Religious Discussions

[(Q)]

I am educated.

Is that also up for debate?

 

[Arkantos]

The purpose of science is to help understand the universe. Are you saying those people would rather live in ignorance of understanding and would much rather pray to imaginary gods?

They have their own understanding of the univese. Why would they need a new undestanding that is constantly changing and does not offer them any kind of comfort?

 

[(Q)]

If their imaginations bring them comfort, what's the problem?

 

[Arkantos]

For many people, science is cold, dark, and sucks the meaning and purpose out of life. It's depressing.

 

[charles cure]

yes, that's true. I was thinking about the common thought about religion when I said the first thing. I do think that communism and socialistic thougth are religious thought and that the state is the basically their church. And there is always syncretism.

so then religion in general can't be replaced by socialism or communism if you just see them as another form of religion, albeit with a different focus. to say that is to basically say "religion is usually replaced with different religion". youre not making a lot of sense, and flip flopping all over the place here.

They are not only anti-religious because of that. All you have to do is read what they say. They are openly anti-relgious, calling for its eradication.

thats your opinion, and i disagree with it so why dont you offer up some evidence that that is the case for the majority of people identifying with left-wing political ideology.

These people are inconoclastic and totally misrepresent the true meaning of not establishing religion. All they have to do is read the founders thoughts like I have, and read the history since the revolution, but they mostly seem unknowledgeable in that subject, holding to dogmatism that any sign of religion in public must be destroyed.

wrong. all "they" have to do is interpret the founders intent as you have. that is a much different thing. the constitution is the legal document designed to represent the founders intent regardless of the personal views of any one of them on any subject legislated therein. it is purposely open-ended, flexible, and adaptive to reflect the changing needs, desires, and hopes of the public that it serves at any point throughout history. you are not an authoritative source of foudational intent, and in addition to that, the PEOPLE who live in the United States are the ones who make and adhere to the laws, not the dead founders, so if it is the willof the populus that "to not establish a religion" requires that religious iconography and scripture be removed from the public square, then it is the job of the government to obey.

I don't deny the survival instinct. So survival is the purpose to life?

of course. do you believe it is something else?

I did not say that humanity was actively trying to make humans obselete. These just seem like the future consequences of the progression of science. Have you not ever thought of the future of scientific progress and what could be its consequences? Or is this too heretical? This does not come from the matrix.

of course i have thought of the future of scientific progress and what it could mean for humanity. why do you assume the outcome must be negative? science helped to invent a nuclear bomb, yet humanity did not immediately destroy itself. in fact, i am willing to bet that there have been more people killed with the sword than the nuclear bomb. i bet nearly as many people have been killed with bare human hands. what makes science the destroyer? people. science in and of itself has no intent, no desire. it is people who bend science to their own desires, and make it serve their needs. religion has been the cause of untold bloodshed, violence and death, yet people demand that it must be allowed to exist and flourish, but you would criticize science for the same flaw, which is no flaw other than one in the character of humanity?

I am educated.

well, you don't show it.

 

[Arkantos]

wrong. all "they" have to do is interpret the founders intent as you have. that is a much different thing. the constitution is the legal document designed to represent the founders intent regardless of the personal views of any one of them on any subject legislated therein. it is purposely open-ended, flexible, and adaptive to reflect the changing needs, desires, and hopes of the public that it serves at any point throughout history. you are not an authoritative source of foudational intent, and in addition to that, the PEOPLE who live in the United States are the ones who make and adhere to the laws, not the dead founders, so if it is the willof the populus that "to not establish a religion" requires that religious iconography and scripture be removed from the public square, then it is the job of the government to obey.

It's not that hard to see the clearness on the founders' intent on religious issues. The people are more in line with the founders view on this than the small bit of atheistic extemist iconoclasts anyway. To treat the constitution as clay is dangerous. The judges can intepret it anyway they want to fit any ideology they have that way. It's for the legislature to make laws. If you don't like the constitution, then you can go to them so that they can propose a new iconoclastic amendment.

science in and of itself has no intent, no desire. it is people who bend science to their own desires, and make it serve their needs. religion has been the cause of untold bloodshed, violence and death, yet people demand that it must be allowed to exist and flourish, but you would criticize science for the same flaw, which is no flaw other than one in the character of humanity?

This is what I want the people who want to eradicate religion to notice. They think it's religion that causes all of these problems, when it is human nature, but science does give the technology to make the grip of oppressors ever stronger.

 

[scorpius]

Christians can't banish your soul to hell. Only you can banish your sould to hell by refusing to obey God.

no one can banish any souls b/c they dont exist
www.atheists.org/Atheism/mind.html

They can only tell you that they notice you are not following their God and that the consquences are that you will go to hell if you don't straighten up.

straighten up?
have you read your bible completely and noticed all the EVIL shyt your god/JC preaches?
www.evilbible.com
www.thewaronfaith.com/bible_quotes.htm

 

[(Q)]

For many people, science is cold, dark, and sucks the meaning and purpose out of life. It's depressing.

Yet, science has brought people out of the cold and dark and has given them warmth and light. Science opens the mind and gives meaning and purpose to life.

Whoever thinks science is depressing is clearly out of touch with reality.

But then, those are probably theists you refer.

 

[(Q)]

This is what I want the people who want to eradicate religion to notice. They think it's religion that causes all of these problems, when it is human nature, but science does give the technology to make the grip of oppressors ever stronger.

Is it human nature to kill in the name of ones imaginary gods?

No technology will ever surpass religion as an oppressor.

 

[charles cure]

It's not that hard to see the clearness on the founders' intent on religious issues. The people are more in line with the founders view on this than the small bit of atheistic extemist iconoclasts anyway. To treat the constitution as clay is dangerous. The judges can intepret it anyway they want to fit any ideology they have that way. It's for the legislature to make laws. If you don't like the constitution, then you can go to them so that they can propose a new iconoclastic amendment.

the constitution is what it is. it was made flexible. the intent of one or two founder smeans little, if they all intended something more specific it would be in the constitution. if the people are more in line with the founder's intent, then why are you worried about a few atheistic extremist iconoclasts? the ten commandments have been taken out of the courts, you dont have prayer in schools, teaching intelligent design in science classes is being struck down, the people obviously feel that favoring a religion in the public sphere is tantamount to establishing one. atheists may be more vocal about it than others, but that doesn't make them wrong and that doesn't make them out of line with the spirit or meaning of the constitution.

This is what I want the people who want to eradicate religion to notice. They think it's religion that causes all of these problems, when it is human nature, but science does give the technology to make the grip of oppressors ever stronger.

i think your whole premise is wrong. you are going around assuming that people want religion wiped off the planet. even the most unreasonably militant atheists that i have heard of dont advocate that. all they want is for religion to not have an impact on everybody's life just because some believe in it. for example, the fact that catholics aren't supposed to use contraception shouldn't impinge on anybody else's right to. the same thing goes for abortion. we shouldn't have a lwa that everybody must abide by jewish dietary restrictions, or participate in lent. yet, in some places, religious people would force their moral belief onto everyone vis-a-vis legislation. being an atheist, i find this arrogant, offensive, and unjust. the law should reflect logic, reason, need, and a consideration for all of the groups that make up a society, not just the zealotry of one group. religion is a personal thing and should be kept that way. live your life how you want, but do not force others to live that way.
religion does cause problems. just as science does. religion has a hold on people's emotions and dictates their lifestyles, even in the face of contradictory evidence. religion is a form of social control, and when manipulated by those with power and intent, it becomes a terribly destructive force.
science is a little different. science cannot do the impossible or create fear of the impossible as religion does. you could not have made a nuclear bomb if it was not possible to make. however, religion could create a hell where none exists and force people to kill each other over it. science can only be used for evil to the extent that the evil is possible as acheived through science. if there is no hell, a scientist cannot create one for someone to use against us. if there is no cancer, a scientist cannot discover it and make us fear its growth inside our bodies. science is the revealer of things unknown, and through knowledge of something you can gain comfort, empathy, and understanding. religion seeks to use the unknown to further its own position of power, and it exploits fear and discomfort by pretending to offer solutions and explanations for them, however untested and unproven they may be. and as science reveals reality and religion turns out to be wrong again and again more people will flee from it as they see it for what it is. you can't fool all of the people all of the time, as the saying goes. so if you are disappointed that there is opposition to religion, realize that it is precisely the religious claims to understand the unknown that will allow science to unravel them.

 

[Arkantos]

Is it human nature to kill in the name of ones imaginary gods?

No technology will ever surpass religion as an oppressor.

It's the humans beings who will inevitably use the techonology who will.

 

[scorpius]

Why does it matter if you are murdered? Why should you give into self-preservation instincts? Death is the end of suffering.

who is suffering ??
life is beautiful and full of MEANING and PURPOSE b/c it ENDS one day,

Science is not the cure to the problems of society. Death is.

oh really?
next time you get sick,or get a toothache instead of going to the doctor,get on your knees and pray to god to heal you,
and see how far it well get you.
and please spare us the stories of people being healed by the prayers or touch etc..its all BS

btw the founding fathers were DEISTS do a search for "founding fathers" and learn the real truth

 

[Arkantos]

i think your whole premise is wrong. you are going around assuming that people want religion wiped off the planet. even the most unreasonably militant atheists that i have heard of dont advocate that. all they want is for religion to not have an impact on everybody's life just because some believe in it.

haven't you seen what the atheists on this website are saying? They are saying that they want to eradicate religion.

religion is a personal thing and should be kept that way. live your life how you want, but do not force others to live that way.

Should science be personal too? It intrudes on everyone's lives.

 

[(Q)]

It's the humans beings who will inevitably use the techonology who will.

That's very different, however ridiculous.

Can you show a single scientist who used technology to oppress?

Would you like me to show you a massive list of theists who used religion to oppress?

 

[(Q)]

Should science be personal too? It intrudes on everyone's lives.

Then, you should immediately disconnect your internet, toss your computer in the garbage, turn off your electricity, heat and water, burn your house down and go live in a cave.

Or, you could simply stop being a hypocrite.

 

[Arkantos]

oh really?
next time you get sick,or get a toothache instead of going to the doctor,get on your knees and pray to god to heal you,
and see how far it well get you.
and please spare us the stories of people being healed by the prayers or touch etc..its all BS

Death will end all human suffering. I did not think anyone who does not believe an afterlife could disagree that death is greater than science when it comes to ending human problems. If all human beings were to commit suicide, then there would be no more human suffering and no more human degradation of the earth and its other inhabitants.

 

[charles cure]

haven't you seen what the atheists on this website are saying? They are saying that they want to eradicate religion.

I am an atheist on this website. what did i say? you are awfully quick to judge.

Should science be personal too? It intrudes on everyone's lives.

science is nothing but a process by which you discover what already exists. like it or not, if a thing exists, it is effecting us all in some way, and is therefore no longer personal. science illuminates fact. fact is difficult to ignore, try as you might. if it is your desire to live ignorant of fact, or in contestation of it, no one will try to stop you, but you will repeatedly encounter obstacles in nearly everything you do.

 

[Arkantos]

Then, you should immediately disconnect your internet, toss your computer in the garbage, turn off your electricity, heat and water, burn your house down and go live in a cave.

Or, you could simply stop being a hypocrite.

You don't even know what I personally think about science, but it does intrude on people's lives who do not want it to.

 

[Arkantos]

I am an atheist on this website. what did i say? you are awfully quick to judge.

I did not judge anyone. I just stated what I saw and for whatever reason you have not seen. It's not judging people when you repeat what they say is it?

 

[charles cure]

I did not judge anyone. I just stated what I saw and for whatever reason you have not seen. It's not judging people when you repeat what they say is it?

but i didnt say it and i am an atheist here. you are making the same type of generalization that you are striking out against atheists for making about religious people.

by the way, reality intrudes on all of our lives too, so why dont we just ignore it.