Science Vs Religion

[SnakeLord]

Science

There was a time where science was non existant. Wild ideas were thrown around because it was all man had to rely on. There was a time when people didn't even know what the sun was... just that it was always there. There were times when man thought the world was flat, that we'd never fly.... and never even imagine we'd travel out into the black void of space.

Science has done a huge amount for mankind. It ranges from things like curing diseases to creating new animals from basic dna, (such as Dolly the sheep).

We witnessed the comets explosion on Jupiter from up close thanks to science, we can fly thanks to science, diseases such as smallpox have been eradicated completely thanks to science.

Women who can't give birth to children can now give birth to children thanks to science.

We can talk to friends and family on the other side of the world instantly thanks to science... Nowadays we can even see people on the other side of the world thanks to science.

Faulty human organs can be replaced, chopped off ears can be replaced- even hearts can be replaced. People without limbs can have new prosthetic limbs given to them.

Science has even given us pills to give you a stiffy if you can't manage it naturally!

Thanks to science we can now tell exactly when a volcano will errupt, an earthquake will start... we can tell when comets will return and solar eclipses will happen down to the exact minute.

Thanks to science we all have heat and light in our homes constantly.

Thanks to science rapists and murderers etc can be found through a single strand of hair, single fingerprint, single sample of dna.

Cloning has now begun and is progressing as we speak. Although that has its moral implications look at starving people and how food could be 'made' for them.

Thanks to science we can see even the smallest of lifeforms, know all about atoms, particles, neutrons and so on.

We can keep our food frozen to prevent rotting, can heat it up within minutes, can light instant fires...

We can create pictures, or videos of our loved ones to keep for the rest of our lives. Science has in essence given us the ability to freeze a moment forever and take it with us.

Science has given us everything. What i've put here are but the very basics of what science has accomplished..

Religion

Religion has been around for as long as we know. It has changed many many times. It is different depending on culture, upbringing, personal 'faith'. Each of these- from the oldest to the most modern believe they are right in their belief and the others are mistaken.

How many christians believe in the viking belief and Valhalla or vice versa?

The very principle of religion is to promote self righteous attitude. They will not state they're wrong, instead just assume the countless other beliefs are.

This attitude has created wars, death, destruction, arguments and so on from the beginning of time right up until present day.

It promotes a high mighty happy feeling for an individual but that is the main difference between science and religion. Science benefits all mankind- religion just benefits the individual in need. Religion then offers up it's most sincerest 'bad feeling' to anyone else who does not live according to their faith. They promote lack of human worth- passing it all over to god, they promote lack of accepting and understanding your own faults- you have a dead scapegoat to pass it all over to. They feel the need to ring on peoples doors, to pass out leaflets and magazines to spread their word to anyone regardless of whether they want to listen or not.

This is Science vs religion. Science has proven itself continually throughout history. Religion has stayed still and identical- just passing the self righteous attitude on from person to person.

Science progresses, science produces answers and results. Religion does not. It provides a 'quick fix' for those in need. It does not, and has failed since the dawn of mankind to produce anything of substance.

Doesn't mean it's wrong- just it should take a leaf out of the book of science. Perhaps then religion and belief in god can progress aswell.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I agree.
There shouldn't be any religion unless/until science discovers one.

 

[Dystran Hart]

I agree in the most part.

Isn't it funny however how some individuals seem to have religeon down to an exact science

 

[Bridge]

It's Good vs. Evil

It's a battle between good and evil, not science and religion.

Science has given us everything. What i've put here are but the very basics of what science has accomplished..

Indeed, the very basics. Science has also produced things like gun powder, TNT, thermo-nuclear bombs, intercontinental missles, land mines, cluster bombs, VX, Sarin, mustard, phosgene and other types of nerve gases employable through mortars, missles and bombs.

diseases such as smallpox have been eradicated completely thanks to science

Science has produced enough ricin, botulinum toxin, smallpox and anthrax weapons to kill every man, woman and child ten times over. It has given the inherent ability for a few men to kill millions of other men by simply pushing a button on a submarine from somewhere out in the middle of the ocean.

The very principle of religion is to promote self righteous attitude. They will not state they're wrong, instead just assume the countless other beliefs are.

Please tell us which religious doctrine or religion's Holy Book states its principle is to promote self-righteousness? To the contrary, most religions require attributes such as self examination and humility.

This attitude has created wars, death, destruction, arguments and so on from the beginning of time right up until present day.

Evil isn't exclusive to religious regimes. Secular and atheistic regimes have caused all those things. Remember Joey Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot?

Science progresses, science produces answers and results. Religion does not. It provides a 'quick fix' for those in need. It does not, and has failed since the dawn of mankind to produce anything of substance

Religion and science both serve purposes. Ignore the good things religion has brought to mankind, ignore that the medieval Church established universities which preserved higher learning, ignore that religion nurtured theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas, ignore contributions to the arts like those found in Sistine Chapel ceiling, ignore a Catholic monk named Mendel whose work was the basis for modern genetics. Ignore the fact that science itself has its origins in primitive religion and superstition (ie. alchemy preceeded chemistry, astrology was the original astronomy, primitive herbalism preceeded modern medicines, etc). Ignore the myriad number of hospitals all over the world that are connected to organized religion, names like Houston Methodist Hospital, Columbia Presbyterian, etc. and the fact that religious charities have eased suffering and poverty the world over.

With all due respect, the premise of your post is a pretentious piece of crap, sir.

 

[Zero Mass]

Re: It's Good vs. Evil

Originally posted by Bridge
It's a battle between good and evil, not science and religion.

Science=good, Religion=evil. It is a battle between good and evil.

Originally posted by Bridge
Indeed, the very basics. Science has also produced things like gun powder, TNT, thermo-nuclear bombs, intercontinental missles, land mines, cluster bombs, VX, Sarin, mustard, phosgene and other types of nerve gases employable through mortars, missles and bombs.

Yes it has, under the scrutiny of governments that are controlled by religious people driven by self-righteousness (i.e. Bush)

Originally posted by Bridge
Science has produced enough ricin, botulinum toxin, smallpox and anthrax weapons to kill every man, woman and child ten times over. It has given the inherent ability for a few men to kill millions of other men by simply pushing a button on a submarine from somewhere out in the middle of the ocean.

Science creates means and men produce end results. Those men are usually crazy religious fanatics.
And if anything I would rather be killed by an atomic bomb than some guy with a club, I mean, at least it would be quicker,
thanks science!

Originally posted by Bridge
Please tell us which religious doctrine or religion's Holy Book states its principle is to promote self-righteousness? To the contrary, most religions require attributes such as self examination and humility.

Many religious people exert self-righteousness over other religions, and in doing so, exert the same adamant views over people and nations. Christianity is bad with this type of thing, at least certain sects are. Remember how many churches around the turn of the 19th century were vehemently anti-semitic (that includes American Christians).

Originally posted by Bridge
Evil isn't exclusive to religious regimes. Secular and atheistic regimes have caused all those things. Remember Joey Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot?

It isn't, but it is primarily associated with the church. The emergence of evil secular regimes is only a outcome of a modern world where religion is being left behind.

Originally posted by Bridge
Religion and science both serve purposes. Ignore the good things religion has brought to mankind, ignore that the medieval Church established universities which preserved higher learning, ignore that religion nurtured theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas, ignore contributions to the arts like those found in Sistine Chapel ceiling, ignore a Catholic monk named Mendel whose work was the basis for modern genetics. Ignore the fact that science itself has its origins in primitive religion and superstition (ie. alchemy preceeded chemistry, astrology was the original astronomy, primitive herbalism preceeded modern medicines, etc). Ignore the myriad number of hospitals all over the world that are connected to organized religion, names like Houston Methodist Hospital, Columbia Presbyterian, etc. and the fact that religious charities have eased suffering and poverty the world over.

The world is much more grey than you are trying to make it, both you and Snakelord. Of course some religious movements and actions have been good, this world would suck if it was all holy crusades and church bombings. Science has got dirty hands also, but it has also given many better advancements to the well-being of mankind than Religion ever will.
Science at least is unprejudiced though, which certainly counts for something.

Originally posted by Bridge
With all due respect, the premise of your post is a pretentious piece of crap, sir.

Your alliteration is crap.

http://www.askoxford.com/dictionary/pretentious

Science is more important than Religion. I mean, which would you rather have, alchemy, astrology, and herbalism, or contemporary science?

I like your claim of his arguments being crap, way to go, you just made my favorite person list.

ZERO MASS

 

[SnakeLord]

It's Good vs. Evil
It's a battle between good and evil, not science and religion.

Everything's a battle heh? That's obviously the difference between us. I consider advancement of knowledge and furthering human understanding as an achievement. I look upon that happily. You sit there and consider life an eternal battle you must win against the enemy?? Sickening. Like i said- science serves all mankind. You're right, others are wrong so you must spend a life in battle with them... That doesn't help anything except to feed your own self righteousness. That's why i said take a leaf out of the book of science. Did you even read my post?

There are no battles- surely we're here to help each other, not fight each other? Surprises me hearing you say that considering it's apparently the religious masses who are the kind hearted, all loving group of people.

Indeed, the very basics. Science has also produced things like gun powder, TNT, thermo-nuclear bombs, intercontinental missles, land mines, cluster bombs, VX, Sarin, mustard, phosgene and other types of nerve gases employable through mortars, missles and bombs.

Yeah.. science provided all that for the religious folk. As bad as all those are it does show how science advances all the time. Science doesn't sit still as religion does promoting its own self worth against others. Science finds the answers, no matter how horrible they might seem. Either way- bombs or no bombs- people would still be killing each other. A nuclear weapon is just mans equivalent of some of the more inappropriate acts of god.

Science has produced enough ricin, botulinum toxin, smallpox and anthrax weapons to kill every man, woman and child ten times over. It has given the inherent ability for a few men to kill millions of other men by simply pushing a button on a submarine from somewhere out in the middle of the ocean.

Yes it has. Science has it's bad side aswell. But to be honest is it that bad a thing? At least science doesn't allow only certain people into their afterlife, preventing anyone other than christians from getting there.

Some people will try to find answers for different questions. One man sits down and creates all these nasty weapons you have listed. At the same time another man sits down and develops something to stop them or counteract them. Science provides answers to all sides- it doesn't just accept one answer, end of.

Please tell us which religious doctrine or religion's Holy Book states its principle is to promote self-righteousness?

All of them. Not that they need to- you'd pretty much end up like that anyway regardless. Remember your belief is unsubstantiated and unproven. Instead of accepting that and attempting to prove it as true you just state it is and deny other people's beliefs. Tell me do you consider the possibility that the hindus are correct in their belief and you are wrong? Most don't see it that way, (which you'll notice if you read this forum a lot). I've even noticed you lot bickering amongst yourselves. Many times i have seen comments like: "He's not a real christian because yada yada etc etc..... There's very few of us real christians". You all believe and state:

most religions require attributes such as self examination and humility.

Yet in practice you all do completely the opposite without even realising it. Sure there may very well be a god, or gods, or giant pink solar elephants but you lot do nothing but ponce about with your bits of text making him look worse than he probably would if you didn't say anything. I understand mans need to have a god but do you really have to push it on everyone else. You claim love, honour, humility yakety yak. It's easy to claim a million and one good points. You lot never dwell on the bad points- rudeness, self righteousness, impatience etc. For all of those bad points you have a scapegoat, (jesus), so why ever dwell over them? As such how can you improve as a person unless you accept blame for those bad points. Of course on the other hand you're all too quick to point out someone elses faults and tell them to beg to jesus or goto hell.

Evil isn't exclusive to religious regimes. Secular and atheistic regimes have caused all those things. Remember Joey Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot?

I never said it was exclusive, but it's a key factor. Aside from all out religious conflict it usually comes down to a singular belief of such undeniable nature to that person that they'd never listen to anyone who disagreed, no matter what the reasons. Most of us sit here and look upon them to be lunatics. They would never understand the problems with their own belief and never study the alternatives before making their leaps of faith.

Religion and science both serve purposes.

I already said that. Science serves all mankind, religion serves a destined handful of lucky people who are smart enough to see the light.

Ignore the good things religion has brought to mankind, ignore that the medieval Church established universities which preserved higher learning, ignore that religion nurtured theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas, ignore contributions to the arts like those found in Sistine Chapel ceiling, ignore a Catholic monk named Mendel whose work was the basis for modern genetics.

Ignore the good things everyone other than christians and catholics has brought to mankind... Ah well, we're both guilty.

You will find schools were first established by the Sumerians. Churches went one step further and made a university: a place that doesn't accept the commoners just a select few lucky people. However it was still science that gave people something to learn in university other than "God said...." It's hardly a benefit to all mankind.

ignore that religion nurtured theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas

What's that got to do with all mankind? Not a whole hell of a lot.

ignore contributions to the arts like those found in Sistine Chapel ceiling

Art works fine without religion. Ok, less naked women and angels peering and childrens testicles but im sure art would do fine without religion. Either way do not forget it was one mans ability that created those 'masterpieces'- nothing to do with religion. If most christians around here had their way they'd tell me it wasn't that mans ability it was god working through him. As such he hasn't provided diddly-squat- god has.

ignore a Catholic monk named Mendel whose work was the basis for modern genetics.

Ok.... Why don't we sit down and find out the religion of every person on the planet who has contributed to mankind? Pointless i'd say- yes many might have been christian, catholic, jewish etc but that's not religion providing genetics- that's science.

Ignore the fact that science itself has its origins in primitive religion and superstition (ie. alchemy preceeded chemistry, astrology was the original astronomy, primitive herbalism preceeded modern medicines, etc).

I'm well aware of that... and what made it progress? What bought it forward? Science- not religion. Religion sits on it's ass and starts to smell- science looks for answers and achieves on a daily basis.

Ignore the myriad number of hospitals all over the world that are connected to organized religion, names like Houston Methodist Hospital, Columbia Presbyterian, etc.

Ignore the myriad of hospitals all over the world named after presidents, towns, and whatever else you can think of. I'd hardly consider a hospitals name as benefit to all mankind. It is the science that puts everything in that hospital and saves the lives. That is benefit. All you have is "My church named your hospital"? Lol.

and the fact that religious charities have eased suffering and poverty the world over.

You trust charities? Lol! Ok so they get money for free off the generosity of the public then hand about 20% of it to the starving millions. The other 80% they 'lose' in administration. Same works with non religious charities too.

I wonder through all their acts of helping mankind your priests, vicars, rabbis etc earn. My wifes father sold his house for over £500,000....... It was bought by a vicar. Go figure. All that money to spend on a house... wonder how much he gives to help the starving millions. (Btw the average yearly salary in London is £16,000. Nurses who save peoples lives only earn about £17,000 annually which would allow them to buy a house valued at £70,000).

Science works for mankind- religion works for itself.

With all due respect, the premise of your post is a pretentious piece of crap, sir.

With all due respect but you sound a tad upset. Sit down, relax, have a cigarette and smile. It will make you live longer. But i can only expect that kind of attitude from you 'loving, humble, non-self righteous people'.

 

[Bridge]

I will make a few brief clarifications.

The difference between us is that you look at science and religion as the combatants. You dismiss the contributions made by religion and proclaim science the winner. Actually neither one is the winner. I see the struggle not as a physical battle between science and religion but between mankind struggling within itself with all its potential goodness and an internal sense of justice, clashing with its inclination towards evil.

Science has done wonderous things, but anyone who dismisses the value of religion is missing the big picture. I cannot excercise just my mind and my body, I need to exercize my spirit as well. It is said that we do not get ulcers from what we eat but from what eats us. I would recommend you read CS Lewis. Lewis discusses the natural moral law found in all men. He makes a very good case that this natural understanding of right and wrong is a clue as to the nature of the universe and its Creator.

That's about it. We now return you to your regularly scheduled reply filled with disdain for anyone who would dare think theology is useful.

 

[NeoBeetnik38]

Are we arguing over what these things have done, or what they are supposed to do?
Science - One way to understand the world, improve it
Religion - One way to understand the world, improve it
Arguing as though one is evil is stupid. Of course bad things have happened because of each, and we could go on forever naming them, but are our reasons for beleiving in them the same as those who have really f$cked up in the past? No!
I beleive in science because it allows us to improve the quality of life, and understand how its many rules work.
I beleive in religion, because it gives us a reason to better ourselfs, and a greater plan to be a part of.

Neither idea is evil. So please, stop fighting over nothing.
Science is Science, and Religion is Religion.
You either beleive in something or you don't.

And by the way, was I coherent? I'm really having trouble getting my thoughts together, as always, so If you could review my input, that would be great.

 

[SnakeLord]

The difference between us is that you look at science and religion as the combatants

Hey, don't try and turn this on me you're the one talking about battles. I merely said i think religion should take a leaf out of the book of science. If you read my posts you'd see why i referred to science and religion as i did.

I'll put it in short format:

Science tends not to condemn, but to continually offer things to mankind. It never stops, it never ends. Day in, day out science is progressing and giving all of us a better life. Yes, there are bad sides such as vx gas warheads and whatever else you mentioned but as i stated the nicer side of science is already working out a defence against them.

Religion tends to condemn most of the time. The goal for many christians and other religions is to 'recruit' people into their belief system. A lot of this is done through fear- the "believe in god or goto hell" scenario instantly springs to mind. God himself has laid down distinct and strict rules governing who gets eternal life and who doesn't. Those in the bible who went against god were dealt with swiftly and violently, not only by the hand of man, but also by the hand of god. Sure it has its good sides- sunday meetings, barbecues, hymn singing and so on but the core of religion is to promote fear among the masses. I bet you for one wouldnt even dare say: "there is no god" for a laugh, you probably couldn't even bring yourself to think it. Fear holds so many religious people captive. Fear is what drives so many people into religion in the first place.

Now perhaps you understand why i said religion should take a leaf out of the book of science? For religion to be better in my opinion there shouldn't even be word of hell ever mentioned. There should be no rules to get eternal salvation. Instead try promoting the 'love and harmony' you lot claim to do so much. If you turned round and said "Hey we're all going to heaven no matter what anyone believes, no matter what god you believe in etc etc" There'd be a lot more happy people in the world.

You dismiss the contributions made by religion and proclaim science the winner.

I didn't claim anything the winner. I've stated now 4 or 5 times what i was talking about. If you still fail to understand i'll start drawing pictures for you.

I see the struggle not as a physical battle between science and religion but between mankind struggling within itself with all its potential goodness and an internal sense of justice, clashing with its inclination towards evil.

Kind of like a tamed animal. You can love it, feed it, keep it happy forever but one day it's 'call of the wild' comes and it chews you up. We have that call of the wild within us too. There was a time we lived free out in the wilderness. We had to chase and spear our food, we had to survive day by day on what we could catch, kill, find, forage etc etc. Nowadays life is packaged in a bag of plastic and dropped on our doorstep. It makes life easy but there's a little voice inside all of us that yearns for the wild freedom once more. That's why camping trips are so successful. It's even a key factor with people who like hunting, canoing, absailing, rolling in the mud, hell you name it. You guys put on your sunday best in order to prove you are civilised and no longer have that call of the wild, but it is within you no matter how much you'd deny it. You read an old book attempting to prove you are a man instead of the beast that lurks within. All that is fine by choice- however where is the choice when rules have been set? Specific 'do as i say or no eternal salvation' rules.

but anyone who dismisses the value of religion is missing the big picture.

Sure, it has value. All i said was it should take a leaf from the book of science. As i explained above several times. It's about helping ALL mankind vs a select few.

It is said that we do not get ulcers from what we eat but from what eats us.

It is said Rennie tablets remove ulcers.

I would recommend you read CS Lewis.

The lion, the witch, and the wardrobe was brilliant.

That's about it. We now return you to your regularly scheduled reply filled with disdain for anyone who would dare think theology is useful.

Your ending lines are always filled with malice. Why is that? More of that loving harmonious religious side coming to the front? Or the 'call of the wild'? Either way i hereby submit my response. If you read it thoroughly you'll see the only suggestion i have given and problem that i have is the way religion 'works'. I think it could be changed slightly to include all of mankind instead of a select few. Was just an opinion- you really need to chill out.

P.S I decided to say this one more time in the hope you'll finally get the message. I said the following line in the very first post of this thread:

Doesn't mean it's wrong- just it should take a leaf out of the book of science. Perhaps then religion and belief in god can progress aswell.

 

[airavata]

i swear by science. it's done amazing things for humanity.
but i'm religious as well.

religion gives people faith......extraordinary faith....and extraordinary power.....something science can never give.

don't hit back with "what about missiles and guns etc."

i'm talking about conviction and faith to fight personal battles.

"religion is the opium of the epople"-- Karl Marx.

 

[revbill2001]

More people have been killed in the name of religion than have ever been killed in the name of science. Just once I'd like to see, painted somewhere, Jesus hates grafiti.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by SnakeLord
There was a time where science was non existant. Wild ideas were thrown around because it was all man had to rely on. There was a time when people didn't even...............

Good!
Get that shit off your chest, and maybe you will answer a question.

Now you are obviously not talking about "a" religion, but "religion", if you get my drift. My question is;

What, exactly is it, you hate about "God" and "religion"?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[wesmorris]

Who's Good? Who's Evil?

Originally posted by Bridge
It's a battle between good and evil, not science and religion.

The big problem with attempting to pit 'good vs. evil' is that each implies a presumption. What is good? What is evil? Blah blah I'm sure you've heard it all before, but I gaurentee those fucks who took down the trade centers believed without a shadow of doubt (obviously since they were willing to sacrifice their very beings for it) that they were "good". I'd call them evil, but that's just my perspective. The problem with most religions in my opinion (in terms of the argument at hand) is that they believe in moral objectivity, which is a myth. If you aren't a moral relativist, IMO you are as bad as those fucks who took down the towers. You may not have behaved as badly, but certainly the potential to do so is there, since your morals are set in stone by a "higher authority" (someone's interpretation of some stupid book).

*shrug*

Just a thought.

 

[revbill2001]

Re: Re: Science Vs Religion

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Good!
Get that shit off your chest, and maybe you will answer a question.

Now you are obviously not talking about "a" religion, but "religion", if you get my drift. My question is;

What, exactly is it, you hate about "God" and "religion"?

Love

Jan Ardena.

I don't hate God, and I don't hate religion. Many people find comfort in it and anything that helps you make it through the day, as long as it doesn't harm anyone, is just great as far as I'm concerned. What I do disaprove of is organized religion. In too many instances you have people with no faith themselves, leading other people down the wrong road just for the glory or the money. I personally believe that each one of us is a tiny piece of God here on earth. I don't believe that some jackass in religious attire should be paid to tell you what is right and wrong, or to pray for your soul. I also truely believe that no one on earth can or ever could forgive you for your sins. That takes a much higher order of power than any mortal posesses.
Much love and long life to you,

reverand bill

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by airavata
i swear by science. it's done amazing things for humanity.
but i'm religious as well.

Sorry for you. Religion = Delusion. I suppose if you're happy being deluded then I'm happy for you. Just don't argue from a perspective that asserts that your religious beliefs have any bearing on reality and I'd say "More power to you."

Originally posted by airavata

religion gives people faith......extraordinary faith....and extraordinary power.....something science can never give.

*sniffs around*

I smell bullshit. I don't think religion "gives" anyone faith, people have to muster faith in the bullshit to believe it. Now if you think that people can be incredibly empowered from a delusionary mindset, I'm totally with you. But religion doesn't get the credit for the faith or "power" as you put it. People do. Religion is just a cab ride to fairy land. I'm not disputing that religion has been imperative to the development of humanity, I'm just saying that finally, the need for it on a grandios scale has subsided. Sadly, it gained such momentum (I believe the description of a meme is appropriate) that though it is basically pointless if you have the intellect at this point, but its beat goes on.

Your parents likely indoctrinated you. Maybe you were "looking for answers" and bullshit satiated your desire. Eh, I don't feel like going any deeper with that thought. Think about how a mental virus would spread and boom, religion seems to fit the model.

Originally posted by airavata

don't hit back with "what about missiles and guns etc."

Okay.

Originally posted by airavata

i'm talking about conviction and faith to fight personal battles.

Hehe, battles based on moral objectivity and religious bullshit or like street fights? Oh, you mean the strength to survive cancer and that kind of shit? Well, it does that for some people sure, but that's a whole other thread isn't it? For instance, if I was a christian and got cancer, shouldn't I be pleased that "god is calling me home'? Would I then fight the battle to let the cancer run its course so I could be closer to god in heaven sooner? While this example isn't perfect, I'd hope you could wrap your brain around my point. If you're religious.. you're steeped in some serious bullshit though, so I have to doubt you can.

Originally posted by airavata

"religion is the opium of the people"-- Karl Marx.

You quote that like it's a good thing. I really don't think it is. Marx certainly didn't. Socialist bastard that he was.

 

[SnakeLord]

What, exactly is it, you hate about "God" and "religion"?

I dont hate anything, it's not my style.... well i do hate coffee flavoured chocolate but aside from that i'm not a hating kind of person.

However to fully answer your question you must see it from 'outside' your own field of view, your own line of sight or you'd never understand and never agree.

When people find a new girlfriend/boyfriend they often end up neglecting their friends and stuff like that. They would never realise how they are- no matter who told them how it actually was.

It works in the same way here.

There's nothing to say their having a girlfriend is wrong- it's just the way in which they conduct themselves to others.

I've explained now 6 times or so the reason of this post and did promise to draw pictures if i needed to, however i can;t draw to well so im gonna attempt a final final time.....

Science works for everyone- it serves mankind. Religion on the other hand serves a select few or 'those lucky enough to find the truth'.

You can even see it in the bible: God himself picks select people, (Abraham, Moses, Noah etc), and looks after them. The rest of mankind he drowns, destroys their homes and villages etc.

Medicine will save a tramp, a rich man, a mass murderer. It is not biased- it saves everyone regardless.

To the religious institutions is is a 'battle of good vs evil'. Those of us who have not seen the light are the evil. We're the sinners, we're the ones who will not get eternal life unless we find and love god/jesus.

So again i simply state i think religion should take a leaf from the book of science. It should serve all mankind, not just the lucky few. We shouldn't be branded as sinners, regarded as evil or whatever else simply because we require more in life than the average easily pleased human being.

 

[Chava Iola]

Well, let's see if I can give you an arguement that won't make you restate your point. Let's see if I understand it...

Originally posted by SnakeLord
Science works for everyone- it serves mankind. Religion on the other hand serves a select few or 'those lucky enough to find the truth'.

You can even see it in the bible: God himself picks select people, (Abraham, Moses, Noah etc), and looks after them. The rest of mankind he drowns, destroys their homes and villages etc.

Medicine will save a tramp, a rich man, a mass murderer. It is not biased- it saves everyone regardless.

I disagree. Science may have the capacity to be serve all and be unbiased, but so too does religion. You yourself state that in the end of this post, as I'll get to later.

In your example of medicine, you imply that "a tramp, a rich man, a mass murderer" all actually have equal opportunities. This is just not true. A "tramp" might not be able to afford to go to the best doctors to receive the best treatment, thereby not being saved by science. But, disregarding this point, and pretending that statement has no fallacies, you go on to imply that religion is a biased institution.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but part of the point of having free will, is to be able to make one's own decisions. That said, does not everyone have the same opportunity to "accept God," or whatever sort of religious faith. We as human beings, assuming your example is true, all have the same basic capacities. Therefore, it is our own free will that decides whether or not we consider ourselves to be of a particular religious belief.

So, you are either wrong about science or wrong about religion. I'll let you pick whichever you'd prefer.

Originally posted by Snakelord
So again i simply state i think religion should take a leaf from the book of science. It should serve all mankind, not just the lucky few. We shouldn't be branded as sinners, regarded as evil or whatever else simply because we require more in life than the average easily pleased human being.

First of all, I don't approve of the implications of your last sentence. It makes you out to be a hypocrite, since you disapprove of religions for making snap, as you claim, incorrect judgement, then make one of your own.

Secondly, you make a very generalized statement here, which is never a good policy for any argument. You are saying that those of us who claim to have religion automatically outcast those who don't. This weakens your point, since it again makes you come off as a hypocrite.

And Finally, your last sentence does serve some purpose in your post: it proves your opponent's point! Or at the very least, my point. You're statement that "we require more in life..." shows that you do have access to some religion, and you've chosen not to accept it. How is that any different than, to continue your medical analogy, someone who choses, knowing that medicine could keep them alive, to be a DNR patient? There were resources available and they chose to ignore it. So your point about religion being totally biased is a fallacy. In fact, it is the people who profess it, or don't, who are biased. But this does not mean that science is any less so, since it too is controlled by, in many cases, the same human beings.

 

[Raithere]

listening is hell itself

Originally posted by SnakeLord
Sure it has its good sides- sunday meetings, barbecues, hymn singing and so on but the core of religion is to promote fear among the masses.

No, no, no. :shudder: Whomever is responsible for those horrific hymns (at least most the ones sung in the services I've been to) is certainly being raked over the coals in Hell by the Devil himself (where they most certainly pipe in Musak versions of those very same hymns). If you wish to point out a good side of religious music I suggest Bach.

~Raithere

 

[SnakeLord]

In your example of medicine, you imply that "a tramp, a rich man, a mass murderer" all actually have equal opportunities. This is just not true. A "tramp" might not be able to afford to go to the best doctors to receive the best treatment, thereby not being saved by science.

Well in my country people get saved for free regardless of their financial position or otherwise. Unlike America and certain other places we do not pay for medical treatment, we do not need insurance or anything like that. Many people look down on my little country- but at least we look after our own regardless of their 'lot' in life.

Ok you said diesregard it but i thought i'd point it out anyway.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but part of the point of having free will, is to be able to make one's own decisions. That said, does not everyone have the same opportunity to "accept God," or whatever sort of religious faith. We as human beings, assuming your example is true, all have the same basic capacities. Therefore, it is our own free will that decides whether or not we consider ourselves to be of a particular religious belief.

You guys love going out of context. This has nothing to do with free will.

Let's assume for a second it does....

You have free will to believe leprechauns exist. Why don't you?

Answer that question and we'll work from your response.

We could also mention many people do not have free will to choose god/jesus depending on culture, upbringing etc etc, but for now i'd just like to see your answer.

So, you are either wrong about science or wrong about religion. I'll let you pick whichever you'd prefer.

I'm not neccesarily wrong about either, you jump to conclusions too hastily.

First of all, I don't approve of the implications of your last sentence. It makes you out to be a hypocrite, since you disapprove of religions for making snap, as you claim, incorrect judgement, then make one of your own.

I really couldn't care if my sentences got your personal approvals or not, you're not my boss.

You have faith in a big invisible being. end of.

We can all also have faith in a big invisible being but we require more, we require proof.

My statement still stands- your certificate of approval given or not.

I can understand the quick jump to defence of what i said- but it doesn't make me a hypocrite. I give everything the benefit of 'might be, might not'. That's the fairest position to be in.

I might be able to fly, i might not- i don't just jump off a cliff. I require proof before jumping. The religious man just jumps.

Secondly, you make a very generalized statement here, which is never a good policy for any argument. You are saying that those of us who claim to have religion automatically outcast those who don't. This weakens your point, since it again makes you come off as a hypocrite.

It doesn't weaken anything if you take the time to read it. Of course you'd have to see it from this side of the bridge to understand it.

And Finally, your last sentence does serve some purpose in your post: it proves your opponent's point! Or at the very least, my point.

O....k, let's see...

[/quote]shows that you do have access to some religion, and you've chosen not to accept it.[/quote]

Seems you're actually making my point. It's not about 'accepting'. It's about truth. Things remain a 'might be, might not be'. Until such time where there is proof it will remain so. You wont understand that- to you it's not about searching for truth- wanna know why?........ You've already apparently found the truth so why would you be searching for it?? Your claims to having the truth is not proof enough for everyone else, thus they still search. Now, i'm sure there was a time in life where you didn't know the truth. You chose one of a possible hundreds of thousands of different 'absolute' truths. That to you is now truth, undeniable.

By saying "we require more in life" i mean this...

We do NOT just, (in your own words), accept something without the facts. There's 199,999,999 different absolute undeniable truths out there. You managed to pick between them yet cannot prove it, cannot substantiate yours above any of the other millions. That's not good enough for some of us, thus we require more.

How is that any different than, to continue your medical analogy, someone who choses, knowing that medicine could keep them alive, to be a DNR patient? There were resources available and they chose to ignore it.

Tell you what..... let's put it into religious perspective for a moment:

Doctor: "Excuse me <patient x>, you are dying and in need of medical treatment. On this table we have 23,000 different vials of medicine. One of them will save you, the other 22,999 will not. You choose. I would suggest you take this one"

Doctor 2: "No no! Take this one... the other one will kill you for sure"

Doctor 3: "No wait! Those two are liars! you must want to survive and then you will pick the right one."

and so on and so forth.

So your point about religion being totally biased is a fallacy.

Absolutely not. Can you think of one religion that specifically says anyone from any religion shall be saved? Does a vicar in church say: "Fear not ye Jews, god loves you too- he does not mind if you deny jesus, or pray to a different god, and neither do we."...

Well? It's not a 'live and let live' policy religion works by. The only way religion aims to help everyone is to convert and drag them away from their god to your god. However considering your god has no more credibility than their god anyway it is pure biased self righteousness.

In fact, it is the people who profess it, or don't, who are biased. But this does not mean that science is any less so, since it too is controlled by, in many cases, the same human beings.

Well i've already repeated my case far too many times to do it again. If you didn't get the point the first 7 times round chances are you never will.

 

[nkumar]

every religon is not unsientific

there is a difference between religion and religion.All religions are not equally unscientific. As science is based on proofs. No can prove that god is not there. No one can say with proof that he or she was not having any birth before this birth.nasticism is not supported by science.many religious saying are proven to be scientific. Others have psychological or philosphical relivance.There are certain phenomenas which can be termed as sprithual sciences like reiki, lama fera, vipassna ,Falun Gong ,yoga ,etc