iPom

I don't think it needs any help staying alive... It's doing pretty well.

I like that it's been fairly balanced and interesting so far... and calm.

I hope we can keep it on track to stay that way.

mackinnon

There must be Christians reading this thread who don't bother posting a reply, as their faith is so strong they are not offended by anything here.

iPom

Or they're more sensible and know that this sort of thread is unwinnable and neither party are going to be convinced of anything...

Swerv-o

No, I imagine they're off discussing the price of lettuces or how much better Coles is than Tesco, or contributing to the countdown thread.

This is great keep it up!

S

iPom

Hmmmmmmm.

Swerv-o

Hold on - Aristotle was a philosopher, not a scientist. Most of his work was qualitative, not quantitative, and he had some fairly off ball ideas too. He was virtually obsessed with the ideas of the essence of things.

You have to remember that science will always continue to evolve while man continues to question the world around him.

Look at the models of the atom that have existed in the past. We started off with the plum pudding model, which was a reasonable hypothesis, so was accepted for a bit. But it still failed to explain certain phenomena, so Rutherford did the alpha particle scattering experiment and developed a better model, but it still wasn't perfect. In steps Neils Bohr and advances the theory one step further, but it still isn't perfect. In fact, it still isn't perfect now.

What has changed however, is our ability to investigate it. We now have much more powerful equipment than Rutherford, Geiger and Marsden could have only dreamed of! So we are able to push the boundaries of exploration and investigation much further than we ever could, and this will continue.

Religion, on the other hand is far too conservative, and relies on you not questioning it. It relies on you utterly believing without question that what it says is right. There is no scope to advance a theory, because by the virtue of suggesting an alternative theory, you are seen to be criticising existing thinking, which has in the past been a very dangerous thing to do.

In my opinion, religion doesn't encourage free thinking. It wants you to just believe it without any question. Comparing religion and science, and suggesting that one is analogous to another is a very wrong thing to do: Their aims and objectives are simply poles apart. Yes, science has been perverted into some pretty horrible things in the past, and very often used by those who claim they are doing Gods work.

The basic premise of the two is very different.

S

moneypenny20

I am an athiest and have never had a bad experience with an inperfect church. I admit to not understanding the bible - what I've seen of it, mainly because it appears to contradict itself on many levels and I believe it to be nonsense.

That does not mean that I think believers are fools, it's their life and they can live it as they wish providing they don't hurt me or mine in the process.

I honestly believe that I have better morals and attitude to my fellow man than many church goers I know. I obviously can't speak for all of them because I don't know them all. BUT many of the deeply religious people I know are sanctimonious in the extreme, are unforgiving of other peoples lives/beliefs/sexuality etc etc. I live honourably because I choose to treat people how I would like to be treated. Nothing to do with god just to do with the fact that if I get hurt it upsets me so I try and avoid being upset by others and the way to do that is to be nice to others. Not rocket science and definitely nothing to do with god or the bible.

Hutch

Indeed. One particular word springs to mind.

Doctrine.

Geordie George

Hang on. I'm not religious (I'll not post my views, they're far too offensive ), but to say that people who do are indoctrinated? I don't buy that either. Faith may well be flawed - lots of belief systems are. But why single out religion? Surely there needs to be a distinction here between organised religion, belief, faith and general spirituality? I know lots of people who are religious (in an organised religion sense) and they have spent an awful lot of time questioning their values, beliefs etc. They've not gone into it blind and they know the limitations of their faith. Equating them with being mindless, unthinking and accepting of whatever they're told is going a bit far.

Swerv-o

Not wishing to second guess the Hutchmeister, but I don't think he meant that. Doctrine and indoctrination are two completely different things. I believe he was suggesting that religions rely upon doctrine and precedent for their continuation. That was certainly what I was getting at in my original post anyway.

As for religious indoctrination - look at the majority of religions. They all have or try to have a very active role in the upbringing of children. You can't realistically tell me that this is nothing more than trying to convert children at an early age into that particular way of life or religion?

I have a great deal of respect for people that take up religion later in life: They have had the benefit of living life, experiencing it for themselves and making an informed choice. Children 'indoctrinated' by religions in their childhood have little chance, unless they are taught to think for themselves and question things.

S

Hutch

Why not? You're seriously telling me that it makes less sense than that a super-being made the universe. Then a perfect sin-free Earth. Then a couple of humans to live there. But they got seduced by a snake. Who offered the female an apple. Then the humans got all embarassed about their nudie bodies and stuck vegetation to their wobbly bits. Which pissed the super-being off so much that the humans were made mortal and the woman was made to feel the pain of child birth. And then they were banished from paradise. In six days. Because the super-being always took Sundays off? Okay ...

Love and empathy for his fellow 'man', usually. Why do you need to believe in god not to go round murdering people? Given the church's history I'd say it was usually the other way round. That many of the shittiest chapters in human history can be laid squarely at the door of organised religion - of all faiths.

Because it had a lot longer than 7 days to happen.


Actually. I had an epiphany. In church. I used to attend mass five days a week - along with special bible sessions of an evening that were a prelude to entering the seminary (fortunately I was never interfered with). I was sat in church one day and I was struck with how utterly bizarre the whole thing was - all of it - the bible, the doctrine, the costumes, the false hope, the total, utter, hypocrisy of it all. I reckon that's entirely 'fair' - but the only thing it's a 'rejection' of is, dogmatic belief ... since there is no god to reject. Except maybe Paul Weller.

Hutch

What he said.

northerner

I agree entirely. I think some of the posters on this thread have just about gone as far as infering that all believes are basically non-thinking, weak willed who have been brain washed into accepting something which is obviously a fairy tale. And also that science has proven where we came from and where we're going, almost that science can prove everything - even the non-existance of God.

Graham

Geordie George

I think it depends on the parents. I've known parents who've sent their children off to church and Sunday school and would be devestated if their child later rejected that. I've also known parents who embrace their child's ability to make their own decisions. It's such an extraordinary personal choice. And many parents are capable of recognising that. Being religious does not equate to recruiting another convert.

Hutch

You agree with someone that based a response based on the fact that they thought 'doctrine' was the same as 'indoctrinated' (no offence to Geordie). I suppose you take it where you can get it ...

Science will disprove the existence of god, long before the religious prove otherwise. And 'fairy tale' ... if the shoe fits ...