Dear Science, Religion is not your infidel. i don't know what else to write. only that this thread needs to be made. ok... lemme just waffle about my personal take on it for a bit.... first up, lemme just say, i'm one of you. raised being forced to go to church, i rejected christianity as i was taught it from a very young age, and threw the baby out with the bathwater, rejecting all religion. like the story of that guy who went to Hungary and saw a white cow, came back telling everyone all the cows in Hungary are white, I saw a religion, a version of christianity, and went off to tell everyone that all religions were made up stories and of little worth to people. heh, i still think what i thought back then, but now it's just backed up with a broader base and more experience. (for example, i say churchianity rather than christianity when giving it a slating, having no clue as to what or who, the "jesus christ" was really about, and knowing that "christ" means anointed one, and theres bugger all anointing going on in the church as far as i can tell) after years and years of being fervently anti-religious and very pro-science, my studies took me in an unexpected direction, that of dissolving this false dichotomy in my mind, to realise that modern scientific discoveries were showing themselves to be in complete alignment with the oldest surviving teachings that still shined through rewrites and misrepresentations. having since studied many religions, i know now there is incredible worth to be found in their teachings. however. politically, much has occurred in the hierarchies employed in the organisational structures built up around these religions (some much more than others), and the messages taught have become clouded, muddied with a thousand edicts from power hungry, or from the meddling of well intentioned fools. but that's ok. it'll teach us great lessons. anyways, my point... so often there's this "sides" mentality of people picking either religion (often various intollerent forms of churchianity) or science (often having done no scientific method research of their own, only adding a voice to the choir of institutionalised establishment academic dogma)... and both are to be shunned, avoided, converted... whatever. just don't pick it up for yourself. recognise it in yourself when it occurs. that sides thing is just some ridiculous patriotism/xenophobia/belonging psychological satisfaction with no merit on intellectual bases. we are all one. separation is the path to destruction. so just because there's much been done that is so obviously wrong and had the word "religion" attached to it, do not think religion is the criminal. wrongs done religiously are indeed wrong, but keep the "wrong" on the "wrong" and the "religious" on the "religion". though i may despise churchianity, everyone i've met who goes to church, i have loved (despite differences). anyways, we're seeing supreme deities all around us, only those who've been informed of what that really means can accept, as no preconceived notion developed to confirm disbelief would ever allow. .... but then... hinduism is the greatest epic ever told. hehe. yeah, like i said, waffle. how could one argue that all religion is rubbish without first knowing all of religion. if you claim all religion is rubbish, and are correct, then you'd have a complete answer as to why brahma, vishnu and krishna do not exist, would you not? and to argue such, you'd need to know what they are, correct? that and a billion other examples. basically, if you're anti-religious, and pro-science, you're not a real scientist. You're a follower of the establishment's institutionalised academic dogma. this realisation may be just what's needed to assist becoming that which you seek to be... a scientist. an open-minded rationalist.
I'm going to reply to both of your posts somtime after I go to sleep, probably in about ten hours. I'd love to see some replies by rationalists tearing those sad straw-men arguements down by the time i wake up though.
Whew, I finally get to post almost first in one these threads. I like your topic Digit, but based on how some deal with religion I have to say its futile. IMHO the "Spirituality And Philosophy" forum is the most intolerant place at GrassCity. It's rare to find people posting with a live and let live attitude. More often than not someone is going to post who thinks they have a right to attack another person's beliefs. I'm talking about more than mere "questioning" of one's POV. There is thread after thread of essentially the same arguments. Who wants to re-litigate something that's been argued--to no suitable resolution-over, and over, and over again? In an ideal world where people respected one another they could read this thread, appreciate its words, and roast a bowl. Ah well, not as long as the moronic “truth squad†exists. Stay green.
The idea that we should all politely tolerate everyone's opinions and beliefs doesn't take into account that people don't have to right to propagate factual inaccuracies about the universe to people with gullible minds, it doesn't address the facts that ideas and opinions can cause harm in society, and that harm directly translates into ignorance, death, and all manner of gross things that any sort of rational humanitarian would be disgusted with. Theres no reason to tolerate beliefs which are blatantly irrational, nonsensical and harmful.
No religion is a faith based system. No, you're not. You had a problem with christianity for whatever reason, its not specifically christianity but faith that is the problem, rejecting all religions that have faith is a good logical idea. Why don't you explain to us how old ancient faith based religions are in accordance with science. Religion is based on faith and faith is not a part of science, it is the polar opposite of honest science. I've studied various religious for over a decade I couldn't possibly count the number of books i've read of various religions, their teachings, their historical effects on society and the history of the beliefs themselves. So please share with me your wisdom about how a faith-based system can go hand in hand with science and bayesian logic. Sounds familiar alright. Academic dogma is bad but science isn't dogmatic. Yes science should be shunned because its too factual, logical rational and probable. Why don't you provide some of this wide-spread scientific dogma? Its not its based on the fact that science is based on rationality logic and probability while religions actively strive against those things. You could never have been hardcore into science because you don't understand the concepts of logic, occam's razor, falsifiability or anything else. Or why their important for that matter. Yes the destruction of irrational people thinking that there is some kind of convergence. theres not. IF we define religion by a belief based on faith, any belief at all, say fairies, god, unicorns, anything, there is harm in beliving in somthing with no good demonstratable reason to believe it, there is harm in beliving in somthing *Without* evidence. Religion is criminal because it teaches us the dangerous idea that beliving in unicorns without evidence or anything without evidence is some kind of value. Irrelevant. No one said all christians are terrible people or worthy of hate. Vishnu krishna and brahma are hindu dieties. And no one would not need to understand that all of religions are insane without reading every single one. the same principle applies to religious globally, they are basing a belief in super improbable dieties based on emotional and mental appeal and not based on evidence or scientific inquiry. Their saying "THESE UNICORNS EXIST WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE BUT THEY DO, WE"RE SURE OF IT" I don't need to be familiar with every type of mythical creature to know that the arguement is sheerly based on appeals to emotions and irrationality, I don't have to descredit thousands of mythical creatures because the same idea holds true for any faith based belief. But for the record i've gone out of my way to spend years of my life studying various religions anyway. No, theres no well demonstrated scientific reason to believe in god. Its improbable past the idea of superman. If you don't believe in superman you're not a follower of the establishments institutionalized academic dogma, it means you understand WHAT THE FUCK PROBABILITY MEANS. No its a step towards ignoring rationality, contradicting logical premises and probability (in the numbers you couldn't begin to understand). Its a step towards a self-assured understanding of things you have no fucking clue about. Lets take an example (AGAIN, LET IT SINK IN THAT SKULL) (RD's example) Its possible for a statue of mary to wave its arm, all the molecules could just decide to go in one direction. We have no evidence that it ever happened before, none, and the likelihood of it happening is 1 in a number so vast that if you started writing zeroes at the begining of the universe until now the number still wouldn't be large enough. So you're not being a rationalist suggesting that this idea does not go against science. except the idea of god is improbable in a way that you could multiply that number writing zeroes from the start of the universe until now, by itself again and again and again and again and you WOULD NOT BE EVEN REACHING THE LEVEL OF IMPROBABIlITY FOR THE FAITH INHERENT IN MOST RELIGIONS. So until you're willing to believe in superman and call people dogmatic for saying belief in superman is ridiculous, please provide a more rational arguement with a logical frame-work to support it.
And seriously if you want to know about how much of an idiot you sound like try applying the logic of your religious beliefs to other things. Like we seriosuly don't need to know every mystical creature every thought up (have an extensive education on them) to know that their logically wrong and incoherent. We don't literally think people who disbelieve in superman are brainwashed by the institution and yet the idea of superman is more probable in fantastic ways. So save me the fucking time and think about what you're saying for ten minutes or ten years, whatever it takes. Failing that AT LEAST COHERENTLY REPLY TO THE ARGUEMENTS tHAT DESTROY you're ignorant concepts about reality. And yes, point out the fact that i called you an idiot as if it means anything. People earn my civility and they don't do it by spreading blatant falsehoods about reality, probability and the nature of science, while at the same time propagating their own sad misunderstandings and then claiming that the scientific community are dogmatic. You're an idiot and its not commentary on me that i'm willing to say it. I see no reason to politely indulge your lunatic fantasies while you make sweeping commentaries about science being dogmatic without religion. Boo hoo its impolite, but you've sacraficed that social nicety. Name-calling is something that is not tolerated here. You can make your point without calling someone names. Consider this your only warning. *RMJL (City Admin)
If scientists are expected to follow such strict rules, then I would expect the religious proponents to do exactly the same. They cannot expect to propose all manners of colorful theories, have them flamboyantly prancing around in our domain and expect us to treat them with the highest level of scientific consideration. I, as a rationalist, cannot travel the world disputing all manners of theories from bigfoot to the toothfairy, to Krishna and Beelzebub; there are far more pressing issues on my table. And I, as a rationalist, would not propose any theories and have them flamboyantly prancing about their domain... unless I had well articulated, valid reasoning behind it. I respect any and all theories presented in a well thought out and logical manner, no matter what the conclusion may be. But are we seriously to conduct scientific investigations as to whether sparrows carry the spirits of dead human beings, along with some 200,000,000 other claims, which curiously seemed to be sprouting from several centuries before the industrial age?
And most of them don't even qualify as scientific theories. theories need to meet a host of scientific criteria, and falsifiability is one of them.
I would agree with that. Very much so. Both sides rarely listen to the other. In fact, most people don't even seem to read posts that argue a different side and just jump on in claiming the other side is wrong. Using terms such as straw man argument (and thinking they're not doing the exact same thing). It is actually funny though, sad, but funny. I'd rep ya if I could. Factual inaccuracies? PROVE IT. If you're going to use such strong language, then prove your case. Oh yeah, you can't. How do you know you're not spreading around inaccurate facts? Because science says you're not? What is science going to say 20 years from now, 100, 200? I remember when we used to have nine planets in our solar system... Of course many people were taught that we had nine, we redefine a few things and loose a planet, hooray. At one time we evolved directly from tree dwelling apes... New evidence would suggest otherwise. There used to be only 109 elements on the periodic table, since 1994 six more have been added. Heck, people are even doubting Einstein! Since the scientific theories are not complete and are always open to new data, why in the hell do you use them to argue your case? No evidence has been presented to even hint that there is no God, let alone show it beyond a resonable doubt. It is like two people wandering through the forest who come upon a house, something they have never seen the like of before. Person A says "I wonder who built that?" while person B looks at him and says "Are you stupid, there is no evidence to suggest anyone built that thing". Random chance vs. a creator. Hmmm... I am placing my bet on a creator. IT IS THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION. I am fully aware that science does not have all the answers, that it does not answer all our questions. Why don't you seem to know the same thing? Well, that is wrong, you use that to defend the theories you use to tell people they're an idiot. No scientist, after all, claims that they know everything, they just act like they do. A belief in a religion does not directly translate into "ignorance, death, and all manner of gross things". I see only Islamic extremists and the Christian right doing harm. I see many people who go and help out the poor, help their neighbors, and support one another, all because they belong to a religion that stresses these things. You know what I see people doing who never go to a church and have no particular belief in a higher power? I see them sitting at home watching their Television and ignoring most of the horrible crap that goes on in the world. The problems of Rome do not seem to matter to the well fed, well entertained, Roman of today. Are you going to trot out some past war that would seem to have a religious connection? Because in that war I can show you a more likely cause. That of money, greed, power, etc... No, it is easy to attack religion. I would almost hope you win. Wipe all religion from the face of the planet. Because afterwards, when nothing changes and people are still murdering people over nonsense reasons and unjust wars are still being fought, I'd like to see what you'd have to say about that. Religion is used as a scapegoat, something that is easy to point a finger at. Because God knows, pointing the finger at ourselves would be inane! I mean, shit, people don't do bad things. We're all logical and resonable and as soon as we can throw away this "religion" thing, we can create a new one based on logic and reason! And of course, somehow, that one will be perfect and won't lead to any problems. Only it will. It is human nature, not religion, that is the problem. People speak about all the peaceful atheist countries... Countries like China (Great human rights record), Cuba (I know I'd wanna move there!), the former USSR (They brought much light and goodness to the world), the list can go on. They're not all nice, those atheist countries. But what do I know? I don't have any "evidence". Wow, looks like we're in the same boat. The only difference between you and I is that I am willing to allow people to have an opinion and a belief (and yes, your opinion is a belief) while you'd rather throw in swear words and tell people they are stupid... I wonder which one of us is the more evolved and enlightened human? Oh... One last thing. Science takes a lot of faith. If you support or believe in string theory you just took a bigger leap of faith than the guy who believes in God.
The fact that you keep posting as if i can't systematically pick apart anything you have to say on this subject is amusing. I'll be back somtime to do exactly that. Oh yeah, we're in the same boat allright, I just happen to be holding your head underwater and drowning you, if you want the analogical equivilent of this debate.
i really don't understand why everyone takes everything so seriously and literally in philosophy and spirituality. if anything, this is the section where that is not to be done at all. if you take everything to be opposites then you will do nothing but crash, gettin you absolutely nowhere. what's the point of gettin so pissy over such a delicate matter. there is no right or wrong.
Religion requires a belief in a divine punishment. Do you want to believe that you will ever be put down and punished for hurting yourself or those around you? I don't. So if I was a nonbeliever I would justify my actions, seek the advice of scientific man, maybe get some of that good old fashioned slave making medicine that the medical industry is fond of handing out. Seeking advice from science is a double edged sword. I think that you are not aware of the mysteries that surround you. Alot of the people you believe are helping mankind have for years been involved in evil activitys. And it really does not matter what any ones thoughts on religion are in the end. They are hardcore satanists an occultists and they believe. Believe in satan or not you know what he represents. And so do they! They work for evil . Look some of these "great" men up. Here is one, Jack Parsons Antichrist, L Ron Hubbard ,Anton La Vey. These are stone cold facts that add up to us being hated , lied to, and as good as dead.
I can't help but notice that some of the great defenders of science and logic (cough) in this forum seem to be obsessed with using their obviously superior sense of logic to "destroy" other people's point of view. But seriously Iscariot, who the fuck do you think you are? This whole spiel about upholding rationality for the good of society is a load of of BS. If you were really concerned with propagating truth you'd be talking straight to people instead of trying to belittle them. No matter how brilliant you think you are you can still show some damn respect to other posters, regardless of how "illogical" you think their opinions are.
Uh... Hardly. But I am happy you seeing it that way makes you happy. I look forward to your straw man argument.
First of all I mentioned it already logic and being illogical aren't a matter of my opinion. I don't see any reason to show someone respect (WHICH IS EARNED) when the only thing that they've shown is a willingness to spread their idiotic beliefs. I respect people who decide that before they open their mouths that they better be educated on the subject that their talking about. Show me that and i'll give worlds of respect to anyone and i routinely do. its not a matter of my 'thoughts' or 'opinions' suggesting that the entire scientific community is dogmatic for rejecting religion is a destestable sham. When you make that claim you forfiet any right you had to civility from other people concerning intellectual matters. If you say somthing thats wrong, insist that you're right despite all evidence, and then make gross statements about the scientific community (And its only by their grace that you can even post to critizise me) is more than wrong. Apparently the City isn't really the place for you to chill. Whether it's your belief or not, mutual respect is something we expect here. Disagree all you want with someone's ideas and beliefs but don't rip someone a new asshole because you disagree with them. Be an adult and converse with them in a manner which will reflect better on you and will get the positive attention of others. All your doing is proving yourself to be intolerant, hateful and in turn, extrememly disrespectful. So, the interaction that you've had with others in this thread has caused this to be your last warning. You've been reported and I've been asked to review all of your recent posts due to consistent disrespect and "bashing" of others. *RMJL
We are passionate soulful beings and our beliefs make up who we are, we are very protective of our spirits no matter what they are attatched to. Whether it's earthly desires or a quest for the truth.
Well documented facts. If you care to research these things. It does not matter what religion any of us are. The scientific community is not full of bad guys. Alot of folks don't have a clue they are even a part of anything wrong, uukaaay. Those that do however believe in telling lies and murdering to an end if must be, as well as placing themselves above us all in their mind and harboring a deep hatred for us. Not all of them mind you! These are the ones who strive for fortune, power and control. These are the ones who succeed also. Therefore logic (Ever hear of it?) dictates that those who are evil will be prone to lie, cheat, and steal will on a mass scale given their rise to power and wealth. Eat that shit america.
Not here you don't. I may not be a mod but I can tell you that the only way to forfeit your right to civility in these forums is by being an asshole. Digit's post didn't contain a shred of ill will, and there's no reason why you couldn't address his points in a clear respectful way. In fact, if you really did care about your scientific truths then that's what you would have done instead of hiding behind them while you flexed your debating muscles and tried to ridicule Digit. Stop treating topics like stupid little contests that you have win at the expense of being decent, and start seeing them as opportunities for people to come to common truths.