Message boards :
Politics :
Religious Thread [8] - CLOSED
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 52 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Scary Capitalist Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0 |
You haven't found one instance where science an religion contradict eachother, Troy?He said science vs. religion, not science vs. stories from the Bible meant to teach religion. There is a huge difference. He's already stated that his religion has its basis in the bible. Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing! |
Qui-Gon Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 2940 Credit: 19,199,902 RAC: 11 |
I have no doubt he said that, but it doesn't change the fact that the "stories from the Bible meant to teach religion" do not have to have actually happened, nor need they therefore conflict with "science", in order for the Bible to be the basis of someone's religion. Only a small minority of diehard fundamentalist Christians insist the Bible is literal, historical fact. The vast majority of Christians do not.He's already stated that his religion has its basis in the bible.You haven't found one instance where science an religion contradict eachother, Troy?He said science vs. religion, not science vs. stories from the Bible meant to teach religion. There is a huge difference. |
Qui-Gon Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 2940 Credit: 19,199,902 RAC: 11 |
People adhere to religion for one of a few well defined reasons:I personally know, and know of many religious people who are strong, intelligent and compassionate. In my experience, it is people who are ignorant of a concept who tend to insult and unjustly accuse others who believe in that concept. There is no need for your provacative statement, Bodley, and it does not contribute to the discussion here. |
Scary Capitalist Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0 |
Perhaps when Troy gets back online he'll clarify what he means by 'religion'. After all, as with any debate or discussion we must define our terms so we know what it is we are talking about. Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing! |
Darth Dogbytes™ Send message Joined: 30 Jul 03 Posts: 7512 Credit: 2,021,148 RAC: 0 |
Account frozen... |
Troy Stull Send message Joined: 21 Jun 06 Posts: 264 Credit: 46,144 RAC: 0 |
You haven't found one instance where science an religion contradict eachother, Troy? Even among most die-hard Christans they don't belive that six days was a literally six 24-hour periods. Just like the apple wasn't really a little red pice of fruit. The bible is full of metaphor, its just how things where written back in the day, partly due to the fact that two thousand years or more ago the normal joe on the street had about 1/100th the education that we enjoy, so setting stories out in metaphors was intended to aid people in understanding it. World wide... no, regional likely. And there is a good deal of geological proof to support a large flood in the area. What do you mean? Science has contridicted its self many times, and so long as we have an incomplete understanding of the world around us it will. Its like a puzzle where you've only found half the pices, we're still learning. And Science has yet to come up with one bit of proof to kill off God or even any of the major religons, thats another reason that I belive in both. I say we proceed with the definition of religon that I pulled off wikipedia as a basic guide, though I do not suppose to limit the discusson exclusively to that. 'It is commonly understood as a group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object (real or imagined), person (real or imagined), or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought' /Central Florida Astronomical Society |
Scary Capitalist Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0 |
Even among most die-hard Christans they don't belive that six days was a literally six 24-hour periods. Just like the apple wasn't really a little red pice of fruit. Not true, many (although probably not most) christians believe in a literal 6 day cretion. Secondly, the bible never mentions an apple. Only 'fruit' and again, many christians take this literally and not as metaphor. The bible is full of metaphor, its just how things where written back in the day, partly due to the fact that two thousand years or more ago the normal joe on the street had about 1/100th the education that we enjoy, so setting stories out in metaphors was intended to aid people in understanding it. This is why I call religion a 'proto-philosophy' World wide... no, regional likely. And there is a good deal of geological proof to support a large flood in the area. Again, many christians, especially the 'Intelligent Design' crowd believe in a literal worldwide flood. (how noah would know it was worldwide is rarely addressed). And yes, there was a major flood when the natural dam between the Black Sea and Mediterranean collapsed. This account was told by many cultures, religions, and thru myths long before it was recorded as Noah's story in the bible. What do you mean? Science has contridicted its self many times, and so long as we have an incomplete understanding of the world around us it will. Its like a puzzle where you've only found half the pices, we're still learning. And Science has yet to come up with one bit of proof to kill off God or even any of the major religons, thats another reason that I belive in both. This is misleading at best. Like I've said before, science is self correcting as no two contradictory propositions can be true at the same time and in the same respect. Even though 'science' has only uncovered 'some of the pieces', as you put it does not invalidate what it DOES know, and never will, although truths are subject to revision or addition or further qualification later. I note that you don't address my point about how religions tend to contradict eachother. Are they somehow exempt from the law of noncontradiction? Additionally, as time marches forward ideas about religion are proven false time and time again by philosophy and science. This is probably why you (and many others) are no longer literalists. It takes an enormous amount of intentional ignorance to believe absurd things.. Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing! |
Qui-Gon Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 2940 Credit: 19,199,902 RAC: 11 |
Perhaps when Troy gets back online he'll clarify what he means by 'religion'. After all, as with any debate or discussion we must define our terms so we know what it is we are talking about.I don't presume to speak for Troy, but I know lots of Christians, and I can't think of even one that I personally know who thinks the Bible is literally true. On the other hand, I have read posts (in these religious threads) by people who think that way--yet even here, those folks are a small minority. |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
I don't presume to speak for Troy, but I know lots of Christians, and I can't think of even one that I personally know who thinks the Bible is literally true. On the other hand, I have read posts (in these religious threads) by people who think that way--yet even here, those folks are a small minority. Don't be so sure that there are so few of them. I've met loads of these type of Christian, and so help me, I've even tried to teach some of them the big bang theory and the theory of evolution. There is nothing more frustrating than being confronted with several angry young people who tell you that fossils were put there by God to test you that there is no way that we're descended from monkeys and that you are going to burn in hell. ..and pretty much all them denounce both theories without actually knowing or wanting to know a thing about them. Reality Internet Personality |
Qui-Gon Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 2940 Credit: 19,199,902 RAC: 11 |
Don't be so sure that there are so few of them. I've met loads of these type of Christian, and so help me, I've even tried to teach some of them the big bang theory and the theory of evolution.Well, I can think of only two of the many posters here who have expressed a literal view of the Bible. Sure, they are out there, and sure, they are frustrating to talk to, but I still believe they are a small minority. |
BillHyland Send message Joined: 30 Apr 04 Posts: 907 Credit: 5,764,172 RAC: 0 |
Speaking for myself, I am a believer who believes that much of the Bible is alegory and alliteration. A perfect example of that is the verse in Genesis 7:12, "And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights." The phrase "fourty days and fourty nights" was a device used in the literature of the time which was understood to mean 'too many to count'. It doesn't mean that the rain was literally 40 days and nights. As for the descended from monkeys thing, I can only say that you have gigantic arrogance and hubris to dictate to God what methods may or may not be used to put us on this Earth. And arrogance and hubris is the only way to explain the tedious and unending arguments about evolution. |
Scary Capitalist Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0 |
Evolutionists don't believe man is descended from monkies, only that primates share a common ancestor. And if you go back long enough you'll find that man is also related to broccoli and every other plant... Calling anyone 'arrogant' isn't a substitute for rational refutation of arguments. Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing! |
BillHyland Send message Joined: 30 Apr 04 Posts: 907 Credit: 5,764,172 RAC: 0 |
Evolutionists don't believe man is descended from monkies, only that primates share a common ancestor. In this case I believe that the word is appropriate and to the point. Those that Es99 were speaking about were making emotional responses to presentations of information. These emotional responses were predicated on an assumption that cannot be validated without a circular logic reference to their beliefs. My description of that style of response as arrogant and full of hubris is apropos. A belief that assigns attributes to God (noodly or otherwise) the qualitiy of omnipotence cannot sustain limitations on how God may produce a result that God desires. To limit God is to proclaim yourself to be a faithless liar. |
Scary Capitalist Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0 |
If God exists he has an identity. All identities are defineable and in this sense limited. Nothing that actually exists can be that which it is not. Basically, you've implied that everyone that disagrees with your view is not only 'wrong', but a liar.....now you tell me how YOU know that and how that is NOT what is truly arrogant in here. Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing! |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
sic 'em Robert!! Reality Internet Personality |
Scary Capitalist Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0 |
sic 'em Robert!! Well, as of this morning I am operating under the theory I'm pregnant with Demon Child. :-) |
Troy Stull Send message Joined: 21 Jun 06 Posts: 264 Credit: 46,144 RAC: 0 |
Ok well I agree with the first half of what you have to say completly. Though the fruit/apple thing tends to change from translation to translation. Just like I said, Science had only uncoverd some of the pieces, as has religon. Seeking truth through religon is an on going process, we don't know every thing and any one who tells you so is a lier. As far as diffrent religons conflicting, if you look at a lot of your major religons the basic tenats are very close, Help one another, be faithful to your fellow humans and God/gods/ect..., one example is that Buddist acknowlage Christ as an 'Enlightend One'. This is where I think a lot of people fall down is they tend to find one religon and discount all others as wrong. To say that the combine brian power of every thinking person who ever lived is wrong becuse they didn't belive the same thing you did, to me thats about as wrong as you can get... When I lived in Asia I came to know some buddist and taoist, and despite the fact the foundation of my faith is in Christ I gained a great deal from knowing these people. Its just the same as the Relativity/Quantum Mechanics Conflict. We can learn from both, yet both can not be completly right. But you don't just discount the other becuse you belive one is right, you study and explore and the more you know the closer you are to finding what the truth is. /Central Florida Astronomical Society |
Chuck Send message Joined: 1 Dec 05 Posts: 511 Credit: 532,682 RAC: 0 |
Stories from your bible are the very manifesto of your religion. They are inseperable. Try and practice your religion without any reference to your holy book then. One thing I noticed that was wrong right off that bat with that site... Dude...if it's the word from your god, then how could it possibly be wrong?!? If it's entirely written by men, however, then they will make their best guess at why reality is the way it is, and pretty much believe in what they are writing anyway! They couldn't conceive of ever being disproven when they were writing wanton bullshit - there wasn't science to disprove them in that copper age day! Your bible is exactly that - a text of the 'knowledge' available back then! Didn't you actually read the evidence for the quiz I sent you to? Here's one: "The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the Lord hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet" (Nahum 1:3) Aside from the contradiction that it's 'slow to anger', in the science age, we have proven that clouds are suspended water vapor, and NOT 'dust of his feet'. Excuse me, but why would you claim that what is written exactly is actually 'metaphor'? Especially since it was taken exactly as true for about 4000 years? You claim it is a metaphor, only because anyone with a modicum of brains knows it couldn't possibly be literal - the very proof that the entire premise is wrong. Why would you follow a system when much of it is incorrect? You furthermore make a grave error when you imply that science 'contradicting itself' is the same type of proof of ludicrousy. Science actively tests itself, looking for mistakes. How else can knowledge grow except by critical examination, finding errors in assessments? Science more often than not refines the picture, e.g., Einstein didn't 'contradict' Newton, he refined the interpretation of reality Newton developped. Even if most christians are untelligunt enough to know that Genesis is entirely WRONG, they still try to overthrow learning - look at 'intelligent design'. (Something, I daresay, that could only happen in modern USA - a reversal of achievement and learning, looking to backslide the population into another dark age). Science has killed off god utterly. Go read about Carl Sagan's last moments "there was no last-minute repentance". Go see what actual scientists really 'believe' in. I'm sure you'll find none of them 'believe' in anything. They only uphold what evidence shows to be true. Your god can be entirely disproven. 'God is in heaven', well, how come we don't see him with a telescope? The tower of Babel was suppossed to reach heaven. In the sky. It's not there in the sky. Or in space. 'Oh heaven is somewhere else'. Bullshit. Read your book. It's within a few thousand feet in the sky. We can go on and on with proving your god doesn't exist. You are one of the few who will actually use his brain to understand the world around him. But you are still held by religion. Tell me, did you choose this relligion on your own? Or was it presented to you as something approving, as something you were smiled upon for following as part of a group? The easiest of brainwashing is one where the subject actively participates willingly. BillHyland, 'arrogance' is an emotional assignment to people who dare to upset someone else's happy little world. A politician who's been elected that is perceived to overstep his authority is called arrogant. A child who makes an unreasonable demand is called arrogant. Of course scientists are called arrogant - they have to say what is seen, and make no pretences whatsoever, and distort absolutely NO data at all (just to satisfy some authority) - of COURSE they are 'arrogant'! YOU can go on and make sure you don't say anything that offends your priest or minister or whatever, but for actual scientists - not a chance. They will say what they see, without distortion or adoration. Evolution happened and continues to happen. The evidence is there to be looked at by anyone, anyone who can read and understand this can also understand evolution if they devote a few years of study to it. Those religious tw-, ones, who label it 'arrogant' straight off instead of learning it are not worth wasting time with anyway. They have their own 'mind'set, and are too frightened to learn reality. Poor Es99, from what she says about trying to teach...man, I would have been fired for throwing idiots like that out of my class straight off. Lastly, anyone who has yet to find one instance where one contradicts the other.really understands nothing about science. Never Forget a Friend. Or an Enemy. |
Troy Stull Send message Joined: 21 Jun 06 Posts: 264 Credit: 46,144 RAC: 0 |
You are one of the few who will actually use his brain to understand the world around him. But you are still held by religion. Tell me, did you choose this relligion on your own? Or was it presented to you as something approving, as something you were smiled upon for following as part of a group? The easiest of brainwashing is one where the subject actively participates willingly. BillHyland, 'arrogance' is an emotional assignment to people who dare to upset someone else's happy little world. A politician who's been elected that is perceived to overstep his authority is called arrogant. A child who makes an unreasonable demand is called arrogant. Of course scientists are called arrogant - they have to say what is seen, and make no pretences whatsoever, and distort absolutely NO data at all (just to satisfy some authority) - of COURSE they are 'arrogant'! YOU can go on and make sure you don't say anything that offends your priest or minister or whatever, but for actual scientists - not a chance. They will say what they see, without distortion or adoration. Evolution happened and continues to happen. The evidence is there to be looked at by anyone, anyone who can read and understand this can also understand evolution if they devote a few years of study to it. Those religious tw-, ones, who label it 'arrogant' straight off instead of learning it are not worth wasting time with anyway. They have their own 'mind'set, and are too frightened to learn reality. Poor Es99, from what she says about trying to teach...man, I would have been fired for throwing idiots like that out of my class straight off. Lastly, anyone who has yet to find one instance where one contradicts the other.really understands nothing about science. [/quote] I didn't say it was wrong. I said its not the end all, there is a lot to learn outside of the bible, the other thing is that like any written work it is open to interpritation. Look at the works of Shakespear. Just as there are manifesto for many things, that dosen't mean that you can't learn from understanding things outside of that single text. In the relm of Sciance how long was it knowen to be a fact that the earth stood at the center of the universe? I remind you that this was once held at the cutting edge of wisdom. Sciance tests its self as do all good followers of any religon, faith is just like a human body it has to be exercised. Its going to get scraped up, its going to take hits but this how you grow. Thats why I keep coming back here time and again, I want people to challange me and what I belive. Sir, I would ask you to provied me with one small bit of proof that anything laid forth any where in the bible is wrong. If I missed something, I need to know, but I don't belive that I have. I have after all been at this for just a second. I do respect Carl Sagan greatly, he did more to advance sciance then almost any one, and they fact that there was no change in him at the last second honestly proves nothing. My grandfather, a life long athiest died in the same manner, yet He and I would talk for hours on this same topic and it was becuse of talking to him that I gained a great deal of insight to my own self. He was indeed a very wise man. However I would remind you that Albert was a great beliver in a higher power, so to say the Sciance and Religon are incompatable is an error of the highest dagree. Yes I was raised in the church, however when I enlisted I quit attending and spent the next few years of my life floating around in the bottom of bottles scatterd across near every war zone in the world. To be honest this didn't bother me as much as it should, to be honest I liked it. But I soberd up and re-started my study of the philosphy and Sciance. It was not out of fear, it was not becuse of my up bringing in the church, it was becuse the more I read and the more I came to know the more I felt that there was more to this world then 2+2=4. As far as brainwashing... ya, that happens a lot, and I mean a lot. However, as I've said, I don't belive everything I'm told. I belive what I have come to know. I have studied more then just the bible, I have talked with men outside of just Christian networks and I have found my own truth. One is, I belive in a lot of the wiccan/druid type belifes of nature. As I said... I use sciance to find religon and religon to find scicance, neither is wrong and neither holds all the awnsers at leat not for me. For some maybe, but for me neither can fill in all the blanks. /Central Florida Astronomical Society |
BillHyland Send message Joined: 30 Apr 04 Posts: 907 Credit: 5,764,172 RAC: 0 |
If God exists he has an identity. All identities are defineable and in this sense limited. Nothing that actually exists can be that which it is not. Robert: Not at all. I stated quite clearly that those that contradict their own stated belief system and ignore objective, quantifiable reality are liars, arrogant and generally of small character. I hold equally harsh opinions toward 'men of science' who contradict the accepted rules of scientific method, ignore objective, quantifiable reality and misrepresent their research. Others who are, at least, consistent with their own stated faith I listen to respectfully. I may disagree, but I will do so respectfully. Also, will never attempt to destroy or demean a persons faith, because I believe that faith in higher authority strengthens individuals, society and civilizations. I will, however, be happy to point out where someone is violating their own stated belief or faith. I am also happy to hear where you may think I have violated my own stated beliefs. I may disagree with your assessment, but I will always take your points under advisment. Troy: I chose my religious convictions after long study, meditation and prayer. My parents inssisted that I know the basics of the major Christian flavors, Islam, Buddhisism and Taoism before I was allowed to make a choice. I am a member of a Christian religion. I am also very aware of the mindset of the 'true believers', as Eric Hoffer called them. I made my choice knowingly. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.