Why are you religious/not religious?

What do you guys think of Genesis being a metaphor? A metaphor for what I am unsure of, but a metaphor nonetheless.

i follow science like a religion it helps me think clear about my actions

Ziggy wrote:What do you guys think of Genesis being a metaphor? A metaphor for what I am unsure of, but a metaphor nonetheless.

Depends on what part you're talking about.
Genesis not only contains Noah and the Flood, as well as Adam and Eve, but also Cain and Abel, Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph.

If you're referring to the seven day creation, I believe that it happened, but I don't think it matters. With the God the bible talks about, the Creation could have lasted seven seconds or seven years.
Also, since the story of Adam and Eve doesn't fit the standards of Hebraic poetry, like some other parts of the bible, I believe that it is meant to be taken literally.

Ziggy wrote:What do you guys think of Genesis being a metaphor? A metaphor for what I am unsure of, but a metaphor nonetheless.

I am open to the possibility that pre-Abraham stories in the Bible could be metaphorical, although I don't necessarily believe that they are.

I do, however, also consider that these could have been written for the people of the time, explained in a way to make sense to these people while still getting basic ideas across. If it had explained science in ancient times people would have laughed at it and found it unbelievable. If it was to be rewritten now, I think that it would make much more sense while still following the same basic ideas.

Dud wrote:Power and oppression will wear any mask that it sees fit to wear. Religion was the not the root cause of the Church's historical abuses, greed and ignorance was.

Right, but the danger of the church becoming so destructive in the hands of greed should teach us something. Just as Enron teaches us that maybe full-scale capitalism isn't the best idea... the medieval catholic church teaches us that maybe organized religion isn't the most.... safe thing for society to invest itself in.

Dud wrote:Most people know what is right and what is wrong, but generally the religious are the ones that follow these moral values.

I really don't think religion is a large factor in strength of moral principle. I think that religion promotes moral values, and I will accept the idea that western culture has been influenced by that, but I think that, today, religion does not directly influence morals.

In other words, I don't think that religious people can really attribute their morality to the fear of divine punishment.

Dud wrote:While I hate to make this contrast, two examples of states which have more or less done away with religion in relatively modern times would be Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Both of these removed the Church from it's prevalent role in society and promoted atheism, both saw a huge decline in moral values, to the point where they became several of the top most infamous countries in history.

Right, but you're talking about state-enforcement of religion, which is going to cause trouble no matter what the religion is. The soviet union and the Nazis promoted the doing away of religion to serve specific motives, not for the well being of society.

I'm suggesting that we'd be fine if everybody collectively decided to stop bothering with religion, which will never happen. I'm not suggesting that we'd ever be fine in the case of government taking away religion.

Dud wrote:What about science? Atheism and agnosticism lie more under philosophy than science imo. If science can be defined by testable hypotheses, theories, laws, then atheism and agnosticism do not fit this definition as they are not testable. I would say this is one of the most common misconceptions in arguments such as this.

Well there's a difference between the ideals of science and the need for empirical evidence. Obviously, science will never be able to give us an irrefutable answer for the universe, but it gives us a way of thinking. Agnosticism follows that way of thinking.

Dud wrote:It does, however why is it that scientists are generally more concerned with the scientific value of certain things as opposed to Christians who are generally more concerned with the ethics behind said things?

It's not that they aren't as concerned about ethics, they just have DIFFERENT ETHICS. Religious folks just tend to focus on more arbitrary issues with very strict viewpoints. They often refuse to adjust their morals in light of new developments. They're very stubborn.

That said, technological progression does need something in place to... keep it humane.

Dud wrote:What I disagree with you about is that believing in one particular religion is "on a whole different level" as you say. The belief that there is a God who bothered to create the universe and therefore, either directly or indirectly, us, would logically lead to the assumption that he bothered to make himself known to it's inhabitants. Clearly a being with such power would make no small impression on the Earth, and his followers would therefore be the most numerous on the planet. Christianity is by far the largest, and in my opinion, the most logical choice out of the world's vast array of religions.

Maybe. I would say that the idea of a god NOT making himself known is just as plausible. The universe is fucking huge. We could be the creations of a god who does not even know that we exist.

Either way, the simple concept of dedicating yourself to one belief system is what bothers me to no end.

Dud wrote:My problem is more with the utter dismissal of the possibility of creationism by both textbooks and teachers. My textbook actually talks about evolution as an absolute, in the context that we did in fact evolve from single celled organisms through the process of genetic evolution. While I do not completely dismiss this theory (as it does not directly contradict Christianity as is common belief) I find it rather ridiculous that it be taught in this manner with no reference to the fact that it is, again, an unproven theory.

Well yeah, I agree that macro-evolution should be taught less... absolutely. As for creationism... well I really don't have a problem with the utter dismissal of creationism. I mean, it's not really appropriate in a school text book, but that doesn't bother me so much.

I suppose we shouldn't say that it can't be true, but rather, that we have no logical reason to believe that it might be true. It certainly doesn't belong there at all though.

Intelligent design is an entirely different issue. I'd be open to putting it in schools if it were not so obviously a tool of creationists.

Dud wrote:I am open to the possibility that pre-Abraham stories in the Bible could be metaphorical, although I don't necessarily believe that they are.

Are you suggesting that this might not have happened?



BLASPHEMER!

ReconToaster wrote:Right, but the danger of the church becoming so destructive in the hands of greed should teach us something. Just as Enron teaches us that maybe full-scale capitalism isn't the best idea... the medieval catholic church teaches us that maybe organized religion isn't the most.... safe thing for society to invest itself in.

I think it teaches us to use checks and balances, which our Founding Fathers got mostly right.
As far as I can see, the medieval catholic Church was an example of a theocracy, where an organized religion takes control of or gains unwarranted influence over government.
Because of human nature (man cannot be trusted with power) it can happen in any form of institution which exerts large influence over people's lives, be it government, religion, or education. Best of all, because of the non-hereditary nature of power, such institutions will survive ages, as pointed out by George Orwell.

So go ahead, Organized Religion. Request tithes and tell people what to do with their lives. When you start forcing people to pay their tithes, or organize enforcers to beat down people who violate infractions, without deferring to the law, that's when I stand up to you.

ReconToaster wrote:

Dud wrote:Most people know what is right and what is wrong, but generally the religious are the ones that follow these moral values.

I really don't think religion is a large factor in strength of moral principle. I think that religion promotes moral values, and I will accept the idea that western culture has been influenced by that, but I think that, today, religion does not directly influence morals.

In other words, I don't think that religious people can really attribute their morality to the fear of divine punishment.

Well, no.
Religion sure tries to be a large influence in society's morals, but it's rather hard to compete with John&Kate+8, Oprah, and Snoop Dawggy Dawg. On the other hand, I doubt that people were really uptight in their morals in the age of the Supreme Catholic Church. People were good men on Sunday and wife-beaters on Monday (Indeed, given the role of women back then, they might have been wife-beaters on Sunday night as well) These days, people are a lot more open about their influences, so you have a lot fewer 'Sunday Christians'.

ReconToaster wrote:

Dud wrote:While I hate to make this contrast, two examples of states which have more or less done away with religion in relatively modern times would be Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Both of these removed the Church from it's prevalent role in society and promoted atheism, both saw a huge decline in moral values, to the point where they became several of the top most infamous countries in history.

Right, but you're talking about state-enforcement of religion, which is going to cause trouble no matter what the religion is. The soviet union and the Nazis promoted the doing away of religion to serve specific motives, not for the well being of society.

The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites.

ReconToaster wrote:

Dud wrote:It does, however why is it that scientists are generally more concerned with the scientific value of certain things as opposed to Christians who are generally more concerned with the ethics behind said things?

It's not that they aren't as concerned about ethics, they just have DIFFERENT ETHICS. Religious folks just tend to focus on more arbitrary issues with very strict viewpoints. They often refuse to adjust their morals in light of new developments. They're very stubborn.

Depends on what new developments are. I've really never seen anything that really warrants a re-evaluation of biblical morals.
Now, one could submit the argument that since X is/are more accepted now in society, and we should redact our view towards them, but the counterargument runs that X has/have been accepted in other societies for several thousand years, and the Church has had the same viewpoint towards them/it. Not to mention that morals really are supposed to transcend societal changes.
Extreme example: Because kicking the Jews into the Ghettos and raiding their houses became SOP in German society in the thirties (And indeed, for centuries before then) doesn't mean that morals should be relaxed so it's alright to do it to them.

Now, if you can come up with a clearer point than the one you submitted (More specific, that is) I'd be happy to address it.

ReconToaster wrote:That said, technological progression does need something in place to... keep it humane.

Agreed.
"Hey, guys! I just invented Zyklon B! What should we do with it?"

Or, another example would be "Next", by Micheal Chrichton. In his swan song, he pointed out several problems with the Biotechnology industry, and how to address them.

ReconToaster wrote:Maybe. I would say that the idea of a god NOT making himself known is just as plausible. The universe is fucking huge. We could be the creations of a god who does not even know that we exist.

Either way, the simple concept of dedicating yourself to one belief system is what bothers me to no end.

If it makes you feel better, many people convert to a belief system which makes more sense to them.

ReconToaster wrote:Well yeah, I agree that macro-evolution should be taught less... absolutely. As for creationism... well I really don't have a problem with the utter dismissal of creationism. I mean, it's not really appropriate in a school text book, but that doesn't bother me so much.

I suppose we shouldn't say that it can't be true, but rather, that we have no logical reason to believe that it might be true. It certainly doesn't belong there at all though.

Agreed.
Surprise!

ReconToaster wrote:Intelligent design is an entirely different issue. I'd be open to putting it in schools if it were not so obviously a tool of creationists.

Agreed, although I have to admit that the "time traveling geneticist" theory violates common sense.

ReconToaster wrote:

Dud wrote:I am open to the possibility that pre-Abraham stories in the Bible could be metaphorical, although I don't necessarily believe that they are.

Are you suggesting that this might not have happened?



BLASPHEMER!

We cower, in our shelters
With our hands over our ears.
Loydd Weber's awful stuff runs
For years and years and years...

An earthquake hits the theatre
And the operetta lingers...
And then the piano lid comes down *Boom*
And breaks his F@#$ing fingers.
It's a miracle...

Let's just say, Roger Waters didn't like Andrew Loydd Weber... And I don't really, either.

I was born a Lutheran (Missouri Synod) for those of you who aren't familiar with this branch of Christianity it is based off of a man in the 1500's who translated the bible (in Latin at the time) to many different languages allowing people to see what the Catholic church was doing wrong.

Anyways I've been baptised and confirmed in this faith and I do believe in God. As a child I of course did all the religious stuff, and as a teenager I still believe this faith for the most part. About when I turned 14 I decided I wanted to see what other religions were like so I did my research and looked through just about everything I could find. I did not find anything else that really set itself apart.

I believe in God, I believe in Jesus and what he's done. The bible however I'm not so sure, you can't base religion off of the bible. Why you ask? Because it was written by men who followed Jesus and every man good, evil, and inbetween will change whats said. This is where I lost faith for a while and did some terrible things that I really do wish I could take back. However I have since then rejoined into my religion still following my beliefs. I just feel the Lutheran translation of the bible is the most truthful. One main thing I don't like about it though is how much it bashes the other religions. I mean almost every church sermon has some form of anti-anti christian propaganda. Hell, it even downtalks alot of religions that believe in God. I have actually started an argument with my pastor in the middle of his church sermon infront of everyone as to what he was saying. I ended up getting kicked out for about a year because of the fiasco and left my house because of it too.

Now we have a new pastor who is more accepting, but still alittle intolerant. I now keep my arguments in private ;)

ReconToaster wrote:Right, but the danger of the church becoming so destructive in the hands of greed should teach us something. Just as Enron teaches us that maybe full-scale capitalism isn't the best idea... the medieval catholic church teaches us that maybe organized religion isn't the most.... safe thing for society to invest itself in.

Correct, but that's not really a problem in today's society. In fact, it's safe to say that it's non-existent after the Holocaust conspiracy problem the Church had a few months ago.

ReconToaster wrote:I really don't think religion is a large factor in strength of moral principle. I think that religion promotes moral values, and I will accept the idea that western culture has been influenced by that, but I think that, today, religion does not directly influence morals.

Whether you think something is a factor has little effect on anything unless you have something to back it up.

ReconToaster wrote:In other words, I don't think that religious people can really attribute their morality to the fear of divine punishment.

You'd be surprised how little good religious people do out of fear of divine punishment. If I haven't prayed in a while and think I should, I don't do it out of fear, I do it because I think it's the right thing to do.

ReconToaster wrote:It's not that they aren't as concerned about ethics, they just have DIFFERENT ETHICS. Religious folks just tend to focus on more arbitrary issues with very strict viewpoints. They often refuse to adjust their morals in light of new developments. They're very stubborn.

As are you.

ReconToaster wrote:Well yeah, I agree that macro-evolution should be taught less... absolutely. As for creationism... well I really don't have a problem with the utter dismissal of creationism. I mean, it's not really appropriate in a school text book, but that doesn't bother me so much.

I suppose we shouldn't say that it can't be true, but rather, that we have no logical reason to believe that it might be true. It certainly doesn't belong there at all though.

Or... we could just leave it alone in text books. Just don't talk about any theories on the origin of the universe. The idea is so controversial, that it does more harm to talk about it than it does good.

Civ wrote:Correct, but that's not really a problem in today's society. In fact, it's safe to say that it's non-existent after the Holocaust conspiracy problem the Church had a few months ago.

It's not relevant now, but it could be in the future. The Medieval Roman Catholic church taught us a lesson that we will hopefully put to good use.

civ wrote:Whether you think something is a factor has little effect on anything unless you have something to back it up.

kthanx? I'm just stating my opinion. I'm not trying to prove it. I might as well challenge you to prove that religion DOES directly affect ethics.

Civ wrote:You'd be surprised how little good religious people do out of fear of divine punishment.

I doubt I'd be surprised, seeing as that was exactly my point. I don't think religion directly affects morals, as when people do good things, they tend not to do it for reasons like "avoiding divine punishment."

People act in the way that they've been raised to act. That way might happen to be one of Christian values, but that doesn't mean that Christianity has an active part in how they behave. If someone were raised with the same moral principles, without religious involvement, they'd probably act the same way.

Can't find statistical evidence on that either, but from what you said in your post, you seem to agree.

Civ wrote:As are you.

Yeah but my point is that you should never talk to a girl who says she "just has a friend."

Civ wrote:Or... we could just leave it alone in text books. Just don't talk about any theories on the origin of the universe. The idea is so controversial, that it does more harm to talk about it than it does good.

Nah, it should be taught as a theory promoted by most of the scientific community. I mean hell, it wasn't until just recently that we managed to photograph an ATOM. We've been teaching that shit for decades!

We teach kids about stars, and the composition of the sun, and black holes, and dark matter. Do we really even know much about any of that stuff with great certainty?

It just needs to be taught in a different... tone. The point is that things like that demonstrate the scientific method of discovery. There is evidence that points toward an outward expansion from a central point in the universe. Students should know that.

sargentbilco wrote:i follow science like a religion it helps me think clear about my actions

Science changes over and over. Did you know that only 60 years ago we finally accepted that the Earth moves? Following science blindly is like following a rope blindfolded to cross a highway.

[quote="ReconToaster"]

ReconToaster wrote:

Dud wrote:Power and oppression will wear any mask that it sees fit to wear. Religion was the not the root cause of the Church's historical abuses, greed and ignorance was.

Right, but the danger of the church becoming so destructive in the hands of greed should teach us something. Just as Enron teaches us that maybe full-scale capitalism isn't the best idea... the medieval catholic church teaches us that maybe organized religion isn't the most.... safe thing for society to invest itself in.

It should have taught us something. But now we have religion clouding Islam. Greed and ignorance isn't the problem anymore.

ReconToaster wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:

Dud wrote:Most people know what is right and what is wrong, but generally the religious are the ones that follow these moral values.

I really don't think religion is a large factor in strength of moral principle. I think that religion promotes moral values, and I will accept the idea that western culture has been influenced by that, but I think that, today, religion does not directly influence morals.

Actually, what affects morals is dependent on what you think people will look at you and think about what your doing. Religion never really made you want to help that person cross the road.

In other words, I don't think that religious people can really attribute their morality to the fear of divine punishment.

ReconToaster wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:

Dud wrote:While I hate to make this contrast, two examples of states which have more or less done away with religion in relatively modern times would be Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Both of these removed the Church from it's prevalent role in society and promoted atheism, both saw a huge decline in moral values, to the point where they became several of the top most infamous countries in history.

Right, but you're talking about state-enforcement of religion, which is going to cause trouble no matter what the religion is. The soviet union and the Nazis promoted the doing away of religion to serve specific motives, not for the well being of society.

I'm suggesting that we'd be fine if everybody collectively decided to stop bothering with religion, which will never happen. I'm not suggesting that we'd ever be fine in the case of government taking away religion.

They removed religion from their establisments in order to focus on their goals. They didn't want the people looking at the bible and then to them and realizing what sins they were committing.

Dud wrote:What about science? Atheism and agnosticism lie more under philosophy than science imo. If science can be defined by testable hypotheses, theories, laws, then atheism and agnosticism do not fit this definition as they are not testable. I would say this is one of the most common misconceptions in arguments such as this.

Well there's a difference between the ideals of science and the need for empirical evidence. Obviously, science will never be able to give us an irrefutable answer for the universe, but it gives us a way of thinking. Agnosticism follows that way of thinking.

ReconToaster wrote:

Dud wrote:It does, however why is it that scientists are generally more concerned with the scientific value of certain things as opposed to Christians who are generally more concerned with the ethics behind said things?

It's not that they aren't as concerned about ethics, they just have DIFFERENT ETHICS. Religious folks just tend to focus on more arbitrary issues with very strict viewpoints. They often refuse to adjust their morals in light of new developments. They're very stubborn.

That said, technological progression does need something in place to... keep it humane.

They are stubborn because they fear that such discoveries could upset the balance that the world is currently positioned. You can't blame them from rejecting and denying stuff that could make many people break their moral standard.

ReconToaster wrote:

Dud wrote:What I disagree with you about is that believing in one particular religion is "on a whole different level" as you say. The belief that there is a God who bothered to create the universe and therefore, either directly or indirectly, us, would logically lead to the assumption that he bothered to make himself known to it's inhabitants. Clearly a being with such power would make no small impression on the Earth, and his followers would therefore be the most numerous on the planet. Christianity is by far the largest, and in my opinion, the most logical choice out of the world's vast array of religions.

Maybe. I would say that the idea of a god NOT making himself known is just as plausible. The universe is fucking huge. We could be the creations of a god who does not even know that we exist.

Either way, the simple concept of dedicating yourself to one belief system is what bothers me to no end.

But you see, there is proof that this god knows we exist. Thus, we believe he recognizes our existence.

ReconToaster wrote:

Dud wrote:My problem is more with the utter dismissal of the possibility of creationism by both textbooks and teachers. My textbook actually talks about evolution as an absolute, in the context that we did in fact evolve from single celled organisms through the process of genetic evolution. While I do not completely dismiss this theory (as it does not directly contradict Christianity as is common belief) I find it rather ridiculous that it be taught in this manner with no reference to the fact that it is, again, an unproven theory.

Well yeah, I agree that macro-evolution should be taught less... absolutely. As for creationism... well I really don't have a problem with the utter dismissal of creationism. I mean, it's not really appropriate in a school text book, but that doesn't bother me so much.

I suppose we shouldn't say that it can't be true, but rather, that we have no logical reason to believe that it might be true. It certainly doesn't belong there at all though.

Intelligent design is an entirely different issue. I'd be open to putting it in schools if it were not so obviously a tool of creationists.

I think they should teach them at the same side. Showing evidence from each side. Making sure it is equal. Just so that the student has a chance to follow his belief rather than clouding him with its this or that.

ReconToaster wrote:

Dud wrote:I am open to the possibility that pre-Abraham stories in the Bible could be metaphorical, although I don't necessarily believe that they are.

Are you suggesting that this might not have happened?



BLASPHEMER!

They actually found a high level of salt in Rameses II's corpse.

CivBase wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:Right, but the danger of the church becoming so destructive in the hands of greed should teach us something. Just as Enron teaches us that maybe full-scale capitalism isn't the best idea... the medieval catholic church teaches us that maybe organized religion isn't the most.... safe thing for society to invest itself in.

Correct, but that's not really a problem in today's society. In fact, it's safe to say that it's non-existent after the Holocaust conspiracy problem the Church had a few months ago.

Its a huge problem. Terrorists believe that through Islam they can achieve a shit load of virgins. Truly the Church of Chrisanity is very much similar to the churches of Islam that are teaching these radical beliefs.

CivBase wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:I really don't think religion is a large factor in strength of moral principle. I think that religion promotes moral values, and I will accept the idea that western culture has been influenced by that, but I think that, today, religion does not directly influence morals.

Whether you think something is a factor has little effect on anything unless you have something to back it up.

As I've said before. Today's morals standards are created by the mind perception of what other people would think of the person if he committed this act.

CivBase wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:In other words, I don't think that religious people can really attribute their morality to the fear of divine punishment.

You'd be surprised how little good religious people do out of fear of divine punishment. If I haven't prayed in a while and think I should, I don't do it out of fear, I do it because I think it's the right thing to do.

I do it to get my parents to stop yelling at me and most of the time for protection. ( Better safe than sorry)

Zaki90 wrote:

sargentbilco wrote:i follow science like a religion it helps me think clear about my actions

Science changes over and over. Did you know that only 60 years ago we finally accepted that the Earth moves? Following science blindly is like following a rope blindfolded to cross a highway.

To be fair, religion changes over and over as well.

Zaki90 wrote:

CivBase wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:Right, but the danger of the church becoming so destructive in the hands of greed should teach us something. Just as Enron teaches us that maybe full-scale capitalism isn't the best idea... the medieval catholic church teaches us that maybe organized religion isn't the most.... safe thing for society to invest itself in.

Correct, but that's not really a problem in today's society. In fact, it's safe to say that it's non-existent after the Holocaust conspiracy problem the Church had a few months ago.

Its a huge problem. Terrorists believe that through Islam they can achieve a shit load of virgins. Truly the Church of Chrisanity is very much similar to the churches of Islam that are teaching these radical beliefs.

Really? When was the last time you heard the pope (or any church official, for that matter) tell you to go strap bombs to yourself and kill people in the name of God?

Before you say "the crusades," note that I said "in today's society."

Zaki90 wrote:

CivBase wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:I really don't think religion is a large factor in strength of moral principle. I think that religion promotes moral values, and I will accept the idea that western culture has been influenced by that, but I think that, today, religion does not directly influence morals.

Whether you think something is a factor has little effect on anything unless you have something to back it up.

As I've said before. Today's morals standards are created by the mind perception of what other people would think of the person if he committed this act.

Not always.

Zaki90 wrote:

CivBase wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:In other words, I don't think that religious people can really attribute their morality to the fear of divine punishment.

You'd be surprised how little good religious people do out of fear of divine punishment. If I haven't prayed in a while and think I should, I don't do it out of fear, I do it because I think it's the right thing to do.

I do it to get my parents to stop yelling at me and most of the time for protection. ( Better safe than sorry)

That's great, but I'm pretty sure everyone on Earth doesn't hold morals to the same standard as you do.

Zaki90 wrote:

sargentbilco wrote:i follow science like a religion it helps me think clear about my actions

Science changes over and over. Did you know that only 60 years ago we finally accepted that the Earth moves? Following science blindly is like following a rope blindfolded to cross a highway.

And I suppose saying that some imaginary entity created everything just like that is more logical? Science PROVES things and offers actual evidence on things.

Ascendant Justice wrote:And I suppose saying that some imaginary entity created everything just like that is more logical?

I'm not even going to bother with that, it was so poorly thought out.


For the last f**ing time, people, science is not an alternative to religion. THEY ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS.

CivBase wrote:

Ascendant Justice wrote:And I suppose saying that some imaginary entity created everything just like that is more logical?

I'm not even going to bother with that, it was so poorly thought out.

More like you dont have an answer to it.

Civbase wrote:For the last f**ing time, people, science is not an alternative to religion. THEY ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS.

Science is just for people who have half a fucking brain. When you are done following the ravings of some lunatic writer from way back when who believes that an imaginary person created everything, give me a call.

CivBase wrote:

Ascendant Justice wrote:And I suppose saying that some imaginary entity created everything just like that is more logical?

I'm not even going to bother with that, it was so poorly thought out.


For the last f**ing time, people, science is not an alternative to religion. THEY ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS.

Again, that all depends on what you consider religion to be, and what you think is required to be the FOLLOWER of a religion.

There are self proclaimed Christians (most of the ones I know) who don't take everything in the bible literally, and don't believe everything inside of it to be absolute. They take moral principles from them, and apply them to life, just as someone might take the idea of scientific reasoning and uncertainty, and the idea of being humble, and apply those ideas to life.

AJ wrote:

Civbase wrote:For the last f**ing time, people, science is not an alternative to religion. THEY ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS.

Science is just for people who have half a fucking brain. When you are done following the ravings of some lunatic writer from way back when who believes that an imaginary person created everything, give me a call.

Try to prove this imaginary person does not exist why don't you?

Science is not superior over religion, and religion isn't superior over science.

Gauz wrote:

AJ wrote:

Civbase wrote:For the last f**ing time, people, science is not an alternative to religion. THEY ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS.

Science is just for people who have half a fucking brain. When you are done following the ravings of some lunatic writer from way back when who believes that an imaginary person created everything, give me a call.

Try to prove this imaginary person does not exist why don't you?

Science is not superior over religion, and religion isn't superior over science.

Simple. We have no proof that this imaginary person does exist. Science proves things. Science proved that the earth does in fact move, scinece has proven that some animal life has evolved over time from other species.

Religion makes claims

Science creates physical evidence.

Science >>> Religion.

CivBase wrote:

Zaki90 wrote:

CivBase wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:Right, but the danger of the church becoming so destructive in the hands of greed should teach us something. Just as Enron teaches us that maybe full-scale capitalism isn't the best idea... the medieval catholic church teaches us that maybe organized religion isn't the most.... safe thing for society to invest itself in.

Correct, but that's not really a problem in today's society. In fact, it's safe to say that it's non-existent after the Holocaust conspiracy problem the Church had a few months ago.

Its a huge problem. Terrorists believe that through Islam they can achieve a shit load of virgins. Truly the Church of Chrisanity is very much similar to the churches of Islam that are teaching these radical beliefs.

Really? When was the last time you heard the pope (or any church official, for that matter) tell you to go strap bombs to yourself and kill people in the name of God?

Before you say "the crusades," note that I said "in today's society."

Well, take the bombs out. Alot of present day churches have been threatening to murder gay people.

Zaki90 wrote:

CivBase wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:I really don't think religion is a large factor in strength of moral principle. I think that religion promotes moral values, and I will accept the idea that western culture has been influenced by that, but I think that, today, religion does not directly influence morals.

Whether you think something is a factor has little effect on anything unless you have something to back it up.

As I've said before. Today's morals standards are created by the mind perception of what other people would think of the person if he committed this act.

Not always.

A big portion of it is.

Zaki90 wrote:

CivBase wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:In other words, I don't think that religious people can really attribute their morality to the fear of divine punishment.

You'd be surprised how little good religious people do out of fear of divine punishment. If I haven't prayed in a while and think I should, I don't do it out of fear, I do it because I think it's the right thing to do.

I do it to get my parents to stop yelling at me and most of the time for protection. ( Better safe than sorry)

That's great, but I'm pretty sure everyone on Earth doesn't hold morals to the same standard as you do.

No one truly holds the exact moral standards of others. I never said that everyone should be like mine. I said that some people like me are pressured into doing something religous. Not out of fear or the thought of benefit, but to stop themselves from their elders' criticism.

My response in Bold.

Zaki wrote:Well, take the bombs out. Alot of present day churches have been threatening to murder gay people.

By a lot you mean almost none right? There are radicals in the christian religions, but very few openly preach the death of homosexuals during a public mass/service

Ascendant Justice wrote:
Simple. We have no proof that this imaginary person does exist.

Then it is a theory, since there is no concrete evidence to prove or disproves the existence of said person.

Ascendant Justice wrote:
Science proves things.

Discover things is a better way of saying it...

Ascendant Justice wrote:
Religion makes claims

Science makes claims as well. But they hide them with the fancy word "theories."

Ascendant Justice wrote:
Science creates physical evidence.

Ah...no?
they use it to support claims and ideas, trying to discovers how things work...

Ascendant Justice wrote:
Science >>> Religion.

They're two separate things
Kinda like me saying.
Bulldog >>> Onion.

Baconsen wrote:

Ascendant Justice wrote:
Simple. We have no proof that this imaginary person does exist.

Then it is a theory, since there is no concrete evidence to prove or disproves the existence of said person.

Ascendant Justice wrote:
Science proves things.

Discover things is a better way of saying it...

No, they also take the time to prove these discoveries as well.

Ascendant Justice wrote:
Religion makes claims

Science makes claims as well. But they hide them with the fancy word "theories."

Which all have meanings, and are later proven.

Ascendant Justice wrote:
Science creates physical evidence.

Ah...no?
they use it to support claims and ideas, trying to discovers how things work...

At least science tries to discover how things work. Its a lot better than what religion does.

Ascendant Justice wrote:
Science >>> Religion.

They're two separate things
Kinda like me saying.
Bulldog >>> Onion.

However both have been compared and heavily debated as to which is right so they ARE tied together.

My stuff is bolded.

Ascendant Justice wrote:
However both have been compared and heavily debated as to which is right so they ARE tied together.

That is incorrect. Science and Religion hardly are related at all. Just because they are normally said to be opposites does not make it true.

Proof of concept: I believe in both science and religion with all my heart and mind.

Ascendant Justice wrote:
No, they also take the time to prove these discoveries as well.

You can't prove a discovery...

Ascendant Justice wrote:
Which all have meanings, and are later proven.

Not always.
There was one theory that stated that maggots grow from rotting meat.
Which was later disproved.

Ascendant Justice wrote:
At least science tries to discover how things work. Its a lot better than what religion does.

Which is what?

Ascendant Justice wrote:

However both have been compared and heavily debated as to which is right so they ARE tied together.

I think TNine replied to this perfectly so, i'll just quote him.

TNine wrote:
That is incorrect. Science and Religion hardly are related at all. Just because they are normally said to be opposites does not make it true.

Proof of concept: I believe in both science and religion with all my heart and mind.