|
Re: Religion
It's Sir Alex Ferguson, right?
Originally Posted by James Martindale
(Post 7306505)
When we all die we will know who is the true victor of the arguement.
|
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by triumphguy
(Post 7306467)
The church was asking Copernicus to "prove" that the earth was not the center of the universe! Precisely what non-believers are asking believers to do!
we're not asking you to prove anything, we may however point out that your proof may not be what you think it is I would add that some scientists would go further to suggest that the available evidence would suggest that their is scant reason for the existence of a creator and certainly enough is known about the fundamentals of the universe to suggest that its statistically more probable that there isn't a creator |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by MikeUK
(Post 7306517)
No I don't think you quite understand the non-believer
we're not asking you to prove anything, we may however point out that your proof may not be what you think it is I would add that some scientists would go further to suggest that the available evidence would suggest that their is scant reason for the existence of a creator and certainly enough is known about the fundamentals of the universe to suggest that its statistically more probable that there isn't a creator |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by Novocastrian
(Post 7306537)
I take it from that you've already come across "The Creation" by Peter W. Atkins? If not, I strongly recommend it.
|
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by James Martindale
(Post 7306363)
Yes. Like it or not Atheist's have to accept that Western Society is founded on Christian principles and the law has developed on those principles of right and wrong over time.
|
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 7304920)
I agree with all that you say.
I, too, turned my back on it as I saw it as being way too hypocritical. I also believe that those that have any form of faith, should be secure enough to be able to not take offence when non-believers question their beliefs. All religion is hypocritical! Bar non!! The sooner its all removed from modern day life the safer the world will be and the less problems!! Im Baptised by my parents choice but apathetic by my own! If god exists then he can show himself to me! I find it highly unlikely he does but there maybe a superior race out there from another planet that to stone throwing humans appeared god like! Religion was used to control the masses at a time they could not handle their own mortality and there was no sir robert peel inventing the police force. Each to their own believers and non alike - nothing should be forced on others and everyone should be free to voice their opinion without it being an issue if u want to beleive in a hypocritical religion thats your choice! |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by Novocastrian
(Post 7306426)
Pure sophistry. You might as well argue for the existence of a divine soul in ameoba, since we certainly couldn't have bypassed that stage in our evolution into sentient entities.
|
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by MikeUK
(Post 7306543)
Just done 'God Delusion' by Dawkin's and 'God is not Great' by Hitchens recently
|
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by Mikey B
(Post 7306560)
my god (pardon the pun) you actually said something intelligent sensible and I agree with it!! wow!
|
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by Novocastrian
(Post 7306564)
I recant.
|
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by James Martindale
(Post 7306363)
Yes. Like it or not Atheist's have to accept that Western Society is founded on Christian principles and the law has developed on those principles of right and wrong over time. In the court of law people are made to swear on the bible when they testify etc.....
|
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 7306413)
No, Rae, that assumption is not necessary. There is no causal link between the intellectual rigour of an argument and the truth of an unrelated belief that the proponent happens to hold.
|
Re: Religion
Question:
Has science ever made mistakes? Have scientists ever been screwed up as human beings? Have bad things been done in the name of science? Have scientists ever done stupid things? Newton believed in alchemy for instance. How could the guy who invented physics believe in alchemy? That's almost like believing there's no god, but there is a master race of aliens:rofl: Why do we attribute to science and/or religion many things which are in fact human traits? Arrogance, narrow-mindedness, stupidity, ignorance as well as endeavour, the search for meaning, goodness etc. Feel free to question and search for meaning from what ever sources you wish. I would ask that you don't put down other's beliefs though, or attribute labels to a group. Not all scientists are necessarilly introverted, socially inept misfits. Not all science and technology has created global warming, the extinction of species and the destruction of the environment. Also, all points of view are VIEWS FROM A POINT, and so are intrinsically narrow. I am proud of my religion when it fights poverty and dictatorship, when it fights for the rights of the person, and when it is counter-cultural: the culture of consumerism, the culture of technology that alienates that which is human, the culture of narcisissm, the culture of greed. What anyone else thinks about my religion I don't really give a toss. |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by Novocastrian
(Post 7306507)
Sorry, but we already do know that.
I am afraid any evidence produced to say there isn't a God has thus far been severley lacking and that is being kind. Others might say the evidence is totally non existant. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...on-advertising Here is a bus campaign by Atheist's. So disturbed by God that they felt obliged to waste money on a campain. Noticed that they used the word "probably" because they aren't sure or conclusive. |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by Settlers_Unlimited
(Post 7306547)
I'm curious, what are those Christian principles that were laid into foundation of Western society?
|
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by MikeUK
(Post 7306517)
No I don't think you quite understand the non-believer
we're not asking you to prove anything, we may however point out that your proof may not be what you think it is I would add that some scientists would go further to suggest that the available evidence would suggest that their is scant reason for the existence of a creator and certainly enough is known about the fundamentals of the universe to suggest that its statistically more probable that there isn't a creator |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by James Martindale
(Post 7307295)
All scientists do is carry out experiments in controlled environments based on a number of assumptions and variables. I wouldn't put to much faith in them- their view point changes every 10 years or so and this is usually driven by where their sponsorship money is coming from. I couldn't think of a more corrupt and hypocritical subject than science that has been used to influence humanity in the last hundred years, far more dangerous than any religion.
Science isn't about faith its about achieving the best possible understanding based on the available evidence, sometimes you learn things that mean you have to re-arrange your view point and change some of your earlier assumptions Relativity being one case in point |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by triumphguy
(Post 7306827)
Question:
Has science ever made mistakes? Have scientists ever been screwed up as human beings? Have bad things been done in the name of science? Have scientists ever done stupid things? its in the subtle difference of the message Science : We think we're right based on our current evidence Religion: We know we're right you just have to have faith in us |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by MikeUK
(Post 7307559)
You used the term faith.........:(
Science isn't about faith its about achieving the best possible understanding based on the available evidence, sometimes you learn things that mean you have to re-arrange your view point and change some of your earlier assumptions Relativity being one case in point Look at all the scientists in Britain who proved that Global Warming was natural and carbon dioxide from human beings were minimal. Not only are they attacked constantly by Environmentalists but because their theory is not inline with current Government mandate their funding has dried up and been withdrawn. Simirlarly in the 1930's German scientists "proved" that superior athletes had fair skin, blonde hair and blue eyes until an athlete called Jesse Owens turned up and completely blew their German athlete's away. I read on Monday that Scientists had proven Coffee was bad for me and gave me throat cancer, then on Tuesday I read that Scientists had proven coffee was good for me and would help prevent dementia. On Wednesday I decided it was just best to enjoy my coffee and forget about the scientists!!! |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by James Martindale
(Post 7307608)
The reality of modern science is that you have to achieve the result that satisfies the person funding the experimentation or you have the funding withdrawn.
Look at all the scientists in Britain who proved that Global Warming was natural and carbon dioxide from human beings were minimal. Not only are they attacked constantly by Environmentalists but because their theory is not inline with current Government mandate their funding has dried up and been withdrawn. Simirlarly in the 1930's German scientists "proved" that superior athletes had fair skin, blonde hair and blue eyes until an athlete called Jesse Owens turned up and completely blew their German athlete's away. I read on Monday that Scientists had proven Coffee was bad for me and gave me throat cancer, then on Tuesday I read that Scientists had proven coffee was good for me and would help prevent dementia. On Wednesday I decided it was just best to enjoy my coffee and forget about the scientists!!! peer review kicks in, the hypothesis is tested by the group If wrong another article will be published often by many others countering the argument and in a respectable scientific journal The environmental argument was an unwise choice, massive peer review quashed that not funding |
Re: Religion
Fundamentlism is the problem - not religion or science!
A fundamentalist politician, soldier, priest or scientist is the most dangerous beast on earth. Fundamentalism is the belief that I am right, and if you believe in these fundamentals you will be right too. Orthadoxy is consistency in thought which chalenges my own behabviour in all aspects of my life. Thomas Aquinas wrote that God wrote in two books - scripture and nature, and that truth is to be found in both. Scripture writes about the relationship of a people with it's God. Nature is the environment in which this relationship exists. Truth is to be found in both - though it is not the same truth. However all that is true and beautiful points to the same origin. God. Religion and science are two sides of the same coin - that coin is man's search for meaning. |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by triumphguy
(Post 7307679)
Religion and science are two sides of the same coin - that coin is man's search for meaning.
But Science isn't a search for meaning , just a search for knowledge for its own sake Religion I think does search for meaning and may be its reason de etre but 'meaning' has no relevance in science :confused: |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by James Martindale
(Post 7307265)
Just go to school or read The Bible- New Testament. You will see how many gospel teachings are used on a day to day basis.
BTW, I approved my kids being baptized and admitted to a catholic school, though I don't fancy the latter. Just being democratic to my wife. ;) |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by Settlers_Unlimited
(Post 7307700)
Sorry, but that is exactly the reason why I'm asking. I did read it and found only threats to those that won't follow and many other frightening things. I really believe now that overwhelming majority or believers have never read it thinking. For example, I can't draw any parallels between Jesus refusing to help those who don't believe and contemporary healthcare with moral principles of todays' doctors. Faith is always absolute and the religion discourages questioning, reasoning and having doubt - the very base of the whole science and therefore our whole life (many of us would never be born or survive past childhood without science). Democracy, based on faith? Sorry, I need some quotations.
BTW, I approved my kids being baptized and admitted to a catholic school, though I don't fancy the latter. Just being democratic to my wife. ;) I am not deeply religious myself but I have been schooled and understand that everything in life involves faith and not just religion. When I break in my car I have faith the car will stop. The fact of the matter is I have faith in the teachings of Jesus in the new testament as good values to live life by. This personal faith has actually increased overtime because the values in the new testament have stood the test of time. Unfortunately for science, not all science, it is largely manipulated now by economics. Economics now dictates more in the world than Science and Religion. Democracy is definately based on faith. Faith in freedom and faith in the right to choose representation in government. Democracy and more the legal system that upholds this has developed over the centuries starting with the building blocks being based on the teachings of christianity such as love thy neighbour. |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by Settlers_Unlimited
(Post 7307700)
Sorry, but that is exactly the reason why I'm asking. I did read it and found only threats to those that won't follow and many other frightening things. I really believe now that overwhelming majority or believers have never read it thinking. For example, I can't draw any parallels between Jesus refusing to help those who don't believe and contemporary healthcare with moral principles of todays' doctors. Faith is always absolute and the religion discourages questioning, reasoning and having doubt - the very base of the whole science and therefore our whole life (many of us would never be born or survive past childhood without science). Democracy, based on faith? Sorry, I need some quotations.
BTW, I approved my kids being baptized and admitted to a catholic school, though I don't fancy the latter. Just being democratic to my wife. ;) Quotes coming up. |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by triumphguy
(Post 7306467)
Ah - that's an interesting conundrum!
The church was asking Copernicus to "prove" that the earth was not the center of the universe! Precisely what non-believers are asking believers to do! One has to break down the difference between fundamentalism and orthodoxy also. Thinking goes wrong when it resorts to fundamentalism. There's a difference between right thinking and thinking I'm right. When thinking becomes institutionalised there is a danger of "thinking I'm right." The church is always at it's best when counter cultural, rather than monolithic. Where a non-catholic can point to the institutional monolith of the Church in the middle ages, I can think of the thinkers who challenged that monolith from within and so helped change the world. The roots of the inquisition is not so different from today: monolithic catholicism 'defending' europe from the inroads of monolithic mohammedism, versus 'monolithic' 'western - read American - democracy (read capitalism)defending the world from encroaching Islam. Abu Gharib could be the new Inquisition! Instead of point at the past, we can use lessons of our human weakness in the past to point out current day wrongs, and place them in context. I'm not sure anyone could take issue with the role the Church played in the defence of Europe against the spread of Islam in the middle ages; however, it is a fallacy to presume that this somehow kept the embers of intellectualism alive in Europe. If it weren't for that very same Islamic tradition encouraging philosophical and scientific discovery, keeping the flame of Greek knowledge burning, Europe would have remained in a dark age of ignorance for much longer than it did. It was only because enlightened Christian thinkers in Spain chose (against the wishes of the Church) to engage intellectually wiht Moorish scholars that any of the ancient texts were translated from Arabic to Latin and thus came to currency in European thought. A radical, though logical, conclusion to that argument is that the Enlightenment would likely have been brought forward by centuries if Europe had been overrun by Islam and the Christian church had collapsed. Christianity has no monopoly on knowledge and intellectual discovery: in fact, it is easier to argue exactly the opposite. |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by James Martindale
(Post 7307265)
Just go to school or read The Bible- New Testament. You will see how many gospel teachings are used on a day to day basis.
|
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by rae
(Post 7307960)
hmmm not so sure about this one, i think just about every western, 'christian' government have coveted their neighbors wife, bourne false witness, killed, stole and who keeps the sabbath sacred?. i suppose it could be taught but just widely ignored though?
|
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by ann m
(Post 7307968)
Ah, the old "Do as I say, not as I do" school of teaching.
|
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by rae
(Post 7308011)
one in particular i cannot stand. i can't help thinking if the vatican melted down a bit of gold and spread their wealth around they may actually help to solve some problems, instead of the tried and trusted, 'say your prayers'.
All the museums and governments in the world could sell their gold and art and do the same. The result would be a few powerful billionaires own all the art, and the money wouldn't go very far. Not just the Catholics, but all churches raise billions for charity and many in their respective churches spend billions of hours doing "charitable" work for little or no money. No one just says "say your prayers." |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 7307878)
This is a somewhat dangerous argument. I think you confuse Catholicism with Christianity - and conveniently ignore a couple of centuries of European history through the Reformation and the birth of Protestantism. Specifically, I take issue with your reference to "thinkers who challenged that monolith from within" - for the most part, those who challenged Catholic orthodoxy were persecuted, excommunicated, and in some instances imprisoned and tortured. Others left the mainstream Catholic church expressly because they felt unable to challenge the orthodoxy from within. Those who changed the world (Wycliffe, Kepler, Galileo, Luther) and incurred the wrath of the Papacy outnumber those who tried to stay on the right side of canon law (Erasmus springs to mind; I'm sure there are others).
I'm not sure anyone could take issue with the role the Church played in the defence of Europe against the spread of Islam in the middle ages; however, it is a fallacy to presume that this somehow kept the embers of intellectualism alive in Europe. If it weren't for that very same Islamic tradition encouraging philosophical and scientific discovery, keeping the flame of Greek knowledge burning, Europe would have remained in a dark age of ignorance for much longer than it did. It was only because enlightened Christian thinkers in Spain chose (against the wishes of the Church) to engage intellectually wiht Moorish scholars that any of the ancient texts were translated from Arabic to Latin and thus came to currency in European thought. A radical, though logical, conclusion to that argument is that the Enlightenment would likely have been brought forward by centuries if Europe had been overrun by Islam and the Christian church had collapsed. Christianity has no monopoly on knowledge and intellectual discovery: in fact, it is easier to argue exactly the opposite. I don't think the moslem states could have taken Greek thought much further. It needed the European Universities, the renaissance and the reformation to take things further. It precisely needed England to develop western thought Oxford, Cambridge and the renaissance and the reformation at the same time. Italy had the renaissance, but no reformation and so made ever prettier baubles. Germany/northern Europe had the Reformation first and became dour. BTW Erasmus was Catholic. But I also find those who quit, left or who were excommunicated as worthy of my praise/thanks too;) Luther had been a good monk, and good monk is what he wanted to remain, even if he had to leave to do it! |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by MikeUK
(Post 7307569)
its in the subtle difference of the message
Science : We think we're right based on our current evidence Religion: We know we're right you just have to have faith in us Science: We're think we're right based on our current evidence. But we expect and hope that new, interesting, evidence might well come along, in which case we need to face the welcome challenge of formulating and testing a new hypothesis to explain all the evidence in as simple a way as possible. Religion: (This is not true of all religions, but certainly of most); We're know we're right because we have faith in God/Allah/That Tree Over There/fill in your local deity of choice. Anything that comes along to contradict us being right shall be ignored/ridiculed/cast aside for as long as possible, and if absolutely necessary eventually embraced as a further demonstration that God etc. moves in mysterious ways. |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by James Martindale
(Post 7307763)
I would like to know where Jesus refuses to help anyone in the New Testament? I would also like to know where those who don't see him as the "messiah" are threatened by him? I have not read about any of that in either Mathew, Mark, Luke of John?
....... Democracy and more the legal system that upholds this has developed over the centuries starting with the building blocks being based on the teachings of christianity such as love thy neighbour. I remember also I was very impressed by Matthew 21:17 to 19 (the story is repeated in other Gospels, of course, like in Mark 11:13). Why be so angry? I could not get it. The beginning of Mark chapter 6 tells how he could not do the mighty work. Only to few people. Well, it was not his choice may be - they were not true believers over there. Matthew 19:16 can't directly classify for that, but it's going in the same direction of "no faith - you get nothing". Important is also, no right faith. He didn't really fancy those belonging somewhere else. Which comes to the statement of "love thy neighbour". Jesus came as a king of Jews. The love was only about that restricted to his folks, and if they were faithful, and not a general one. Not the same of course as some of today's extreme nationalism, but I won't make that commandment so precious, and it would be definitely negated by so often repeated ignoring of family members in the name of the true faith (see above). |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by rae
(Post 7308011)
one in particular i cannot stand. i can't help thinking if the vatican melted down a bit of gold and spread their wealth around they may actually help to solve some problems, instead of the tried and trusted, 'say your prayers'.
|
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by triumphguy
(Post 7308194)
:rofl:
All the museums and governments in the world could sell their gold and art and do the same. The result would be a few powerful billionaires own all the art, and the money wouldn't go very far. Not just the Catholics, but all churches raise billions for charity and many in their respective churches spend billions of hours doing "charitable" work for little or no money. No one just says "say your prayers." this is a very simplistic point i accept, given some of the stuff on here, most of which i have never heard of. it annoys me though. more importantly, man utd 2 blackburn 1 |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by Settlers_Unlimited
(Post 7308277)
You are thinking? I believe in this!
|
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by triumphguy
(Post 7306258)
A few points - having studied theology (a masters) and Law (LLB) and Education (B.ED) I would not think theology is any less vigorous intellectually than law:rofl:
I would have thought that theology is way more intellectual than law, but I have yet few "religious" types that are anywhere near being able to call themselves "theologians". |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by rae
(Post 7308292)
i do not think anyone would deny that all religions contribute enormously to poverty, charity and the like. I do not see though the connection with museums owning historically important pieces of art, and churches having bloody huge gold candles everywhere. why can they not have wooden ones keeping in touch with their carpentry beginnings.
this is a very simplistic point i accept, given some of the stuff on here, most of which i have never heard of. it annoys me though. more importantly, man utd 2 blackburn 1 There's a true religion if there ever was one! |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by Mikey B
(Post 7306552)
All religion is hypocritical! Bar non!!
Does that make art, music etc., hypocritical?:eek: The gift is to know that one is a hypocrite and do something about it. I would think you would find more religious people trying hard not to be hypocritcal than politicians. |
Re: Religion
Originally Posted by triumphguy
(Post 7308484)
Point me out a scientist, musician, theologian, artist, teacher, parent, policeman, politician or candlestiock maker that isn't.
Does that make art, music etc., hypocritical?:eek: The gift is to know that one is a hypocrite and do something about it. I would think you would find more religious people trying hard not to be hypocritcal than politicians. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 9:17 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.