I am not going to name my particular religion because that would prejudice anything I say from that point on. However, a leader in my church once said that when dealing with anything that is religious or things of the world including science is to "Take your brain with you". Meaning that when dealing with religion and science you do not have to suspend belief in one to believe the other. He was also admonishing us to think before we believe anything not just blindly follow. Blind obedience is actually for the weak in faith. Strong faith can be buffeted by all sorts of opposing viewpoints and not be threatened. Weak faith will turn a blind eye to any evidence that seems to contradict their pre-conceived notions. Strong faith will weigh the new evidence and incorporate it in their overall belief system. Strong faith realizes that we do not have all the answers and that God will reveal them in time. Weak faith clings to old dogmas and closes themselves to new truths.
God and Science Are Not Mutually Exlcusive.
- Thread starter Brutus1964
- Start date
i believe that science and god cannot ultimately contradict eachother. science is merely the intellectualizing of the unknown.
god is the source of all (in my humble opinion)
*gives you a candy cane*
god is the source of all (in my humble opinion)
*gives you a candy cane*
As a source for socially acceptable guidelines for moral behaviour, religion is fine. As a source for explaining the physical universe, nein!
I think a subtle spin-off is the current state of cosmology. It's really a bastardized religion if you examine the trappings and baggage it carries. It's what happens when you cross a god-mindset with a realm of science that by its nature denies the need for gods.
I think a subtle spin-off is the current state of cosmology. It's really a bastardized religion if you examine the trappings and baggage it carries. It's what happens when you cross a god-mindset with a realm of science that by its nature denies the need for gods.
taken from another thread, but seemed apt to this
Originally posted by snakelord:
Well, it does show the ultimate battle between two distinct forces. One of them was hellbent on keeping mankind as a mental slave whereas the other wanted mankind to have the ability to think for himself.
This holds true even to the modern day - to quote some relevant text:
"For ages, a deadly conflict has been waged between a few brave men and women of thought and genius upon the one side, and the great ignorant religious mass on the other. This is the war between Science and Faith. The few have appealed to reason, to honor, to law, to freedom, to the known, and to happiness here in this world. The many have appealed to prejudice, to fear, to miracle, to slavery, to the unknown, and to misery hereafter. The few have said, "Think!" The many have said, "Believe!" [The Gods, 1872]
Those of the 'faith' ilk conduct their lives through a happy lack of knowledge versus those who seek to improve their lives and the lives of others through knowledge.
It is the very foundation of their beliefs, taught from child to child through the ages - where knowledge is seen as something ominous and evil. This can quite clearly be seen with this quote:
"The pursuit of knowledge, unless sanctified by a holy mission, is a pagan act, and therefore vile."
Saint Bernard of Clairvauz (1190-1153)
To think that someone who says this, can be considered a 'saint'. Through the ages, the sole focus is on destroying mankinds ability to seek understanding and truth - instead thinking life works out as long as you hold your hands together or cross your fingers.
It is really sickening. The majority of conflict and pain could be avoided if people would question and search for truth, instead of the "faith" method which merely means they're right, everyone else is wrong.
Currently the world is occupied by millions upon millions of these cretins- which does not bode well for humanity as a whole.
Originally posted by snakelord:
Well, it does show the ultimate battle between two distinct forces. One of them was hellbent on keeping mankind as a mental slave whereas the other wanted mankind to have the ability to think for himself.
This holds true even to the modern day - to quote some relevant text:
"For ages, a deadly conflict has been waged between a few brave men and women of thought and genius upon the one side, and the great ignorant religious mass on the other. This is the war between Science and Faith. The few have appealed to reason, to honor, to law, to freedom, to the known, and to happiness here in this world. The many have appealed to prejudice, to fear, to miracle, to slavery, to the unknown, and to misery hereafter. The few have said, "Think!" The many have said, "Believe!" [The Gods, 1872]
Those of the 'faith' ilk conduct their lives through a happy lack of knowledge versus those who seek to improve their lives and the lives of others through knowledge.
It is the very foundation of their beliefs, taught from child to child through the ages - where knowledge is seen as something ominous and evil. This can quite clearly be seen with this quote:
"The pursuit of knowledge, unless sanctified by a holy mission, is a pagan act, and therefore vile."
Saint Bernard of Clairvauz (1190-1153)
To think that someone who says this, can be considered a 'saint'. Through the ages, the sole focus is on destroying mankinds ability to seek understanding and truth - instead thinking life works out as long as you hold your hands together or cross your fingers.
It is really sickening. The majority of conflict and pain could be avoided if people would question and search for truth, instead of the "faith" method which merely means they're right, everyone else is wrong.
Currently the world is occupied by millions upon millions of these cretins- which does not bode well for humanity as a whole.
Brutus1964 said:
But Brutus1967, i wuld say you WERE 'blindly following'.....?
for example, THe main inducer that gets you believing the book/Bible is that is was writ by 'God', yeah?
How, may i ask, do you enviasge this event. Do you see actual God's hand writing it?
Do you feel his 'Word' was tranmitted to his prophets?
which?
and if the latter, which i am guessing you will choose. How do you think it happened. Can you describe to us how you wold imagine the process to be, as far as you can imagine?
Were they 'channelers'? was God dictating
i ask this cause obviously this is what gets you reading and believing doesn't it? Your belief that the words you read int Bible are actually WRITTEN BY GOD
Ophiolite said:I believe (as a fact, not an act of faith) that Brutus declared he would not name his religion. Why, then, are you talking about the Bible? Have you had a revelation that he is Christian or Jewish?
Oh Ophiolite...heard of intuition and reasoning? i can TELL, i dont have to ask
Men that received revelation from God wrote the Bible. They were prophets and apostles that wrote by inspiration. It is by revelation from God that we discern from the scriptures what is the truth. There are many ways to interpret scripture and no doubt many errors that have been introduced through the ages. That is why we need to be in tune with the Holy Ghost who will tell us what is true. He has many ways of doing this. It is very personal. No one can discern the truth of the scriptures without the Holy Ghost.
Brutus1964 said:
D--And i am again wondering how YOU would do this Brutus? I am actually all for DIRECT experience.
But i am seeing two things that have been separated by the patriarchy, instinct and reason: instinct would include bodily awareness, emotions, intuition, ecstasy, visceral eroticism, and reason, logic, rationality. both CAN be complimentary when the former is not demonized. but what i see with the patriarchy, with its invention of 'evil' and the 'devil', and so on, is just that. Reasoning goes outta the window, through it doesn't REALIZe its reasoing is irrational, and that is the actual danger!
Brutas,
You have this reversed. Weakness of faith indicates uncertainty and skepticism. It is exactly those weak in faith that do not obey blindly.
This is the description of the closed minded – they cannot be convinced by reason or evidence and are only able to believe in their faith and utterly blindly.
You are quite confused.
If this were true then clearly their faith could not be very strong if they are willing to change it so readily.
Those strong in faith only have one closed minded belief then – God did it.
Once again that is the exact definition of those strong in faith.
You have this reversed. Weakness of faith indicates uncertainty and skepticism. It is exactly those weak in faith that do not obey blindly.
This is the description of the closed minded – they cannot be convinced by reason or evidence and are only able to believe in their faith and utterly blindly.
You are quite confused.
If this were true then clearly their faith could not be very strong if they are willing to change it so readily.
Those strong in faith only have one closed minded belief then – God did it.
Once again that is the exact definition of those strong in faith.
The Devil Inside,
But in the meantime they are in direct contradiction, right?
You too seem to have reality reversed. Science is the practical establishment of knowledge, i.e. what is KNOWN. Fantasy speculation about the unknown is the realm of religion.
But does your opinion have any basis in fact or is it simply valueless?
But in the meantime they are in direct contradiction, right?
You too seem to have reality reversed. Science is the practical establishment of knowledge, i.e. what is KNOWN. Fantasy speculation about the unknown is the realm of religion.
But does your opinion have any basis in fact or is it simply valueless?
apparently, it is valueless, if someone of your caliber says it is. if you can explain to me exactly what is the source of all, then feel free to enlighten me. dont give me a bunch of "exploding big bang super monster collosal detonation" theory, either. if you are going to call the value of my opinion into question, explain to me WHAT exploded. explain to me WHY it exploded. explain to me HOW it exploded. WHERE did the exploding matter come from?Cris said:
dont just insult folks, or they will make fools of you. be friendly.
it is much more becoming.
*hands you an ice cream cone* (vanilla, to match the complexity of your statements)
i do not wish to argue.
so dont waste your time with insults. but if you must.....i understand.
i was 15 once too.
so dont waste your time with insults. but if you must.....i understand.
i was 15 once too.
The Devil,
But I didn’t say that did I – note that I asked a question. Opinions are interesting but without factual support they aren’t very useful. The perception of an insult is all your own doing.
Why? I’m prepared, although irritated to do so, to admit we don’t know yet. What I find frustrating is the assertion by some that a god is the answer but they cannot or do not offer any support for their assertions.
No problem since a big bang doesn’t seem likely to be the beginning. If you read Linde or Guth they suspect that the big bang is simply one of a probable infinite number of big bangs, i.e. our current big bang is just one bubble among an infinite sea of bubbles. More recent theories have brought back the cyclic universe theory (new ideas based on dark matter) where we have a bang, expansion, collapse, and bang again, in an infinite series. But physicists have many variations on these themes, all of which have some basis in observation and facts – but the god fantasy stands alone as a baseless speculation, unless of course you have some facts to support it – do you?
Try not to see insults where none exist. But your ice cream and age 15 quips clearly rest in the arena of insults. Do you not now class as a hypocrite?
But I didn’t say that did I – note that I asked a question. Opinions are interesting but without factual support they aren’t very useful. The perception of an insult is all your own doing.
Why? I’m prepared, although irritated to do so, to admit we don’t know yet. What I find frustrating is the assertion by some that a god is the answer but they cannot or do not offer any support for their assertions.
No problem since a big bang doesn’t seem likely to be the beginning. If you read Linde or Guth they suspect that the big bang is simply one of a probable infinite number of big bangs, i.e. our current big bang is just one bubble among an infinite sea of bubbles. More recent theories have brought back the cyclic universe theory (new ideas based on dark matter) where we have a bang, expansion, collapse, and bang again, in an infinite series. But physicists have many variations on these themes, all of which have some basis in observation and facts – but the god fantasy stands alone as a baseless speculation, unless of course you have some facts to support it – do you?
Try not to see insults where none exist. But your ice cream and age 15 quips clearly rest in the arena of insults. Do you not now class as a hypocrite?
The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.
True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge. Did Darrow, in the course of his dreadful bombardment of Bryan, drop a few shells, incidentally, into measurably cleaner camps? Then let the garrisons of those camps look to their defenses. They are free to shoot back. But they can't disarm their enemy.
-- H. L. Mencken, "Aftermath" (coverage of the Scopes Trial) The Baltimore Evening Sun, (September 14, 1925)
There is no possibility whatsoever of reconciling science and theology, at least in Christendom. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense. I defy any genuine scientist to say that he believes in the Resurrection, or indeed in any other cardinal dogma of the Christian system.
-- H. L. Mencken, Minority Report, 1956
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/qframe.htm
True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge. Did Darrow, in the course of his dreadful bombardment of Bryan, drop a few shells, incidentally, into measurably cleaner camps? Then let the garrisons of those camps look to their defenses. They are free to shoot back. But they can't disarm their enemy.
-- H. L. Mencken, "Aftermath" (coverage of the Scopes Trial) The Baltimore Evening Sun, (September 14, 1925)
There is no possibility whatsoever of reconciling science and theology, at least in Christendom. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense. I defy any genuine scientist to say that he believes in the Resurrection, or indeed in any other cardinal dogma of the Christian system.
-- H. L. Mencken, Minority Report, 1956
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/qframe.htm
yep. i sure do. but im a big boy, and i can admit my own hypocrisy. perhaps you should try to do the same.Cris said: