNA tests for everyone. If your IQ is to low no need for you to reproduce. Bad DNA? Same thing. However if your IQ is low but you are healthy  we still need manual labor to support the educated class so anyone with a low IQ will be bred and worked for the labor force.
> 
> ...



As I've explained this is a pointless arguement because there is a bias involved. The bias being to make the world a better place for us. What if the bias/goal was to make the world a worse place for us? or to make an omelette? or to make a rock song? 
You can't just say "Imagine a world based purely on science". You took art in which case I'm sure you studied the yinyang sign at one point. In all darkness there must be light and in all light there must be darkness.

Then again I have a feeling you were trolling with that post. It doesn't seem to be your style.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

of course technically you are right, but i don't think any of us are talking under those ... less likely, conditions.


----------



## razaron (Jul 20, 2011)

I'm just a sucker for technicality. I can't stand it when people make impossible statements.

EDIT: For "teh lulz" I came up with an idiom for this thread. Religion vs Science is like the xbox 360 vs ps3, everybody knows that philosophy/a PC "pwns" both.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

over-generalization, a ridiculous extension of an argument,  they are common techniques,
for trolls!  which we all know mailman is.  lets keep him in context


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> over-generalization, a ridiculous extension of an argument,  they are common techniques,
> for trolls!  which we all know mailman is.  lets keep him in context



The same can be said for your "ridiculous extension of an argument" on religion. I was just showing two can play the same game. It sounded stupid didn't it? Well when you generalize religion like you have been the past few pages THATS what you sound like.

Spirituality and Science are two very different things and BOTH are needed for man. Ethics and morality are spiritually based. So unless we evolve into Vulcans or some crazy shit its here to stay. Ying and Yang.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> over-generalization, a ridiculous extension of an argument,  they are common techniques,
> for trolls!  which we all know mailman is.  lets keep him in context



Yeah that last one made me think perhaps he got me...

Hey my combination of scientific _and_ moral values dictate that I find this to be a good idea:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/07/19/birth.control.iom/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Yeah that last one made me think perhaps he got me...


----------



## razaron (Jul 20, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Ying and Yang.


It's *Yin* and Yang. Mwuahahaha


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2011)

razaron said:


> It's *Yin* and Yang. Mwuahahaha



I knew a cute little asian girl whos last name was Ying. I think I might have been thinking of her and my yang. lol Anyway back on topic.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jul 20, 2011)

Fair enough. Carry on.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 20, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Ethics and morality are spiritually based.



I disagree with that, morality and ethics are develop out of spirituality, spirituality is a very empty word to me, considering people have different views on what spirituality is.

I see morality and ethics as being based on environment, the difference between a serial killer and a saint is environment.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jul 20, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Ethics and morality are spiritually based.


Speak for yourself.


> Originally Written by *Edward Teller*
> 
> 
> _What is true? What is right? What is beautiful? Science considers what is true, starting out with almost unimaginable ideas (The earth is moving! The future is unpredictable!). The job is to understand these ideas and fit them into a broad and logical picture of the universe. Politics considers what is right. This requires broad understanding and eventual consensus of points of view that often appear incompatible. Art is the development of what is beautiful—whether through words, a musical note, or architecture.
> ...





> Originally Written by *Albert Einstein*
> 
> 
> _Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death._





TheMailMan78 said:


> Good debate but its become a circle jerk. Next up we will debate spirituality vs philosophy vs ethics vs morality. Round and round we will go.


Maybe you will but I won't.  For instance it can be resolved pretty easily that ethics and morality are a subset of philosophy, therefore it is now:
spirituality vs philosophy​I'm assuming that spirituality is being used as "the sphere of religious, spiritual, or ecclesiastical matters, or such matters in themselves".  Therefore we can further reduce this to:
religion vs philosophy​Since both philosophy and science seek to discover what is true then we can conclude that your original statement is tantamount to:
religion vs truth​Now stop bastardizing the discussion and GBTW.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> I disagree with that, morality and ethics are develop out of spirituality, spirituality is a very empty word to me, considering people have different views on what spirituality is.
> 
> I see morality and ethics as being based on environment, the difference between a serial killer and a saint is environment.



The difference between a serial killer and a saint is who he kills.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 20, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The same can be said for your "ridiculous extension of an argument" on religion. I was just showing two can play the same game. It sounded stupid didn't it? Well when you generalize religion like you have been the past few pages THATS what you sound like.



nice try, you went quite a bit farther.  i think you should read all my posts if that's the idea
you get, because i made omissions where necessary.  i even talked about what religions and
where in each i was referring.

plus:








TheMailMan78 said:


> The difference between a serial killer and a saint is who he kills.


wait what?. religion is dangerous, in that it gets a different word and special treatment regarding
everything.  if it were a rash of teachers touching little boys and girls, it would have amounted
to more than just jokes on the late shows.


----------



## razaron (Jul 20, 2011)

Evil is the losing side.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2011)

I'm gonna bow out now guys. Good debate but its become a circle jerk. Next up we will debate spirituality vs philosophy vs ethics vs morality. Round and round we will go. Ill just duck out now. I'm going to have some Soylent Green and pray for your souls. Good debate gentlemen!

See you in Minecraft!


----------



## erocker (Jul 20, 2011)

digibucc said:


> if it were a rash of teachers touching little boys and girls, it would have amounted
> to more than just jokes on the late shows.



Nothing to do with religion. Lots to do with sick and perverted individuals. There's plenty of pedophiles that aren't preists.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jul 20, 2011)

erocker said:


> Nothing to do with religion. Lots to do with sick and perverted individuals. There's plenty of pedophiles that aren't preists.



True, priesthood is just a safe haven for those that want to get away with it.


----------



## erocker (Jul 20, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> True, priesthood is just a safe haven for those that want to get away with it.



Nothing in the religion itself condones pedophilia. I'm sure there are some religions that do. Religion, science, whatever.. People are too quick to blame a group over an individual. Accountability gets thrown out the window. I'm no fan of organized religion anyway.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jul 20, 2011)

erocker said:


> Nothing in the religion itself condones pedophilia. I'm sure there are some religions that do. Religion, science, whatever.. People are too quick to blame a group over an individual. Accountability gets thrown out the window.



I hold them accountable for doing nothing besides transferring known pedophiles to another parish.


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Jul 20, 2011)

Science and Spirituality are brothers, which dont like each other very much, neithertheless have the same mother
Religion is just the human attempt, to make the unimaginable, understandable for our limited abilities


----------



## erocker (Jul 20, 2011)

Velvet Wafer said:


> Science and Spirituality are brothers, which dont like each other very much, neithertheless have the same mother



Alanis Morissette?


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Jul 20, 2011)

erocker said:


> Alanis Morissette?



Bendix Sondermann


----------



## Mr McC (Jul 21, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Ethics and morality are spiritually based.:





CDdude55 said:


> I disagree with that, morality and ethics are develop out of spirituality, spirituality is a very empty word to me, considering people have different views on what spirituality is.
> 
> I see morality and ethics as being based on environment, the difference between a serial killer and a saint is environment.



I also disagree, here's how I see it:

As apes, in the original set-up, prior to the advent of civilization, the mightiest ruled, took what he wanted, when he wanted, mated with whomsoever he wished and generally made life fairly miserable for the rest of the pack. The group became a tribe when the smaller apes learned to cooperate in order to fend off and ultimately defeat their larger adversary, thereby imposing the dictatorship of the meek, the basis of society.

If I am a larger ape, there is no logical reason why I shouldn't rape my neighbour's wife if I find her attractive, unless of course we introduce the concept of punishment. Punishment and reminders of the ability of the meek to impose it have of course evolved with us and where once a stick may have been brandished, we now point to "scriptures", laws and ethical codes, but in all instances the suppression of the larger ape, a necessary component of gregarious life, is the objective. 

Of course, there is no reason to assume that the violence evident within the society of the chimpanzee reflects the behavior of our own primitive ancestors: the bonobo lives in peaceful, egalitarian and matriarchal groups, where mass fornication is more prevalent than violence, and they are no less a relative than their larger cousin. 

I still say that some people need the bible to keep their inner baboon at bay.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jul 21, 2011)

Mr McC said:


> I still say that some people need the bible to keep their inner baboon at bay.


So the only reason you don't rape and steal from weaker individuals is the threat of punishment?  
(I know you'd say no to this, it's rhetorical. )

Would I be wrong to conclude then that the only reason to do good is to receive a reward?

Ethics is a branch of philosophy.  You can justify morals without religion or fear of punishment.


> Originally Written by *Albert Einstein*
> 
> 
> _Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death._


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Jul 21, 2011)

The problem is, that most humans still regard humanity as all beeing the same... i would say... most of humanity are still apes, and need artificially created,limited systems,no matter if punishment, or humanmade, religious belief, to get a slight grasp, of what moral and ethics are...
and even then,they maybe never will understand it to a fracture.

But, there are already people, even if it are few, that have developed to a point, where the source of their moral and ethics, is spirituality.And they are everywhere, no matter what Race,Color,Country or Gender. Evolution has never stopped, that is a Fact, that many people like to ignore.

I would even go so far, to say, that Science and Spirituality is one and the same... its just that it will take dozens of thousands, maybe even millions of years, for us small minded, small hearted beeings, to understand the true nature, of scientific Spirituality/spiritual Science.


----------



## Mr McC (Jul 21, 2011)

streetfighter 2 said:


> So the only reason you don't rape and steal from weaker individuals is the threat of punishment?  .



You misunderstand. I am not speaking personally, I would argue that this is also the reason why you or anybody else does not rape their neighbour's wife, or steal his car, notwithstanding gender, sexual preference and taste in vehicles.



streetfighter 2 said:


> Would I be wrong to conclude then that the only reason to do good is to receive a reward?



Abiding by norms and winning the group's approval can easily be viewed as being based on the avoidance of punishment. To me, this is an evident, if uncomfortable truth.   



streetfighter 2 said:


> Ethics is a branch of philosophy.  You can justify morals without religion or fear of punishment.



Clearly.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jul 21, 2011)

Mr McC said:


> Abiding by norms and winning the group's approval can easily be viewed as being based on the avoidance of punishment. To me, it is an evident, if uncomfortable truth.


Abiding by norms is not my definition of "doing good".  Someone can be an iconoclast and still be doing good. (Galileo comes to mind . . .)  I do not see how that involves avoiding punishment.  It is trivial to show that even if the only reward for a good deed is self-satisfaction, it can still benefit society (while not avoiding punishment or gaining social acceptance).

Some researchers believe that morality existed before religion but religion was a catalyst for large scale cooperation (source).  I find this far more probable then believing that the only reason people don't go around killing each other is the fear of punishment (by god or law).

There are exceptions of course.  Some people really suck.


----------



## Mr McC (Jul 21, 2011)

streetfighter 2 said:


> Abiding by norms is not my definition of "doing good".  Someone can be an iconoclast and still be doing good. (Galileo comes to mind . . .)  I do not see how that involves avoiding punishment.  It is trivial to show that even if the only personal reward for a good deed is self-satisfaction, it can still benefit society.



Where society frowns upon something, that constitutes a form of punishment: you will not succeed within a gregarious group without the acceptance of you peers. Benign acts are a form of winning approval and avoiding ostricism. 



streetfighter 2 said:


> Some researchers believe that morality existed before religion but religion was a catalyst for large scale cooperation (source).  I find this far more probable then believing that the only reason people don't go around killing each other is the fear of punishment (by god or law).



At the end of the day, perhaps the underlying motives are irrelevant: I won't rape your wife because I have no wish to spend time in jail, whilst you won't rape my wife because you have a belief in some hgher good, deity or, like Einstein, some form of intrinsic moral code. However, bear in mind that you can offer no evidence of gods or innate morality, whilst punishment is very, very real.

I sincerely hope that you are right and that I am wrong on this count, but my experience suggests otherwise and I have a more sinister view of the motives that inspire our acts.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jul 21, 2011)

Mr McC said:


> Where society frowns upon something, that constitutes a form of punishment: you will not succeed within a gregarious group without the acceptance of you peers. Benign acts are a form of winning approval and avoiding ostricism.


Society frowns on lots of people who do good.  Once again, doing good does not equate to abiding by norms or social acceptance . . .


Mr McC said:


> At the end of the day, perhaps the underlying motives are irrelevant


It's not irrelevant to lots of people, including myself.


Mr McC said:


> However, bear in mind that you can offer no evidence of gods or innate morality, whilst punishment is very, very real.


I don't see what you're trying to prove here.

There's lots of theories about the potential for an evolutionary origin of morality (and perhaps religion).  The field is still young, give it time.  There's also lots of work in scientific justifications for morality, the effect morality has on society, etc..  Ethics and evolutionary biology are big fields.


----------



## gumpty (Jul 21, 2011)

Most of this is tl;dr

One thing to Mailman, who probably wont read it cause he's out anyway, and I think I'll bow out too.

Ethics is a practical application of morality anyway, so we can just stick to the topic of morality. Morality is not 'spirituality based'. It's not a spiritual entity or product. It's essentially a man-made concept created to explain innate traits that are present in all human beings to a greater or lesser degree. Those innate traits serve a practical purpose in the real world in aiding our survival. They do not need a spiritual origin when they already have a natural one.


----------



## Drone (Jul 21, 2011)

Religion is for soul (for those who believe in soul) and science is for brains. However both of them try to show us that we are more than bunch of atoms and both of them say that we ain't perfect. 

Unfortunately human race is prone to abuse religion and science with their arrogance, ignorance, greed, hypocrisy and their lust for money and power.

If there's much more complex form of life with perfect DNA and limitless intelligence I wonder will we seem as sheep to them


----------



## digibucc (Jul 21, 2011)

erocker said:


> Nothing in the religion itself condones pedophilia. I'm sure there are some religions that do. Religion, science, whatever.. People are too quick to blame a group over an individual. Accountability gets thrown out the window. I'm no fan of organized religion anyway.



i was planning on dropping the discussion, as i said my piece - but I can't just NOT respond to
erocker, can i? 

I recognize it's not based on religiousity, but as damnsmooth noted, my point was that only
religion has the power to not be held accountable for such awful things.  only religion can 
pawn it off on it's followers without taking any accountability for the situation.

guilty priests were not fired, were not jailed, they were simply moved - so they could rape
and ruin another child's life, and this happened for decades.  and we know this, it is fact
without doubt - yet nothing was done about it.  the guilty rapists and those who gave them
a fresh supply of victim's are both out doing their thing.

they don't pay taxes, they spew hateful thoughts and simply say "be tolerant of my beliefs"

religions are treated special.  they are given lee-way in the world that no other group can
claim, and imo, they are the least deserving of that special treatment.


----------



## Mr McC (Jul 21, 2011)

gumpty said:


> Most of this is tl;dr
> 
> One thing to Mailman, who probably wont read it cause he's out anyway, and I think I'll bow out too.
> 
> Ethics is a practical application of morality anyway, so we can just stick to the topic of morality. Morality is not 'spirituality based'. It's not a spiritual entity or product. It's essentially a man-made concept created to explain innate traits that are present in all human beings to a greater or lesser degree. Those innate traits serve a practical purpose in the real world in aiding our survival. They do not need a spiritual origin when they already have a natural one.



I agree, I was simply pointing out that the "practical purpose" is grounded, as you say, on self and collective preservation - it is a selfish good, given that our survival and progress are dependent upon our ability to successfully coexist within a group. Morality and religion are highly complex methods of achieving and enforcing this aim, even if we feel better about ourselves where we believe that our actions are not ultimately shaped by our interest in our own survival.


----------



## Black Panther (Jul 21, 2011)

We call "science" all that which can be understood, torn apart, explained and rebuilt.
Anything else... is called religion.

Religion is all the time becoming more scientific (or is it science which is becoming more religious?)
Millenia and centuries ago there were things which the human brain couldn't understand. So _homus erectus_ worshipped the sun, worshipped fire.. and water... They didn't know what volcanoes were, so they thought it was God's wrath sending a river of blood and fire.. Water was indispensible to life and couldn't be created by man, so many tribes worshipped water as a god as well. If a flood happened, it was God's wrath. Same for earthquakes and other natural disasters. During the bubonic plague many died. The ones who survived were thought to be the effect of a Godly miracle..

In other words, for whatever we couldn't explain, God took the blame whether it was something ugly, whether it was something beautiful.

But what was religion then, is scientific now.

Many people still blame/praise God for what occurs nowadays which cannot be explained. Like a person 'suddenly' is cured of cancer. In my part of this world a relative of the survivor would declare to the Vatican that s/he prayed some person, and voila' by 3 years later such person would be declared a Saint by the Pope. ..  

To give a contrary example, if a good swimmer mysteriously drowns in calm seas... umm well, nothing happens. No person gets declared as a devil-spawn or whatever



My theory is: in the same way as religion in the past was explained scientifically in later years, so will ultimately our religious whims and beliefs be explained scientifically in later years. Ultimately we will know everything, religion will cease, and science will 'win'. Though such victory will not make any difference at all.

Whatever arguments occur right now are only the fruit of ignorance which we cannot help overcome, because we're still way too back in the 'past' to know any better.


----------



## antuk15 (Jul 21, 2011)

Do you guys think the world would be a better place without religion?


----------



## _Zod_ (Jul 21, 2011)

antuk15 said:


> Do you guys think the world would be a better place without religion?



The word better is too subjective and broad. Humans are the problem. Get rid of the humans and the world would be a "better" place.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jul 21, 2011)

antuk15 said:


> Do you guys think the world would be a better place without religion?


MM already asked it, and I already addressed it.

Here it is short and sweet (with an added link )--

"Think of a world without religion."
Therein lies a problem because in order to imagine a world without religion you need to have a very clear picture of what religion is. Religion appears to encompass a very large gamut of beliefs and behaviors and removing any one aspect of it would not critically impede the effects of the whole. Many religious beliefs overlap with philosophy. 

It has been my experience that there are impious people who believe unscientific things, such as superiority of the white race or that man never landed on the moon. In this way it is my belief that even if you used a heavenly microscope to remove religion, you'd still end up with plenty of crazy unscientific people (and not a whole lot changed).


digibucc said:


> i think a world without religion is still a world with humans.  religion is not the cause of the bad things i attribute to it.
> it is a man-made entity, and therefore it's negative aspects come from us.  they won't just disappear when it does.


Ditto.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 21, 2011)

agreed panther.  but say you are exactly right - you have now entered that into the argument,
how is that based on ignorance?  someone has to be more right than everyone else...

@antuk
that's a tough question, mailman touched on it earlier.

i think a world without religion is still a world with humans.  religion is not the cause of the bad things i attribute to it.  
it is a man-made entity, and therefore it's negative aspects come from us.  they won't just disappear when it does.  

that doesn't mean religion has a rightful place.  sometimes whether something is "better" or "worse" is subjective.  a scenario i posed to mailman:

if your doctor knew you had a horrible disease and would die in days - similar to religion he could hide the cold truth behind comfortable lies, 
or he could come straight with you and let you understand your fate as it exists in reality, not a story.

to me, knowing the truth no matter how depressing, hurtful, even destructive - is always the preferred option over living a lie just to live it comfortably.  
unfortunately, that is not a very common outlook.

all that being said, panther is still right.  it is a process that happens on such a slow timeframe that it's effects are negligible in any given generation.  
it's the sum total of the shrinking void it inhabits that shows it's decline.


----------



## Mr McC (Jul 21, 2011)

antuk15 said:


> Do you guys think the world would be a better place without religion?



Not necessarily, it clearly plays a function, but I certainly think that it would be a better place where religious beliefs were not grounds for contention or violence.


----------



## Black Panther (Jul 21, 2011)

digibucc said:


> agreed panther.  but say you are exactly right - you have now entered that into the argument,
> how is that based on ignorance?  someone has to be more right than everyone else...



By "ignorance" I meant how the rest of the world was 'ignorant' when Copernicus said that the earth wasn't flat, or when Galileo tried to prove that the earth goes round the sun. Etc..

We do not give a thought about these issues today, but I'm sure there are plenty more issues which for now are unexplainable (like how the universe started, or where is the 'edge' of the universe and what is there beyond, or how come some people can read other people's thoughts..) for which we will be having an explanation, years or perhaps centuries on from now...


----------



## Tatty_One (Jul 21, 2011)

antuk15 said:


> Do you guys think the world would be a better place without religion?



At a guess, there would be a lot more of it's population actually alive without it, however they say everyone has to have something to beleive in, many just choose religion because you get less dissapointed in something you cannot see or touch, if we all beleived in people then the good would be great and the bad would be dead


----------



## trickson (Jul 21, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Good news why? Cause it bolsters the belief that Allah created the universe?
> 
> Like Mailman said we really have no idea when it comes to the universe and religious Creationist theory is likely the epitome of that ignorance.
> 
> Very interesting. Nice find.



I thought Allah was a prophet but hey what do I know . If I new GOD's name I do not think I would be here . 
As far as all this goes science can not prove nor dis-prove GOD exists , It is faith that is all .


----------



## Frick (Jul 21, 2011)

trickson said:


> I thought Allah was a prophet but hey what do I know . If I new GOD's name I do not think I would be here .



God's name

Allah

What do you know indeed.


----------



## trickson (Jul 21, 2011)

Frick said:


> God's name
> 
> Allah
> 
> What do you know indeed.



I thought is was like Jehovah or Yahweh or some think like this .


----------



## digibucc (Jul 21, 2011)

trickson said:


> I thought Allah was a prophet but hey what do I know . If I new GOD's name I do not think I would be here .
> As far as all this goes science can not prove nor dis-prove GOD exists , It is faith that is all .



science cannot prove or disprove unicorns, bigfoot, loch ness, ufos, telepathy, thor, buddha, ra, apophis,  etc, and on, and on. it can't disprove santa or the tooth fairy, or the celestial teapot either.

do you think all of those to be equally likely as not?


trickson said:


> I thought is was like Jehovah or Yahweh or some think like this .



depends on who you ask


----------



## trickson (Jul 21, 2011)

I do not like all this talk about GOD , For me it never really goes any were but who thinks who is right and my GOD is bigger than Yours . All I can say for sure is There just has to be a GOD of some sort now whether or not GOD really gives a shit about us is up for debate , I think GOD is an absentee land lord myself .


----------



## The_Ish (Jul 21, 2011)

How's this for a discussion 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
I don't mean to offend, but at the same time, how do you successfully defend it.

I'm okay with people who believe in cheez doodles as much as a god though. Religion is more of a laughing matter than a serious subject for me. I can't help it. But again, it's not up to me. As long as you don't hurt anyone or try to force me to do something according to Your beliefs, I'm okay with it.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 21, 2011)

trickson said:


> All I can say for sure is There just has to be a GOD



see i love this talk, precisely for this reason.  understanding why so many people think
so differently from me.  it's near impossible probably, but i so enjoy it that i'll never stop.

how someone can say what i've quoted.  and i'm not picking you out, you are in the vast 
majority-  even if it were reversed and someone said "all i know for sure, is there is NO god"  
i would find that just as odd, and desperately want to understand where it came from.

on one hand there is the word faith, and on the other you "know" it.  well what is
knowing if not holding a concept that can be verified to be true?


----------



## Frick (Jul 21, 2011)

trickson said:


> I thought is was like Jehovah or Yahweh or some think like this .



Didn't you read the link? The biblical name of god would be YHWH as they don't have vowels in hebrew.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jul 21, 2011)

trickson said:


> I think GOD is an absentee land lord myself


That's called deism.


digibucc said:


> on one hand there is the word faith, and on the other you "know" it.  well what is
> knowing if not holding a concept that can be verified to be true?


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 21, 2011)

trickson said:


> For me it never really goes any were but who thinks who is right and my GOD is bigger than Yours .



This is a common misconception about modern religions. Most debate the correctness of the New Testament of some bibles, but Christians, Muslims, and Jews alike all use the Old Testament.

You'll also note that most common names for "God" are actually quite similar.

The word "god", by meaning inferes a superior being; physical or metaphysical doesn't matter.

Indirectly, science has a god all it's own, with the research and discovery, and resolution of "mysteries" the catechism of the day.

Like religion, the pursuit of certain science is just as elusive as a personal meeting with "God", so while the two maybe seem very far apart, there's actaully far more in common with both, and zealots exist in each. And jsut liek there are very many sides to religion, science has it's factions as well, so to easily trust one over the other seems unreasonable at best...


----------



## trickson (Jul 21, 2011)

digibucc said:


> see i love this talk, precisely for this reason.  understanding why so many people think
> so differently from me.  it's near impossible probably, but i so enjoy it that i'll never stop.
> 
> how someone can say what i've quoted.  and i'm not picking you out, you are in the vast
> ...


I look at it like this , This world has Millions ( If not trillions ) Of different life forms on it just how could all this come from one pond of primordial ooze ? It is just about if not totally impossible ! I can not look up in the sky and think that there is not a GOD out there that has created every thing I see and every thing is a lot of stuff . 



Frick said:


> Didn't you read the link? The biblical name of god would be YHWH as they don't have vowels in hebrew.


 No it was too long .


----------



## digibucc (Jul 21, 2011)

trickson said:


> I can not look up in the sky and think that there is not a GOD



see i can.  very easily.  in fact, it is much harder for me to think a god did it.  because then, how did he get there? where did he come from?  
who created him? why? why did he create us? what are his plans for us? does he have any? if not, why? ...

it just leads to more questions.  if we have to leave it at an "unknown" , let's leave it as far as we can logically go - why add more in that cannot be verified 
or tested in any way?  that by it's very nature cannot be proven?  it only serves to provide comfort for those who need truth and power for those who don't deserve it.



cadaveca said:


> And just like there are very many sides to religion, science has it's factions as well, so to easily trust one over the other seems unreasonable at best...



except science has a built in mechanism to beat dishonesty - test it.  anyone with proper desire can put in the effort and verify - or not - an answer.  
that simply doesn't exist with religion.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 21, 2011)

digibucc said:


> mechanism to beat dishonesty - test it



When the "Big Bang" has been recreated, let me know. Just like religion, you can test many things along the way, but not everything can really be "tested". If such wasn't the case, they'd not have spent billions of dollars building the LHC, a facility to test something that couldn't be tested before, and still has yet to return the elusive results it was built for.

They call the "Higgs" the "God Particle" for a reason, and not because it's the "ultimate Particle".



digibucc said:


> that simply doesn't exist with religion.



I dunno about that, exactly. Certain things can be tested and proven religously, for sure.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 21, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Just like religion, you can test many things along the way,
> ...
> I dunno about that, exactly. Certain things can be tested and proven religously, for sure.



what?


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 21, 2011)

digibucc said:


> what?



Religion not only covers the existence of metaphysical higher being, but also ways by which to live your life and treat others that can lead to easier living. To think religion is just about "God", or the "afterlife" is simply chosing to ignore the bigger picture.

Just like not everyone can test the exitence of "God", not everyone can test certain scientific principals without great investment. Technically, the Bible lays out a path by which you can "test" the existence of "God".

I'm not saying either is right; rather that fundamentally, they are no different.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 21, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Religion not only covers the existence of metaphysical higher being, but also ways by which to live your life and treat others that can lead to easier living. To think religion is just about "God", or the "afterlife" is simply chosing to ignore the bigger picture.
> 
> Just like not everyone can test the exitence of "God", not everyone can test certain scientific principals without great investment. Technically, the Bible lays out a path by which you can "test" the existence of "God".
> 
> I'm not saying either is right; rather that fundamentally, they are no different.



i can't agree with any of that.

the ideas of how to live your life are not only present in religion.  that would mean anyone not religious was an immoral heathen  
incapable of being part of society.  what is it that you think religion can give that can not be had without it?  nothing?  so it's a path 
that can lead you to the same place many other paths lead? that's very different from science.

not everyone will or does test that scientific theory, but it is within the realm of possibility.  you are arguing two sides to the same coin.  either it is 
faith based and does not make scientific predictions, as everyone up until now has told me - or it does make verifiable claims that can be tested.

living the "right way" and dying is not testing a theory.  never once do you confirm or disprove anything, especially not anything about 
the existence of a creator, which is the core issue.

and no one can test the existence of god.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 21, 2011)

digibucc said:


> and no one can test the existence of god.



1000's of monks and priests would disagree with you.



digibucc said:


> i can't agree with any of that.



I wasn't posting for you to agree with it. That's a bit too arrogant. It's merely my opinion, and rather than try to say you're wrong, or I'm right; it is what it is. I'm not here to argue.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 21, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> 1000's of monks and priests would disagree with you.
> 
> BTW, I wasn't posting for you to agree with it. That's a bit too arrogant. It's merely my opinion, and rather than try to say you're wrong, or I'm right; it is what it is.



disagree but show me proof.  we are talking about verifiable evidence.  that is what science has that religion doesn't.  that means it is verifiable in different places, by different
people.  that's the whole point of proving something.

and i know it's an opinion, as is mine.  no matter how strongly i hold it, it can never be anything more.  but that's fine.  i'd rather potentially know the truth than hold on to a 
false belief any day.

edit: i'm done talking about me. i liked it better when trickson was talking about himself


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 21, 2011)

digibucc said:


> show me proof.



Technically, this is what the Old Testament is. It's an account of certain people who through a pious lifestyle, have seen or met with God, and not all of them had to "die" to do so, with Moses being the most obvious example, from a Christian perspective. In fact, the most important part of Christianity, or belief in the Christian God is that should you adhere to the rules, you will NOT die, and have "everlasting life".

Technically, Bhudda was a person, and his existence is well documented.


Religion isn't simply just Christianity. That is but one form of it. Egyptians worshipped the Sun, and we have "scientific" proof that exists, for sure.

Please do not confuse my use of the word "religion" with Christianity. The topic is "Religion vs. Science", and that's the perspective or opinion that I posted.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 21, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Please do not confuse my use of the word "religion" with Christianity.



i'm not, but i do think you are going further out on a limb here.



cadaveca said:


> Technically, this is what the Old Testament is. It's an account of certain people


correct, technically - it's an account. not proof, definitely not verifiable.



cadaveca said:


> In fact, the most important part of Christianity, or belief in the Christian God is thta should you adhere ot the rules, you will NOT die, and have "everlasting life".



again unverifiable. no proof.



cadaveca said:


> Technically, Bhudda was a person, and his existence is well documented.



absolutely correct.  big mistake, especially considering how wonderful that particular "religion" is imo.



cadaveca said:


> Religion isn't simply just Christianity. That is but one form of it. Egyptians worshipped the Sun, and we have "scientific" proof that exists, for sure.



where did this come from? where did i even show a lack of understanding that? also, they saw the sun. it's kinda hard to argue with that. it's not like their god told them
that electrons and photons and molecules and atoms exist, and it turned out true.  you knew the sun existed because you could see it!


----------



## twilyth (Jul 21, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> 1000's of monks and priests would disagree with you.


This raises a good point, although maybe not one that was intended.

I've found that people who have a strong faith usually base that on some revelatory personal experience.  Maybe not a religious experience in the sense of visions and heavenly trumpets, but some profound personal experience that validated their faith beyond any possibility of doubt.

The point being that although the elements of any particular religion may not be empirically verifiable, they are certainly verifiable by the individual.  Now the word 'verifiable' may have somewhat different connotations in that sentence, but its usage is nonetheless valid in both.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 21, 2011)

twilyth said:


> The point being that although the elements of any particular religion may not be empirically verifiable, they are certainly verifiable by the individual.  Now the word 'verifiable' may have somewhat different connotations in that sentence, but its usage is nonetheless valid in both.



that's..... not true.



> Adj.
> 1.	verifiable - capable of being verified; "a verifiable account of the incident"
> nonsubjective, objective - *undistorted by emotion or personal bias*; *based on observable phenomena*; "an objective appraisal"; *"objective evidence"*
> 2.	verifiable -* capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation
> ...



they may have an experience that makes them further believe something, but nothing was verified.



twilyth said:


> I can certainly verify something to my personal satisfaction.  As I said, the connotation in each sense is different and dictionaries rarely codify all possible connotations.



you can reassure yourself but not verify without objective proof.  you are simply using the wrong word.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 21, 2011)

I can certainly verify something to my personal satisfaction.  As I said, the connotation in each sense is different and dictionaries rarely codify all possible connotations.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 22, 2011)

digibucc said:


> it's not like their god told them
> that electrons and photons and molecules and atoms exist, and it turned out true. you knew the sun existed because you could see it!



There are many Egytptian mysteries not yet understood. Likewise, the Aztecs, also pyramid builders, seemingly understood if you beleive current theory, not only plantery movement but also that of the galaxy, something that until recently, we didn't know ourselves, as modern society. How come they knew what we didn't?

Although sicence has provided theory as to how the Egyptian pyramids were built, noone knows for sure, and how they were built has yet to be proven 100%. Maybe thier god, the Sun, DID tell them exactly how to do it, and not only them, but the Aztecs and other ancient societies that built seemingly impossible structures.

Both socienties, technically, would be fantastic fusions of both science, and religion. That alone makes me discount neither, and makes 100% belief that one is right over the other, impossible. To me, science is but another religion, no matter how you want to compare it's differences from others.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 22, 2011)

digibucc said:


> that's..... not true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You need to look up the word "connotation".


----------



## digibucc (Jul 22, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> There are many Egytptian mysteries not yet understood. Likewise, the Aztecs, also pyramid builders, seemingly understood if you beleive current theory, not only plantery movement but also that of the galaxy, something that until recently, we didn't know ourselves, as modern society. How come they knew what we didn't?


we lost much of it in the christian dark ages, also - they are us - so obviously we did know it. or have an idea.  the whole world didn't because information spread slowly before things like radios, phones and the internet. it wasn't *Verified* until we were able to, but it was a theory.



> Although sicence has provided theory as to how the Egyptian pyramids were built, noone knows for sure, and how they were built has yet to be proven 100%. Maybe thier god, the Sun, DID tell them exactly how to do it, and not only them, but the Aztecs and other ancient societies that built seemingly impossible structures.


so your proof is it can't be dis-proven? debate 101:burden of proof


> Both socienties, technically, would be fantastic fusions of both science, and religion. That alone makes me discount neither, and makes 100% belief that one is right over the other, impossible.


they are no more amazing than many other cultures. to attribute a mystical sense to them ... 


> To me, science is but another religion, no matter how you want to compare it's differences from others.


again, verifiable evidence.  you can redefine religion however you want, but science is not one.  is math a religion?  is linguistics?  what about medicine?  they all follow the scientific principles so if it's a religion than so are they.

so let's look at it they way: they are all religions, so which has given us the most?  regardless of your beliefs on the effects of technology, to try and take the stance that medicine and mathematics and most sciences are anything but beneficial to mankind is ridiculous.  and imo trying to say that they both have equal merit is ridiculous as well.



twilyth said:


> You need to look up the word "connotation".



i know what connotation is.  i also know what verifiable is, and it is anything but subjective.  the whole point is objective truth, to give it a subjective meaning is simply wrong.  if you cannot point to it in a dictionary, you are using it wrong.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 22, 2011)

digibucc said:


> i know what connotation is


Apparently not.

Here, let me help you out.



> Definition of CONNOTATION
> 1
> a : *the suggesting of a meaning by a word apart from the thing it explicitly names or describes* b : something suggested by a word or thing : implication <the connotations of comfort that surrounded that old chair>
> 2
> ...


----------



## digibucc (Jul 22, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Apparently not.
> 
> Here, let me help you out.



again, point to verifiable having a subjective connotation in a dictionary. you can't, because it doesn't.  i understand what it is - you are wrong about it being one.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 22, 2011)

digibucc said:


> so your proof is it can't be dis-proven?



Who said I offered proof? I offered nothing, but my opinion.  There's no point in telling me I'm wrong, and you're right, when really, I don't care if our opinion differs, or if I am right. If it didn't, life would b e pretty boring.

I'll tell you exactly why I opine that science is a religion...People defend it too vehemently for it not to be.

Perhaps you should use your own advice and look up the word religion.



> the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices




Not one mention of the validity or "truth" of those beliefs and practices.


I'd be using the word properly, and your argument that it's different would be....
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion


----------



## twilyth (Jul 22, 2011)

digibucc said:


> again, point to verifiable having a subjective connotation in a dictionary. you can't, because it doesn't.  i understand what it is - you are wrong about it being one.


It's not my problem if you can't both read AND comprehend.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jul 22, 2011)

digibucc said:


> that's..... not true.


Actually I'm gonna blaspheme (irony is gratis) a bit and say that it is (but it isn't). 

So several years ago it occurred to me that most people think that atheism is opposed to agnosticism.  I was very confused by this because it contradicted the dictionary.  I consulted an MA in English and asked if I was wrong or if everyone else was wrong.  The result was surprising . . .

The definition used in conversation is correct, because it is a widely accepted definition.  The definitions I use are also correct but only technically.  In fact I was advised to not use the technical definition in writing or speech unless its definition was implicit.

This issue came up between twilyth and I earlier in the thread.

tl;dr I believe that the word 'verifiable' is subject to the aforementioned superfluous conversational definition issue, at least with a significant chunk of the god fearing populous.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 22, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I'll tell you exactly why I opine that science is a religion...People defend it too vehemently for it not to be.


That is some ridiculous criteria.  


> Perhaps you should use your own advice and look up the word religion.
> 
> Not one mention of the validity or "truth" of those beleifs and practices.
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion



so move on to the rest of my argument.  i never said i didn't see why some people say that, i just that it isn't.  so proceed - even if it were, it would be the most beneficial. look at what these "religions" produce pit medicine and mathematics against the best that religion has to offer - and the worst against the worst.  science comes out on top.



twilyth said:


> It's not my problem if you can't both read AND comprehend.



that is why some words have multiple definitions, to explain their different connotations.

if you can't point to your definition in any dictionary, anywhere in existence, you made it up.



streetfighter 2 said:


> common usage/versus technical definition



so some other people might agree with him, but he is technically wrong?  that the gist?


----------



## twilyth (Jul 22, 2011)

digibucc said:


> if you can't point to your definition in any dictionary, anywhere in existence, you made it up.


I'll say this once more and let you have the last word since that seems to be so important to you.  You obviously do not understand the definition of connotation.  Anyone else who reads it I'm sure will see that my usage was accurate as I explained it.  If you are unable to, so be it.  It's not like I give a shit.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 22, 2011)

digibucc said:


> science comes out on top.



I don't care who "comes out on top"!


Just like I often say LN2 benching for marketing is kinda useless.

I don't feel "science", and your definition of religion, need compete. They both serve different purposes in life, and as such, need to be different. However, in my definition of religion, science is yet another religion, like Chritianity, and thier differences, rather than deny each other, complement each other very well.

Those that know me, understand that I live life in a very Christian fashion but don't go to church, yet 99% of my life in deeply ensconced in science. Differences between the two don't make one right, and one wrong. One deals with the metaphysical, and the other the physical. Pretty good combo, actually.


----------



## digibucc (Jul 22, 2011)

ok so now we've gone around in circles, so i'll drop it with cadaveca. i'll just say one more time:
they both attempt to answer the important questions in life. and if they need not compete, why is it that the more we learn the less we believe?  most things that used to be miraculous are now understood. it happens so often "miracles" have come to signify small shopping and parking events.

with twilyth, i'll simply say that just because others may agree, does not make you right.  and i don't care about being right, or the last word - i care about clarification. 

verifiable is an intensely objective word. to give it a subjective connotation is simply using the wrong word.  it is not a personal thing.  you can reassure yourself.  you can be satisfied with your beliefs.  but for something to be verified it must be shown to be objectively true,

i've now said it all many times in as many ways as i care to try this round.  thanks for indulging me.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jul 22, 2011)

digibucc said:


> so some other people might agree with him, but he is technically wrong?  that the gist?


Pretty much.  Though I think "some other people", as you used it, signifies a group [philistines] large enough that the divergent [erroneous] definition could be considered common.  The world is a pretty big place, which leaves that sort of thinking open to many obvious pitfalls, but thems the breaks.

I certainly wasn't pleased when that scholar told me I was using the word incorrectly. 


digibucc said:


> verifiable is an intensely objective word. to give it a subjective connotation is simply using the wrong word.  it is not a personal thing.  you can reassure yourself.  you can be satisfied with your beliefs.  but for something to be verified it must be shown to be objectively true,


Ditto.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 22, 2011)

digibucc said:


> and if they need not compete, why is it that the more we learn the less we believe?



I dunno. That's a good question. There's nothing I've learnt that's lead me to beleive in a higher power any less, and science was never something that was wrong, either.

Technically, from the perspective of a psychologist, it'd be societal influences that have things this way. As certain societies become larger, thier influence on those around them, naturally, increases. Who started the idea that they need compete?


----------



## twilyth (Jul 22, 2011)

I've had at least one person tell me that agnostic and atheist are synonymous and produce one online dictionary definition to prove it.  But obviously they are not.  It is unfortunate that so many words and phrases have their meaning perverted by common usage.  I think "irregardless" may now even be considered a word, but I'm too lazy to go check.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 22, 2011)

irregardless is "old english"  Might not make sense to Americans.


I say tomato?


----------



## The_Ish (Jul 23, 2011)

The ancient astronaut theory makes a lot more sense, than that of some celestial deity billions of years after the earth formed impregnated some random broad to have his son, so he could die for the sins of man. Something which god allegedly created in his own image to begin with. What a two-faced asshole! That's messed up! And how were man supposed to know they where committing sins anyway? I'm not aware of the timeline here, but when Moses walked through the desert and got the ten commandments. Did god seriously expect him alone to spread the word of "god", that this and that was a sin and that they would be punished if the continued? I think they probably did the right thing to crucify Jesus, obviously he was quite mad and needed to be taken down a notch or two.

And doesn't the bible say the earth is like 9000 years old? It's been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that this is complete BS. They say god was celestial, in that he/she/it, whatever, came from heaven.
Well I think they were right that far..

http://yawandmog.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/the-anunnaki-those-from-heaven-who-came-to-earth/

Feel free to hate.


----------



## erocker (Jul 23, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> irregardless is "ye olde english"  Might not make sense to Americans.
> 
> 
> I say tomato?



Fixed... and it's tomatoe.


----------



## Mr McC (Jul 23, 2011)

Actually, "irregardless" originates in western Indiana as a confusion between regardless and irrespective:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jul 24, 2011)

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-co...-proves-god-s-existence---neil-degrasse-tyson

"There must be a god.... Because I don't know how things work"

LMAO!


----------



## Robert-The-Rambler (Jul 25, 2011)

*Wait a minute*



TheMailMan78 said:


> . They are also 100% positive there is no G-d yet can offer no proof. Its hypocritical and egotistical. There lies my issue with a lot of "science". I feel the same way when religion passes judgment on a culture or a person. They are being hypocritical to their own foundation.



You can't prove something doesn't exist if it never existed in the first place. The reason you can't prove it doesn't exist is because nobody ever proved it ever existed. The burden of proof is on the believers when it comes to religion not the other way around when it comes to God.


----------



## f22a4bandit (Aug 9, 2011)

Philosophy is fun: is there an absolute truth?


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Aug 9, 2011)

f22a4bandit said:


> Philosophy is fun: is there an absolute truth?



there is one, but its not understandable for a species, which already has a hard time, in scientifically understanding, what negative energy is. 
Our Resources are simply too limited, to be sure of anything...only thing, that we truly know is... that we know nothing, really.


----------



## Mr McC (Aug 10, 2011)

f22a4bandit said:


> Philosophy is fun: is there an absolute truth?



Is there an absolute?


----------



## f22a4bandit (Aug 10, 2011)

Mr McC said:


> Is there an absolute?



To quote the awesome MLB 11 The Show commericials:

"Well played, Mauer."


----------



## CDdude55 (Aug 10, 2011)

I'm currently reading the Bible with an open mind, but so far it's nonsense. He's consistently creating situations where he knows the outcome will possibly be negative and then when it happens he punishes people for it. But if you created temptation within man then why are you temping them and getting frustrated when it doesn't go your way? Since you already know what will happen, then why must you punish those who follow through on your will?

Then God saw the violence of the earth and in man, so he flooded the Earth in order to kill every living thing he created(besides the animals in Noahs ark), but he created that situation himself, i don't understand a God that creates man in knowing violence will exist and then murdering all living creatures because he screwed up.

Then in Genesis 2:22 is states that God put Adam to sleep and pulled out his one of this ribs to create Woman, some people are saying not to take anything literal, but how can you not?, it states it clearly.

I'll probably come back with my overall analysis of the book in the end, but so far it really takes a stretch of imagination.


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Aug 10, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> I'm currently reading the Bible with an open mind, but so far it's nonsense. He's consistently creating situations where he knows the outcome will possibly be negative and then when it happens he punishes people for it. But if you created temptation within man then why are you temping them and getting frustrated when it doesn't go your way? Since you already know what will happen, then why must you punish those who follow through on your will?
> 
> Then God saw the violence of the earth and in man, so he flooded the Earth in order to kill every living thing he created(besides the animals in Noahs ark), but he created that situation himself, i don't understand a God that creates man in knowing violence will exist and then murdering all living creatures because he screwed up.
> 
> ...



The Bible is a prime example, of how Information can be accidently and knowlingly distorted,maybe out of dumbness, and thru errors, or just to be able, to manipulate People, that believe in it.
So, that in the end, there are only small bits left, that resemble the original... 
The Story of Jesus is a nice example for that: Imagine, 300 Years in the Future, someone writes a Book about you... how much would it resemble that,what really was?


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Aug 10, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> I'm currently reading the Bible with an open mind, but so far it's nonsense. He's consistently creating situations where he knows the outcome will possibly be negative and then when it happens he punishes people for it. But if you created temptation within man then why are you temping them and getting frustrated when it doesn't go your way? Since you already know what will happen, then why must you punish those who follow through on your will?
> 
> Then God saw the violence of the earth and in man, so he flooded the Earth in order to kill every living thing he created(besides the animals in Noahs ark), but he created that situation himself, i don't understand a God that creates man in knowing violence will exist and then murdering all living creatures because he screwed up.
> 
> ...


Please don't just read the KJV, read other versions as well.  It's like only referencing one dictionary; different ones have better definitions for certain words.  (I'm fond of the NEB.)

Also: http://www.npr.org/2011/07/17/138281522/how-bible-stories-evolved-over-the-centuries

EDIT:  I use this site a lot when I'm reading the bible because it gives me several different translations: http://www.biblegateway.com/


lilhasselhoffer said:


> The core message, once you strip away the fantasy, is a reasonable moral compass and treating your fellow people with dignity and respect.


As long as you ignore the parts about goat sacrifice, killing non-virgins, and people inviting gangs to rape their children . . .


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Aug 10, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> I'm currently reading the Bible with an open mind, but so far it's nonsense. He's consistently creating situations where he knows the outcome will possibly be negative and then when it happens he punishes people for it. But if you created temptation within man then why are you temping them and getting frustrated when it doesn't go your way? Since you already know what will happen, then why must you punish those who follow through on your will?
> 
> Then God saw the violence of the earth and in man, so he flooded the Earth in order to kill every living thing he created(besides the animals in Noahs ark), but he created that situation himself, i don't understand a God that creates man in knowing violence will exist and then murdering all living creatures because he screwed up.
> 
> ...



I never quite got that myself.

If you read the bible literally there are conflicts within stories, openly racist and hateful messages, and a surprisingly calous and amoral god.  These things are inherently different than the kind and loving absolute truth that religious zealots would have you believe.

I prefer to think of the bible, and most holy texts, as something akin to Aesop's Fables.  The tales are fantastic, so they retain their readers interest.  The core message, once you strip away the fantasy, is a reasonable moral compass and treating your fellow people with dignity and respect.  That message I can stand behind.

Seriously though, does god ever sound kind and loving in the old testament?  God tempts people to see if they are worthy, is openly hateful of creation, and destroys on a whim.  That sounds more like sociopathic tendencies than a benevolent creator.


----------



## twilyth (Aug 10, 2011)

It is virtually pointless to read the bible or any other text regarded as "sacred" if you don't understand the context.  There are some exceptions, but this is absolutely true of both the old and new testaments.

Think of it this way.  When you read Shakespeare in high school, did that shit make any sense until your teacher explained it to you?  OK, you could probably follow the broad outline of the plot, but did you really understand what was going on?  Of course you didn't.  It was written more than 400 fuckin' years ago.  If they caught you with an ipod back then you would have been burned as a witch.  While that may still be the appropriate punishment for owning one, the motivation is completely different.

So explain to me how you expect to read something written more than 2000-2500 years ago in the case of the old testament and more than 1600 years ago in the case of the new testament and expect to have the foggiest fucking idea of what it's about?  Really.  Please explain that to me.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Aug 10, 2011)

twilyth said:


> So explain to me how you expect to read something written more than 2000-2500 years ago in the case of the old testament and more than 1600 years ago in the case of the new testament and expect to have the foggiest fucking idea of what it's about?  Really.  Please explain that to me.


C'mon dude.  How did people translate hieroglyphics?  Some of the context is undoubtedly lost to time but the majority of it is retrievable with historical data and study.

The KJV is the real joke, because people consider it the final word of god, because god apparently wrote in English in the early 1600s . . .  Some years ago I was discussing the bible with a neighbor, and she was very nice and conversed politely and intelligently on many bible taboos (homosexuality, murder, etc.).  I mentioned that I thought it was important to read several versions of the bible when she suddenly became very insulted and asked to end the discussion.  I later found out from a friend that the real religious taboo is mentioning that there is more than one translation of the bible.  Damned odd if you ask me.


----------



## CDdude55 (Aug 10, 2011)

twilyth said:


> So explain to me how you expect to read something written more than 2000-2500 years ago in the case of the old testament and more than 1600 years ago in the case of the new testament and expect to have the foggiest fucking idea of what it's about?  Really.  Please explain that to me.



It's not to hard, the Bible has been edited, reedited and redone thousands of times from various languages so the original text from when the bible was first conceived 2000 years ago has consistently been modified to fit with the language of the period. And granted that alone actually makes me question the authenticity of what's in the book.

But everybody has their own context of how the bible reads, you just have to read it see what makes sense. And personally, i understand the jist of most of the passages, but a lot of the actual content is requiring a strong imagination.


----------



## twilyth (Aug 10, 2011)

streetfighter 2 said:


> C'mon dude.  How did people translate hieroglyphics?  Some of the context is undoubtedly lost to time but the majority of it is retrievable with historical data and study.
> 
> The KJV is the real joke, because people consider it the final word of god, because god apparently wrote in English in the early 1600s . . .  Some years ago I was discussing the bible with a neighbor, and she was very nice and conversed politely and intelligently on many bible taboos (homosexuality, murder, etc.).  I mentioned that I thought it was important to read several versions of the bible when she suddenly became very insulted and asked to end the discussion.  I later found out from a friend that the real religious taboo is mentioning that there is more than one translation of the bible.  Damned odd if you ask me.





CDdude55 said:


> It's not to hard, the Bible has been edited, reedited and redone thousands of times from various languages so the original text from when the bible was first conceived 2000 years ago has consistently been modified to fit with the language of the period. And granted that alone actually makes me question the authenticity of what's in the book.
> 
> But everybody has their own context of how the bible reads, you just have to read it see what makes sense. And personally, i understand the jist of most of the passages, but a lot of the actual content is requiring a strong imagination.


Not to be rude, but do either of you understand what I mean by the word "context"?

edit:  Also, maybe my analogy wasn't any good.  Have either of you studied Shakespeare?  If not, I'll try to come up with something more appropriate.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Aug 10, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Not to be rude, but do either of you understand what I mean by the word "context"?
> 
> edit:  Also, maybe my analogy wasn't any good.  Have either of you studied Shakespeare?  If not, I'll try to come up with something more appropriate.


I'm fairly certain I know the meaning of the word "context" as you use it.

Yes I've studied Shakespeare, enough to know that the quacky Christians going after Harry Potter have missed the ball by several million miles. 

It does seem a poor analogy.  The context of Shakespeare's writing may still conjure debate but the vast majority is well known to many scholars.

_Brevity is the soul of wit._


----------



## WhiteLotus (Aug 10, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Not to be rude, but do either of you understand what I mean by the word "context"?
> 
> edit:  Also, maybe my analogy wasn't any good.  Have either of you studied Shakespeare?  If not, I'll try to come up with something more appropriate.



Shakespeare is obvious as soon as you STOP looking into it. Most of his work was written for theatre, to entertain, and once you begin to think about how what he wrote was acted out then it's pretty easy.

To me, Shakespeare is a bad example.

The only holy book that has not changed much is the Koran. To read it correctly you have to learn Syrian Arabic, then you get to read how it was written. English translations are simply wrong.


----------



## twilyth (Aug 10, 2011)

streetfighter 2 said:


> The context of Shakespeare's writing may still conjure debate *but the vast majority is well known to many scholars.*


Exactly.  So how did you manage to interpret it to mean merely how the text was translated?

And note the "to many scholars" part.  Are you a scholar on biblical exegisis?  No?  How about biblical archaeology?  No again?  Let's try something more general like ancient near eastern history?  Still a 'no' huh?  Bummer.  

So basically what you're telling me is that you have no understanding whatsoever of the history, customs, ideas, beliefs or mindsets prevalent during the time periods when the books of the bible were written but yet you think that by reading these books they will somehow reveal their secrets?  Have I more or less summed up your position?


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Aug 10, 2011)

twilyth said:


> So how did you manage to interpret it to mean merely how the text was translated?


I didn't.  I mentioned the translation as being a [large] part of the confusion, but not the only (or central) aspect.  For instance the NEB tries to translate the bible and fill in contextual gaps; it's an attempt to make a bible that can be understood today.  I also like reading bibles that include theological discussion and interpretation (usually in a two column per page format).


twilyth said:


> And note the "to many scholars" part.  Are you a scholar on biblical exegisis?  No?  How about biblical archaeology?  No again?  Let's try something more general like ancient near eastern history?  Still a 'no' huh?  Bummer.


Yes, as it turns out I am.  I am a student of many disciplines.  Doesn't mean I know a lot though. 

It's spelled "exegesis". 


twilyth said:


> So basically what you're telling me is that you have no understanding whatsoever of the history, customs, ideas, beliefs or mindsets prevalent during the time periods when the books of the bible were written but yet you think that by reading these books they will somehow reveal their secrets?  Have I more or less summed up your position?


Don't take that tone with me mister.  

Unfortunately I won't live long enough to know everything, but to say I have "no understanding whatsoever of the history, customs, ideas, beliefs or mindsets prevalent during the time periods when the books of the bible were written" would be wildly inaccurate.  I've spent a lot of time learning about it, but alas, I'm not an expert.  

Must I be an expert to have an informed opinion?


----------



## twilyth (Aug 10, 2011)

streetfighter 2 said:


> I didn't.  I mentioned the translation as being a [large] part of the confusion, but not the only (or central) aspect.  For instance the NEB tries to translate the bible and fill in contextual gaps; it's an attempt to make a bible that can be understood today.  I also like reading bibles that include theologian discussion and interpretation (usually in a two column per page format).
> 
> Yes, as it turns out I am.  I am a student of many disciplines.  Doesn't mean I know a lot though.
> 
> ...


Wonderful.  So if I don't put you at the "completely ignorant" end of the spectrum, that must mean I'm talking about the diametric opposite and that I think you need multiple PhD's to understand anything, right?  Do you have a thing for stark dichotomies or are you intentionally trying to obfuscate the issue?

The point is that trying to understand the bible based on the words alone is like trying to understand comedy or sarcasm based on the words alone.  If you don't understand the cultural background, then you understand precisely squat.  I really don't see how that could not be any more obvious.

Maybe I don't expect you to understand that on a visceral level but I do expect you to understand it on a conceptual level.

I don't know what areas relevant to biblical history, archaeology, anthropology, etc you've studied, but it turns out that I too have some relevant training since I actually studied ancient near eastern history and culture as well as the old and new testaments as part of my Bachelor's degree in religion.  What areas have you studied exactly?  I'm curious now.

It doesn't really matter though since the point is only that picking up any ancient work of literature and reading it cold is probably the stupidest thing anyone can do.  Once I picked up the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead (which isn't really a book at all as it turns out) and it made no sense at all.  The problem with the bible and similar books is that when you read it, whether in the original or translation, it SEEMS to make sense.  So from the very beginning you are deceived.  At least with most ancient writings it's clear from the beginning that you have absolutely no clue.


----------



## qamulek2 (Aug 10, 2011)

f22a4bandit said:


> Philosophy is fun: is there an absolute truth?



I know of only two absolute truths:

1)  Mathematics.

2)  There is something rather than nothing.

#1 should be obvious since Mathematics is built up using axioms that are assumed to be true.  Any species living in any weird universe can start with the same axioms and build the same Mathematics.

#2 comes about by thinking about the "true" reality.  When you build up your reality, how do you know it represents the true reality?  I've read an example where the author asks how do we know we aren't just a dream of some super advanced butterfly living in some higher dimension?  The simple answer is we don't know what the true reality is, and we wouldn't know it even if we were living in it.  Since we don't know the true reality, all we can say for certain is that something exists;  the proof being that if something didn't exist we wouldn't be able to ask the question in the first place, so clearly something must exist(look up: "I think therefore I am")


In regards to the science vs religion, one problem I have with both is that neither can explain why there is something rather than nothing.  Science sidesteps the question entirely, while religion usually has a divine creator.  The problem is who created the divine creator?  Who created the creator of the divine creator?  The question boils down to why is there something rather than nothing?  The fact there is something rather than nothing is a miracle, and my body feels like it's crushed every time I try to think about why something exists at all(it's like peering into infinity trying to visualize the first moment when there is no first moment).  Science and religion will never be adequate since they can never answer why anything exists in the first place, but at the end of the day they are both still useful.


PS:  Don't try and mention how the big bang was the first moment.  The megaVerse was here much longer than the start of our pitiful universe.  The Copernican principle says we hold no special place in the universe;  that really should be applied to our own universe within the megaVerse, so the big bang that started our universe, which is special to us, isn't at all special to the megaVerse.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Aug 10, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Wonderful.  So if I don't put you at the "completely ignorant" end of the spectrum, that must mean I'm talking about the diametric opposite and that I think you need multiple PhD's to understand anything, right?  Do you have a thing for stark dichotomies or are you intentionally trying to obfuscate the issue?


It certainly wasn't my intention to offend you (at any time), so if I have I apologize.  I think my last comment included a bit of sarcasm in response to what I perceived to be a snide comment.  It was intended to be light-hearted.


twilyth said:


> The point is that trying to understand the bible based on the words alone is like trying to understand comedy or sarcasm based on the words alone.  If you don't understand the cultural background, then you understand precisely squat.  I really don't see how that could not be any more obvious.


I don't know if I entirely agree with this, though it is true on many levels.  Just like the, increasingly inaccurate, Shakespeare analogy, when you really look at it you realize 90% is just fart and shit jokes .  You only need to have some of the words translated (like "protest" = "vow") and a few tidbits of history to see it. 


twilyth said:


> I don't know what areas relevant to biblical history, archaeology, anthropology, etc you've studied, but it turns out that I too have some relevant training since I actually studied ancient near eastern history and culture as well as the old and new testaments as part of my Bachelor's degree in religion.  What areas have you studied exactly?  I'm curious now.


I suppose the relevant areas I've studied about include history, culture and evolution of Mesopotamia, though I can't say I have much formal training.  I've studied anthropology, sociology and psychology in HS and college, though not even a minor equivalent.  In my leisure time I've read about those disciplines with respect to the development of religion.  I've read parts of the Bible, Talmud, Koran, as well as books discussing the aforementioned.  Religion is very important to some of my family, but equally important are rationality and facts.  I've learned a lot from them despite our differences.  The extent of my archaeological knowledge is mostly what I've seen on NOVA specials, or implied in other texts . Just to add a bit of proportion to this, if you think you guessed my religion you're most likely wrong.


----------



## twilyth (Aug 10, 2011)

streetfighter 2 said:


> It certainly wasn't my intention to offend you (at any time), so if I have I apologize.  I think my last comment included a bit of sarcasm in response to what I perceived to be a snide comment.  It was intended to be light-hearted.
> 
> I don't know if I entirely agree with this, though it is true on many levels.  Just like the, increasingly inaccurate, Shakespeare analogy, when you really look at it you realize 90% is just fart and shit jokes .  You only need to have some of the words translated (like "protest" = "vow") and a few tidbits of history to see it.
> 
> I suppose the relevant areas I've read about include history, culture and evolution of Mesopotamia, though I can't say I have much formal training.  I've studied anthropology, sociology and psychology in HS and college, though not even a minor equivalent.  In my leisure time I've read about those disciplines with respect to the development of religion.  I've read parts of the Bible, Talmud, Koran, as well as books discussing the aforementioned.  Religion is very important to some of my family, but equally important are rationality and facts.  I've learned a lot from them despite our differences.  The extent of my archaeological knowledge is mostly what I've seen on NOVA specials, or implied in other texts . Just to add a bit of proportion to this, if you think you guessed my religion you're most likely wrong.


You seem to have left off the last part of my quote which was the most important point and what the other issues were cited in support of.  I'm surprised since you're normally pretty thorough.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Aug 10, 2011)

twilyth said:


> You seem to have left off the last part of my quote which was the most important point and what the other issues were cited in support of.  I'm surprised since you're normally pretty thorough.


I couldn't argue with it, I completely agree  --  And thanks for the compliment.

Except maybe the phrasing, "SEEMS to make sense", because most people don't understand enough of it [the KJV] to form an uninformed opinion


----------



## digibucc (Aug 10, 2011)

that sounds great twilyth - but what is  this context knowledge that is so necessary?  it can't be that hard or we wouldn't be trying to teach it to children so young.

you make it sound like that understanding is hard to come by.  but i have never gotten that impression.

i know what the world was like when it was written.  I know how the people who wrote it lived.  i know it was multiple authors in different times.  many saying different things. i know it was edited and combined by a council 300 years after every apostle who wrote anything died. i know they picked and chose out of 100s of accounts for the 13 they wanted to be "the bible". that's a decent amount of contextual information off the top of my head, without even trying.

*what exactly is the context we are missing? and what great understanding of the contradictions inside does it lend?*


----------



## twilyth (Aug 10, 2011)

digibucc said:


> that sounds great twilyth - but what is  this context knowledge that is so necessary?  it can't be that hard or we wouldn't be trying to teach it to children so young.
> 
> you make it sound like that understanding is hard to come by.  but i have never gotten that impression.
> 
> ...


If I'm going to get specific, I need to know if you want to talk about the old or new testaments.  That's really the first problem right there.  People talk about the bible as if it is some monolithic tome.  The fact that you understand things like the Council of Nicea puts you at the far end of the bell curve already.  So the odds are that, if you are only talking about the new testament, you probably also have a pretty good understanding of it's history anyway.  You probably also understand what the competing thought systems and religions were at the time and how understanding those helps you to understand the text.

In the case of the Old Testament, you're looking at the same kinds of elements, but the history is much murkier and spans a much, much longer period of time.  So everything becomes more difficult in that context.  You also have the problem of a long, if not ancient oral tradition preceding the codification of the OT.  That adds another layer of complexity.

I could go on but does that give you generally an idea of what I had in mind?


----------



## erocker (Aug 10, 2011)

twilyth said:


> I could go on but does that give you generally an idea of what I had in mind?



Religion ain't easy?


----------



## twilyth (Aug 10, 2011)

erocker said:


> Religion ain't easy?



Exactly.  But still easier than pimpin'.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Aug 10, 2011)

twilyth said:


> If I'm going to get specific, I need to know if you want to talk about the old or new testaments.  That's really the first problem right there.  People talk about the bible as if it is some monolithic tome.  The fact that you understand things like the Council of Nicea puts you at the far end of the bell curve already.  So the odds are that, if you are only talking about the new testament, you probably also have a pretty good understanding of it's history anyway.  You probably also understand what the competing thought systems and religions were at the time and how understanding those helps you to understand the text.
> 
> In the case of the Old Testament, you're looking at the same kinds of elements, but the history is much murkier and spans a much, much longer period of time.  So everything becomes more difficult in that context.  You also have the problem of a longer oral tradition preceding the codification of the OT.  That adds another layer of complexity.
> 
> I could go on but does that give you generally an idea of what I had in mind?



I have no idea what you're banging on about twily. Even if you cast your mind back to try and live in the context of what half the bible bangs on about, you still have a monumental task of trying to find a place for it in todays society. Times have moved on. We no longer sell our daughters, carry out genocides on young males, or think for two seconds that we can wave our hands and part a sea.

The bible, and the Torah, and the Koran are all books about Chinese Whispers. We wont EVER know what the true intentions, meanings and facts were until some lucky person develops a time machine and goes back to find out. For all we know half of it could be damn right true with minor errors (replace the Red sea with the Reed sea and you have yourself a natural phenomenon that allows the sea to "part"), and half of it could be a bed time story that uncle jack made up to tell his son billy about why he should be good.


----------



## erocker (Aug 10, 2011)

WhiteLotus said:


> or think for two seconds that we can wave our hands and part a sea



Please just speak for yourself sir. I completely believe that I can do this. I haven't done it yet, but my time will come. There are many types of "waves" that can be done with the hands and one day I will wave the correct one, the sea will part and it'll be good fishin'. Sigh.. If only Doug Henning was still alive.


----------



## twilyth (Aug 10, 2011)

WhiteLotus said:


> I have no idea what you're banging on about twily. Even if you cast your mind back to try and live in the context of what half the bible bangs on about, you still have a monumental task of trying to find a place for it in todays society. Times have moved on. We no longer sell our daughters, carry out genocides on young males, or think for two seconds that we can wave our hands and part a sea.
> 
> The bible, and the Torah, and the Koran are all books about Chinese Whispers. We wont EVER know what the true intentions, meanings and facts were until some lucky person develops a time machine and goes back to find out. For all we know half of it could be damn right true with minor errors (replace the Red sea with the Reed sea and you have yourself a natural phenomenon that allows the sea to "part"), and half of it could be a bed time story that uncle jack made up to tell his son billy about why he should be good.



And thus you have seen the truth with the truth.  Another triumph of the Socratic method.  

I would just add one caveat.  Despite the infinite number of layers and the boundless complexity of trying to understand what the text meant to the people who lived it, there are nonetheless certain general principles and ideas which anyone can understand.  The only problem is that even these are subject to interpretation.

For example, you can view the old testament as a type of love story.  God chooses Israel to be his people to the exclusion of all others.  But they betray and defy him time after time.  Time after time he punishes them but ultimately relents.  So the Chinese fortune cookie version of the OT is that god is love - something that is so cliche as to be virtually meaningless now - unfortunately.


----------



## overclockthesun (Aug 10, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> I'm currently reading the Bible with an open mind, but so far it's nonsense. He's consistently creating situations where he knows the outcome will possibly be negative and then when it happens he punishes people for it. But if you created temptation within man then why are you temping them and getting frustrated when it doesn't go your way? Since you already know what will happen, then why must you punish those who follow through on your will?
> 
> Then God saw the violence of the earth and in man, so he flooded the Earth in order to kill every living thing he created(besides the animals in Noahs ark), but he created that situation himself, i don't understand a God that creates man in knowing violence will exist and then murdering all living creatures because he screwed up.
> 
> ...



that is something even I wonder about. But hink about this..... even in his own world, God must play by his rules..... he just couldnt create another person out of nothing on Earth once he set the ball rolling... os he had to take something from Adam....that something was his DNA... the Bible only speaks in riddles.... its like reading a Law book..

PS: Most of it sounds like bullshit because ... many important books were left out of it.... they were left out because the truth would be too much for anyone of us to handle.
But if we put all of them together....(yes I mean the one which the church doesnt accept0 only then will everything make sense....

remember the calendar from Enoch's book....its perfect. It makes up for the "extra day" in a leap year with almost perfect accuracy.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Aug 10, 2011)

twilyth said:


> For example, you can view the old testament as a type of love story.  God chooses Israel to be his people to the exclusion of all others.  But they betray and defy him time after time.  Time after time he punishes them but ultimately relents.  So the Chinese fortune cookie version of the OT is that god is love - something that is so cliche as to be virtually meaningless now - unfortunately.



See, I see that as "God gives up and lets the wankers have what they want".


----------



## overclockthesun (Aug 10, 2011)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I never quite got that myself.
> 
> If you read the bible literally there are conflicts within stories, openly racist and hateful messages, and a surprisingly calous and amoral god.  These things are inherently different than the kind and loving absolute truth that religious zealots would have you believe.
> 
> ...




Ironically, he lost his ruthlessness when his "Son" died on the cross. So if god exists, then this is a funny predicament. His son came to teach us peace, instead he taught it to his father.


----------



## overclockthesun (Aug 10, 2011)

I shouldnt be posting in a religious thread with an avatar pic showing a n00b Pope! :wheee:


----------

