Religion & Science

  • Thread starter DeletedUser3717
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser

Anyway, I'm also open to new theories. That's the way how science develop. Old ideas become replaced by better ones, and new evidences/observations get made. If we always stick to one idea, then we still believe in what people believed in the begin of the 20th century.

That doesn't mean that I disagree with big bang. I just disagree with the idea of some people that God has triggered off Big Bang and planed everything (like evolution). This is actually what the pope says. And this is absolute nonsense, because there are no evidence for it. It is only a desperate attempt of religious people to use science in favour of them (just like the church always did it in the past). And this is a prove that religion make people ignorant of science.
 

DeletedUser

Aye, religion is indeed the filler for ignorance. What we do not have answers to, that is ignorance. It's okay to be ignorant, it's okay not to have all the answers, and it's okay not to be satisfied with not knowing all the answers. The problem comes about when people are not okay with their ignorance, are not okay with not knowing, but are unwilling to work, to research, to study, to investigate, to obtain answers. It is this that helps to propagate beliefs, as a means to fill those gaps in knowledge, they take the lazy route. We do not know, so *poof*, some ultrapowerful entity made it all and we don't have to know.

Personally, I find that approach to be unconscionable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Hellstromm said:
Aye, religion is indeed the filler for ignorance. What we do not have answers to, that is ignorance. It's okay to be ignorant, it's okay not to have all the answers, and it's okay not to be satisfied with not knowing all the answers. The problem comes about when people are not okay with their ignorance, are not okay with not knowing, but are unwilling to work, to research, to study, to investigate, to obtain answers. It is this that helps to propagate beliefs, as a means to fill those gaps in knowledge, they take the lazy route. We do not know, so *poof*, some ultrapowerful entity made it all and we don't have to know.

Personally, I find that approach to be unconscionable.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, I just think some things, like the Bible, was made by people, yes. But I think the people who made the Bible used tons of myths and threw them into a book and people believed some from stupidity. In this day and age, we have come to think of ourselves and other people without the need of speaking in Hebrew and talking about Jesus Christ. And also, we need proof. Give me the Ark for example. Let someone go to Mt. Ararat and find the Ark. I believe its not even there. If someone finds it, thats one for the religious people.
 

DeletedUser

Hellstromm said:
Aye, religion is indeed the filler for ignorance. What we do not have answers to, that is ignorance. It's okay to be ignorant, it's okay not to have all the answers, and it's okay not to be satisfied with not knowing all the answers. The problem comes about when people are not okay with their ignorance, are not okay with not knowing, but are unwilling to work, to research, to study, to investigate, to obtain answers. It is this that helps to propagate beliefs, as a means to fill those gaps in knowledge, they take the lazy route. We do not know, so *poof*, some ultrapowerful entity made it all and we don't have to know.

Personally, I find that approach to be unconscionable.
Click to expand...

I agree. These beliefs of a magical being were fine for 2000 years ago before science started explaining the simplest of natural things. Now that most things are explained by science, there is little room for blind faith for the unexplainable. The Bible does, however, have SOME passages that are good guides for living a moral, generous, kind and loving life within a society...SOME. It is up to us to use our 'free will' to pick and choose the best 'advice' and live our lives as we see fit, within the means current laws within each of our societies.

Though it seems that like most religions, Christianity seems to breed more hatred and holier than thou attitudes than love thy brother.
 

DeletedUser

I think the bible is written by some ancient philosophers, who were way more advanced in ethics than their contemporaries. Maybe it was Moses. We can't prove that anymore, but it is possible, that he has written the Ten Commands as a laws for the new Jewish country. And the bible was used as a history book and as a law book for the Jewish people, with a lot of myths packed in it. But I don't think it's from some being like "God". "God" was implemented, so the numerous ignorant people will follow the rules voluntarily.
 

DeletedUser

I tend to agree with the last actually, Ocelot. A lot of those who claim to be Christians really do not really practice the teachings of, or try to live like, Christ. I pray that I do not ever act like that. When it comes to hatred, one problem I have seen is differentiating the sin from the sinner. And Christians need to understand that we aren't perfect, just forgiven.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Parcific said:
I think
Click to expand...

I wish this statement were true.

the bible is written by some ancient philosophers, who were way more advanced in ethics than their contemporaries.
Click to expand...

There were plenty of ancient texts that were almost identical to the bible and preached the same "ethics" and "values" that the bible did so your statement in and of itself is just silly.

But I don't think it's from some being like "God". "God" was implemented, so the numerous ignorant people will follow the rules voluntarily.
Click to expand...

Voluntarily? So a hypothetical damnation in the most excruciating pain possible is voluntary? That's great.

There is so much more that's wrong with your post but... I don't know, I just lack the vitality to even bother at this point.
 

DeletedUser

Quote:
the bible is written by some ancient philosophers, who were way more advanced in ethics than their contemporaries.
Divest said:
There were plenty of ancient texts that were almost identical to the bible and preached the same "ethics" and "values" that the bible did so your statement in and of itself is just silly.
Click to expand...

All these philosophers were more advanced than the majorty of the people, the "contemporaries", who were ignorant.

In the past people followed the command of the church, because they thought it was from God. The Jewish people and also the Christians follow the Ten Commands, because they think they are from God. I don't believe that the Ten Commands are from God, but they are rather invented by philosophers. It's fallacious to believe that they are from God, because there is no evidence for that. So what do you think, Divest? They are from God?
 

DeletedUser

If I don't subscribe to A, then I must subscribe to B because there isn't an infinite combinations of possible letters, right?
 

DeletedUser

As long as there is no scenfitic evidence, there is no "God". So there is no "God" passing commands. Only people can do that, but not "God", because its existence isn't proved scientifically.
 

DeletedUser

Divest said:
If I don't subscribe to A, then I must subscribe to B because there isn't an infinite combinations of possible letters, right?
Click to expand...

I didn't quite understand what you ment with A and B. State your ideas more clearly, please. And be direct.
 

DeletedUser

Divest is supposed to say yes or no, but not asking another question in order to evade the previous question.

Is it that difficult to answer this question?

Do you think that the Ten Commands are from "God", Divest? You're right, you can only say "yes" or "no". So pick one, it's your choice.
 

DeletedUser

Parcific said:
I didn't quite understand what you ment with A and B. State your ideas more clearly, please. And be direct.
Click to expand...

What's funny to me is that while you didn't understand what I meant, you still felt it appropriate to respond because you thought you were debunking something I said.
 

DeletedUser

Parcific said:
As long as there is no scenfitic evidence, there is no "God". So there is no "God" passing commands. Only people can do that, but not "God", because its existence isn't proved scientifically.
Click to expand...

Even if one could disprove the effect of something, or the existence,
people will insist on beliving. Just look at Tessie and her silly belief in healing for one example.

Further there is no proof against the Allmighty Onion, so all hail the mighty Onion, our Lord and Savior!

Divest said:
It seems that my last post went completely over your head.
Click to expand...

That's the way the bugger rolls.
 

DeletedUser

Parcific said:
As long as there is no scenfitic evidence, there is no "God". So there is no "God" passing commands. Only people can do that, but not "God", because its existence isn't proved scientifically.
Click to expand...
Science has no business attempting to prove if God exists or not. UNLESS-someone has a valid scientific way to prove a negative.

Lets look at this in a more current situation. Bush claimed there were WMD's in Iraq. We wage war, go over seas but don't find the WMD's.

The truth has become that there were no WMDs, when in fact, all anyone can say with absolute certainty is that no WMDs have been found. It doesn't prove there is not an underground cache in the desert where weapons were stored. It doesn't prove he didn't manage to smuggle any WMD's over to Iran. It is what we can say it is, and that is nothing has been found.

The absence of proof does not affirm 1 side or the other when you are searching for something. In the terms of whether God does exist, first tell me where Heaven is physically and we can begin to look, or how can I read someone's thoughts, or physically touch their soul. There is no reason to go straight to God-prove any of the other abstracts.

Why is it we can feel remorse, why is it every perved teen doesn't rape every girl he sees like an animal? There is more to the human species than animal instincts. And science cannot prove why we form basic morals regardless of religion, morals that are tought and descended through religion and enforced by society.

Oil and water, and the critical thinker who believes they must have proof to believe in anything, I am glad we have firmly proven the concepts of gravity so that you know not to jump off of a building.
 

DeletedUser

marcothy said:
Oil and water, and the critical thinker who believes they must have proof to believe in anything, I am glad we have firmly proven the concepts of gravity so that you know not to jump off of a building.
Click to expand...
Oi, while I agree with the bulk of your post, I want to indicate that a critical thinker doesn't "believe" based on evidence, nor does he "believe" that proof justifies belief. Belief is, essentially, without evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top