Because then they grow into people with no cognitive functioning, allowing angles and demons to become prevalent in their lives !
soo sorry to disappoint you push, but i still have better strength to weight ratios then 65% of my age group and probably better than 65% of the general population ; )
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Soo sorry to disappoint you push, but i still have better strength to weight ratios then 65% of my age group and probably better than 65% of the general population ; ) [/quote]
I’m not too sure I’d brag about that 65% figure…
I went to Catholic school for 12 years and I’d be willing to wager a huge amount of money that my high school would place higher in math, science, and engineering than the vast majority of schools in the US. Scoring well in these subjects is highly correlated with higher socioeconomic status of the student body, not some emotional appeal that religion somehow causes anti-intellectualism.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
Exactly, science is objective, methodical and driven by a spirit of relentless inquiry. It begins with the supposition that we do not know the answers. It recognizes it’s own limitations and seeks to surpass them. That is precisely what makes it so useful in solving a multitude of problems.
This is why I find it so odd when people who claim to espouse science as the basis of their world view champion that view with rabid emotionalism, prejudice and the dogmatic certainty that they have or will have all the answers, or at least enough of the answers that the questions that they can’t answer don’t matter.
This attitude seems diametrically opposed to what science is supposed to stand for. How is this different from the religious person whose faith teaches love but whose actions show hate? Because science is “true” and religion isn’t? Even if that’s accurate so what?
Whether your beliefs are factually accurate or not, of principle importance is how they cause you see and act in the world.[/quote]
Science is a method and stands for nothing. Most religions don’t teach love, they teach morals, perception and ethics. The issue most “science people” have with religious individuals is that they tend to challenge science and it’s progress, and impose their unsubstantiated “beliefs” on the world.
I don’t need religion to treat my fellow (wo)man well and live a good life. So why subscribe to an archaic method of thinking if it’s not necessary? Especially if this archaic method of thinking also happens to hurt humanity’s ability to progress technologically and scientifically?
Would you agree that the arguments for or against abortion should revolve around the baby/fetuses cognitive functions and person-hood or should it be based off of scripture?
What should happen to people who refuse to have their kids medically treated because of religious beliefs? Are they right in thinking this way?
Is magic real? Should people who perform magic be burned?
“Even if that’s accurate so what?”. Why in the fuck would you subscribe to a false way of life knowing it’s false? So what if medicine cures people, I’ll just pray to God? This is a dangerous way of seeing things and it seems like you’re making excuses to justify religion. “Ya, this is all made up stuff and some of it is really bad, and we actually have ways of verifying certain things about the universe but so what?”. So what? So it affects all of Humanity! The fuck are you thinking?
“Whether your beliefs are factually accurate or not, of principle importance is how they cause you see and act in the world”. It may of principle importance, but it doesn’t make factually accurate beliefs not important. If you want your kids to believe that black people have no soul, that prayer cures disease, that whatever happens is because God intended it so and that they have no control over life, that the earth is X amount of years old, etc, then go for it. Just keep them away from my kids.
DOUBLE POST.
Science can’t answer all the questions. Where we come from, where it all began, etc. We might never be able to answer those questions. Seeking the answer in a false belief system doesn’t help us get any closer to the answer. It may provide you some comfort, but maybe we can teach the next generations that there is nothing scary or sad about death, and it’s just the way things are.
Maybe we will just never know if there is a higher being. The millions that came before us all never got an answer in their life times.
Yes, it is an interesting question. It drives some people insane trying to figure out the ifs and buts of us existing, God, and the universe. However, some of these questions aren’t very important. They are not questions to which we need answers today or tomorrow. They are not questions to which we may ever find the answer. So why not focus on the reality in front of us, and try to create a better world for tomorrow? The world isn’t perfect, I know, but religion is just another reason for people to divide from one another.
Thank you
Vote Nixon!
You’re creating a false dichotomy and using examples of religious fanatics to back your claims. “Science people” and “religious people” are often the same person. The issue of abortion being based on either scripture or cognitive function is giving two options to a question with serious moral implications. Refusing medical intervention and purposely ending a life are not the same thing. Deciding life starts with cognitive function is completely arbitrary.
Christianity is the largest religion in the world. Christianity teaches love. I know this for a fact.
USMC, yeah. Poor choice of population !
Push, dont quite have them yet.
CroatianRage: so you support Incest? Adam and Eve where the first, so how is that incest working for you.
God is Loving? Yeah, and flooded the world killing everyone except noah,
so that Noah could have sex with his entire family to once again
populate the world. Gotta love that incest !
I understand that science does NOT have all the answers…
“and I am comfortable with that”
Well, this thread was an interesting read. It left me with a few more questions than I expected, so I’ll have to do more reading and thinking.
With respect to the religion-vs-science debate, I have, and still am, on the science side of things. Not the “science has everything figured out and is undoubtedly true”, but the “science has produced a number of very useful models and a continually evolving body of knowledge” side. A theory is still a theory, and belief in a theory’s correctness is still a belief.
The two biggest issues I have with the religious approach (to the topics covered by science and other secular studies) are 1) that in their pure forms, many religious views are in effect “set in stone” and do not adapt to a growing body of knowledge and scientific/intellectual development, and 2) that just about everything is anthropomorphized. Often I think the anthropomorphizing gets in the way of further study, especially when the simplistic “because God wanted it to happen” argument is used. There might be a one-in-a-zillion chance that your house was the one hit by lightning, and it’s just as impressive and rare and hard to explain with science as it is with religion.
Of course there’s room for intelligence, intellectual growth and religion to coexist, but the majority of the “religion” I’ve been around hasn’t been that way. Granted, I spent a number of years around very vocal “Christians” in the Bible Belt (esp Southern Missouri, and less so in Alabama/Tennessee), areas that would probably be just as anti-intellectual and driven by groupthink with or without religion – it just happened that the churches were where a lot of that manifested. The environment was very polarizing into pro- and anti- religious sentiment.
If you take away those people and the churches and their policies and focus on religious thought itself, it muddles some things up a bit. Anyway, in the end, there’s some stuff I need to examine for myself that I haven’t thought about for a long time.
So thanks for the discussion (even the stupid parts).
Fuck I hate when people say shit like this.
Please read:
“Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word “theory”, which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).[5]”
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Fuck I hate when people say shit like this.
Please read:
“Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word “theory”, which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).[5]”[/quote]
I’m sorry, how is that any different than what I said?
EDIT: I thought I was pretty clear in implying that while scientific knowledge is not “truth”, but still one of the strongest models of reality that we have.
EDIT 2: If you want to cite wikipedia…
“As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.”
and
“Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given.”
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Seeking the answer in a false belief system doesn’t help us get any closer to the answer. It may provide you some comfort[…][/quote]
Is that not a worthy goal in and of itself? Is there not value in being part of a community that is generally more at ease, regardless of how that goal was achieved?
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Seeking the answer in a false belief system doesn’t help us get any closer to the answer. It may provide you some comfort[…][/quote]
Is that not a worthy goal in and of itself? Is there not value in being part of a community that is generally more at ease, regardless of how that goal was achieved?
[/quote]
No, because it’s all about a state of mind. If you teach your children that death is a natural part of life, and not something to be feared, then you can attain the same “ease”/
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
Exactly, science is objective, methodical and driven by a spirit of relentless inquiry. It begins with the supposition that we do not know the answers. It recognizes it’s own limitations and seeks to surpass them. That is precisely what makes it so useful in solving a multitude of problems.
This is why I find it so odd when people who claim to espouse science as the basis of their world view champion that view with rabid emotionalism, prejudice and the dogmatic certainty that they have or will have all the answers, or at least enough of the answers that the questions that they can’t answer don’t matter.
This attitude seems diametrically opposed to what science is supposed to stand for. How is this different from the religious person whose faith teaches love but whose actions show hate? Because science is “true” and religion isn’t? Even if that’s accurate so what?
Whether your beliefs are factually accurate or not, of principle importance is how they cause you see and act in the world.[/quote]
Science is a method and stands for nothing. Most religions don’t teach love, they teach morals, perception and ethics. The issue most “science people” have with religious individuals is that they tend to challenge science and it’s progress, and impose their unsubstantiated “beliefs” on the world.
I don’t need religion to treat my fellow (wo)man well and live a good life. So why subscribe to an archaic method of thinking if it’s not necessary? Especially if this archaic method of thinking also happens to hurt humanity’s ability to progress technologically and scientifically?
Would you agree that the arguments for or against abortion should revolve around the baby/fetuses cognitive functions and person-hood or should it be based off of scripture?
What should happen to people who refuse to have their kids medically treated because of religious beliefs? Are they right in thinking this way?
Is magic real? Should people who perform magic be burned?
“Even if that’s accurate so what?”. Why in the fuck would you subscribe to a false way of life knowing it’s false? So what if medicine cures people, I’ll just pray to God? This is a dangerous way of seeing things and it seems like you’re making excuses to justify religion. “Ya, this is all made up stuff and some of it is really bad, and we actually have ways of verifying certain things about the universe but so what?”. So what? So it affects all of Humanity! The fuck are you thinking?
“Whether your beliefs are factually accurate or not, of principle importance is how they cause you see and act in the world”. It may of principle importance, but it doesn’t make factually accurate beliefs not important. If you want your kids to believe that black people have no soul, that prayer cures disease, that whatever happens is because God intended it so and that they have no control over life, that the earth is X amount of years old, etc, then go for it. Just keep them away from my kids.[/quote]
Alright, Science doesn’t stand for anything, it’s just a method. Tell me why rabid emotionalism, prejudice and the dogmatic certainty are not detrimental to clarity of thought and inquiry and basic human relations?
If you or anyone else feels they don’t benefit from religion/faith/the ability to consider the possibility of something important beyond the scope of our knowledge, more power to you. Have the decency to accept that other people may benefit from those things.
Examples of people benefiting from those things are at least as plentiful as examples of people being harmed by them. You don’t need religion to be good? OK. Evil people don’t need it to be evil. As I said in my earlier post (which you agreed with), it’s not a reason, just an excuse.
I agree that arguments around abortion should very much revolve around secular, humanistic concerns. I happen to think very valid arguments could be made on that score. Yet if you express any opinion against abortion, you are immediately shouted down as a religious nut job.
“The fuck I’m thinking” is that some things cannot be objectively proven or dis-proven. Let’s take God out of the mix. What if I choose to believe that my life has meaning and things happen for a reason. This belief causes me to feel happier, handle adversity better and to get more desireable results in my life. I don’t care if you or anyone else believes it, it works for me. You cannot prove to me this isn’t so, believing is preferable to not believing, so I believe.
Turns out (of course it could never be proven but let’s just say) that the objective fact is that life is meaningless and it’s just a bunch of random shit that happens by accident. This belief causes me to feel despair and to act out of petty self interest. Which belief is better?
If my someone’s wife has cancer and they are getting the best care available, how is it any skin at all off your or anyone else’ ass if that person takes comfort in prayer and the idea that when their loved one dies it is not simply the end of all they are? Maybe it has zero impact on the outcome but it helps them deal. How does this harm you or anyone else? I don’t need to “make excuses to justify religion”. It’s a basic human right that others fought and died for.
It affects all humanity? I seem to recall you saying that religion is the worst thing to ever happen to humanity or some such. How about greed? Imperialism? Fossil fuels? What about Science? Without that maybe we’d still be living in a pre-agrarian utopia. Lower birth rates and higher infant mortality would protect the planet from the scourge of over-population and nationalism. The inability to maintain standing armies would preclude meaningful warfare of any scale, let alone nuclear. Plastic particles wouldn’t outnumber plankton in the oceans and there would be no garbage in space. I personally dig science, but hey…
Shit man, every sword we have cuts both ways. Why would religion be any different?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
Exactly, science is objective, methodical and driven by a spirit of relentless inquiry. It begins with the supposition that we do not know the answers. It recognizes it’s own limitations and seeks to surpass them. That is precisely what makes it so useful in solving a multitude of problems.
This is why I find it so odd when people who claim to espouse science as the basis of their world view champion that view with rabid emotionalism, prejudice and the dogmatic certainty that they have or will have all the answers, or at least enough of the answers that the questions that they can’t answer don’t matter.
This attitude seems diametrically opposed to what science is supposed to stand for. How is this different from the religious person whose faith teaches love but whose actions show hate? Because science is “true” and religion isn’t? Even if that’s accurate so what?
Whether your beliefs are factually accurate or not, of principle importance is how they cause you see and act in the world.[/quote]
Science is a method and stands for nothing. Most religions don’t teach love, they teach morals, perception and ethics. The issue most “science people” have with religious individuals is that they tend to challenge science and it’s progress, and impose their unsubstantiated “beliefs” on the world.
I don’t need religion to treat my fellow (wo)man well and live a good life. So why subscribe to an archaic method of thinking if it’s not necessary? Especially if this archaic method of thinking also happens to hurt humanity’s ability to progress technologically and scientifically?
Would you agree that the arguments for or against abortion should revolve around the baby/fetuses cognitive functions and person-hood or should it be based off of scripture?
What should happen to people who refuse to have their kids medically treated because of religious beliefs? Are they right in thinking this way?
Is magic real? Should people who perform magic be burned?
“Even if that’s accurate so what?”. Why in the fuck would you subscribe to a false way of life knowing it’s false? So what if medicine cures people, I’ll just pray to God? This is a dangerous way of seeing things and it seems like you’re making excuses to justify religion. “Ya, this is all made up stuff and some of it is really bad, and we actually have ways of verifying certain things about the universe but so what?”. So what? So it affects all of Humanity! The fuck are you thinking?
“Whether your beliefs are factually accurate or not, of principle importance is how they cause you see and act in the world”. It may of principle importance, but it doesn’t make factually accurate beliefs not important. If you want your kids to believe that black people have no soul, that prayer cures disease, that whatever happens is because God intended it so and that they have no control over life, that the earth is X amount of years old, etc, then go for it. Just keep them away from my kids.[/quote]
Alright, Science doesn’t stand for anything, it’s just a method. Tell me why rabid emotionalism, prejudice and the dogmatic certainty are not detrimental to clarity of thought and inquiry and basic human relations?
If you or anyone else feels they don’t benefit from religion/faith/the ability to consider the possibility of something important beyond the scope of our knowledge, more power to you. Have the decency to accept that other people may benefit from those things.
Examples of people benefiting from those things are at least as plentiful as examples of people being harmed by them. You don’t need religion to be good? OK. Evil people don’t need it to be evil. As I said in my earlier post (which you agreed with), it’s not a reason, just an excuse.
I agree that arguments around abortion should very much revolve around secular, humanistic concerns. I happen to think very valid arguments could be made on that score. Yet if you express any opinion against abortion, you are immediately shouted down as a religious nut job.
“The fuck I’m thinking” is that some things cannot be objectively proven or dis-proven. Let’s take God out of the mix. What if I choose to believe that my life has meaning and things happen for a reason. This belief causes me to feel happier, handle adversity better and to get more desireable results in my life. I don’t care if you or anyone else believes it, it works for me. You cannot prove to me this isn’t so, believing is preferable to not believing, so I believe.
Turns out (of course it could never be proven but let’s just say) that the objective fact is that life is meaningless and it’s just a bunch of random shit that happens by accident. This belief causes me to feel despair and to act out of petty self interest. Which belief is better?
If my someone’s wife has cancer and they are getting the best care available, how is it any skin at all off your or anyone else’ ass if that person takes comfort in prayer and the idea that when their loved one dies it is not simply the end of all they are? Maybe it has zero impact on the outcome but it helps them deal. How does this harm you or anyone else? I don’t need to “make excuses to justify religion”. It’s a basic human right that others fought and died for.
It affects all humanity? I seem to recall you saying that religion is the worst thing to ever happen to humanity or some such. How about greed? Imperialism? Fossil fuels? What about Science? Without that maybe we’d still be living in a pre-agrarian utopia. Lower birth rates and higher infant mortality would protect the planet from the scourge of over-population and nationalism. The inability to maintain standing armies would preclude meaningful warfare of any scale, let alone nuclear. Plastic particles wouldn’t outnumber plankton in the oceans and there would be no garbage in space. I personally dig science, but hey…
Shit man, every sword we have cuts both ways. Why would religion be any different?[/quote]
Your post is commendable but you are arguing with a close-minded, arrogant dunce who couldn’t think his way through a game of tic-tac-toe.[/quote]
Well Push, whether that’s true or not I’m arguing primarily to refine my own ideas for my own edification. If anybody else reading happens to find anything I’ve written thought provoking in the least, that’s just a bonus.
Blaze sounds about as fanatic as Dawkins.
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Seeking the answer in a false belief system doesn’t help us get any closer to the answer. It may provide you some comfort[…][/quote]
Is that not a worthy goal in and of itself? Is there not value in being part of a community that is generally more at ease, regardless of how that goal was achieved?
[/quote]
No, because it’s all about a state of mind. If you teach your children that death is a natural part of life, and not something to be feared, then you can attain the same “ease”/[/quote]
Are you implying Christianity teaches people to fear death? I must of missed that sermon.