[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Oisín

Wow, I didn't know inter-species dating was so common and accepted in Canada.

Inter-species?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Oisín

Debatable. Whether or not you actually to people, in so many words, that their religion is 'wrong', your general attitude towards religion (Christianity in particular) does give that exact impression.

Yes, but by definition those of us who don't believe in Christianity think that Christians are wrong. Of course our attitudes reflect that opinion. This is true of absolutely everybody. If you think something then you necessarily think that everyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong.

Some people (myself included for a long time) simply fail to acknowledge that, barring actual indisputable proof, no belief is any better or worse than any other. Yes I think that my ideas about the nature of the universe are right and that Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, &c are wrong. But I can no more prove my position than they can and so I acknowledge their beliefs as equal to my own. This of course requires me to be secure in my beliefs, and only having held them for a good portion of my life and having yet to see anything that contradicts them have I arrived at this state. Prior to that, when i had more recently come to my current beliefs after rejecting those I had grown up with I was understandably less secure in what I thought and therefore more prone to putting down others beliefs.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

He filed for divorce?

I would have thought child services got involved also.

Not as far as I know, but if he did...

[RGB]

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Inter-species?

Please don't tell me that you completely missed my oh-so-well-thought-out and clever little witticism?

It was a mere play on the fact that you mistyped 'anti-Christian rally' as 'ant-Christian rally', and consequently (when I asked how many Christian ants you knew) went on to say that you'd dated two Christian ants.

*sigh*

Funnies are never funny when explained...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Yes, but by definition those of us who don't believe in Christianity think that Christians are wrong. Of course our attitudes reflect that opinion. This is true of absolutely everybody. If you think something then you necessarily think that everyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong.

Some people (myself included for a long time) simply fail to acknowledge that, barring actual indisputable proof, no belief is any better or worse than any other. Yes I think that my ideas about the nature of the universe are right and that Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, &c are wrong. But I can no more prove my position than they can and so I acknowledge their beliefs as equal to my own. This of course requires me to be secure in my beliefs, and only having held them for a good portion of my life and having yet to see anything that contradicts them have I arrived at this state. Prior to that, when i had more recently come to my current beliefs after rejecting those I had grown up with I was understandably less secure in what I thought and therefore more prone to putting down others beliefs.

Right on brotha

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Yes, but by definition those of us who don't believe in Christianity think that Christians are wrong. Of course our attitudes reflect that opinion. This is true of absolutely everybody. If you think something then you necessarily think that everyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong.

Absolutely, I can only agree with that—but as you yourself point out later on in your post, the difference lies in how (or whether or not) you let this inner belief shine through to other people. [Good grief, did I just talk about an atheist 'letting his belief shine through' to Christians? Somewhere, a Christian terminologist is rolling in his grave.]

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Not as far as I know, but if he did...

Oh no he can't, because Christians don't believe in divorce (That is why they do it so often).

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Oh no he can't, because Christians don't believe in divorce (That is why they do it so often).

Stop confusing all Christians with Catholics. You do this often.

[Face Ache]

Some people run on narrow rails. This video shows what happens when you derail them.

Those poor kids.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by Oisín

Psychos like her exist both within and without religious circles.

News to me. Seems like anybody I've ever known who was batshit insane was also very religious.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Yes, but by definition those of us who don't believe in Christianity think that Christians are wrong. Of course our attitudes reflect that opinion. This is true of absolutely everybody. If you think something then you necessarily think that everyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong.

I would say the difference comes down to where your ideas come from. I base my viewpoint on logic, science, reason, and things that make sense. Organized religion IS man-made. You can plot religion on a time line and see how it evolves to keep people happy, and see how some 'versions' rise and decline in popularity. Given enough time, eventually any religion dies out because it is replaced with a new religion. Sometimes this happens and the religion even keeps the same name. Early christianity was all about Jesus's life and miracles. Catholosicsm turned his story into one of death, suffering, and guilt. A few hundred years ago, if you disagreed with the church and said that the earth was rotating around the sun, you were harassed and sometimes even burned at the stake. Today, generally even Christians believe that evolution is true. So how can one be Christian and believe in evolution? That's a good question, considering the bible flat out disagrees with the concept on almost any level..... yet you WILL find that some people 'call themselves' christian, and believe in evolution. How? They aren't real christians, according to the church. They're merely making their own version of said religion, because the status quo religion is too stupid. It is ALWAYS changing.

To me, if you study history, you can learn about so many religions that literally hundreds of thousands of people not only believed in, but fought to the death for. And yet, we have people in today's society who claim that Jesus IS the son of god, no questions asked. A few thousand years from now, our ancestors will look back on people like Salty and Zimphire and think of them as simple minded fools who believe any wacky contradictory story just becuase they were raised into it. It's insane. Hence, sure, if disagree with Christians, but it's not because 'god told me to' or I feel they're going to hell, it's because they are purposely not using their brains to their full potential, they are ignoring logic when it comes to the issue of faith because they've been brainwashed since birth, and that pisses me off. They're smart people, but they're choosing not to think. In terms of Jim Bob from Nebraska, I don't really care what religion he is since he's probably a dumbass anyway....but hwen I see intelligent people choosing not to think, it irritates me.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Stop confusing all Christians with Catholics. You do this often.

That's because catholics are hardcore. You're just a watered down version of them.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

That's because catholics are hardcore. You're just a watered down version of them.

Uhhh... you sir are confused. Catholics are pretty liberal. At least under Catholicism the Pope does not have supreme authority.

I can think of many sects of Christianity that are much much much much more conservative.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

That's because catholics are hardcore. You're just a watered down version of them.

If he is watered down we should all be afraid

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

If he is watered down we should all be afraid

[Fyre4ce]

...and people wonder why foreigners hate America. My god, I hope if they're aliens out there they never find us because they'd be right to exterminate us if they ever saw that video.

[tooki]

AAAAAAAAH!

tooki

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Why would the Lord choose a warrior that is grossly overweigh and nuts. She isn't going to do much damage unless they launch her out of catapult.

[11011001]

Here is a faster download from google:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...rading+spouses

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by goMac

Uhhh... you sir are confused. Catholics are pretty liberal. At least under Catholicism the Pope does not have supreme authority.

I can think of many sects of Christianity that are much much much much more conservative.

They don't matter. Catholicism is basically the oldest biggest strongest sect around. Without them, I doubt Christianity would be near what it is today.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Why would the Lord choose a warrior that is grossly overweigh and nuts. She isn't going to do much damage unless they launch her out of catapult.

The lord always makes stupid decisions according to people who believe in him. Hence why he put all those dinosaur fossils in our earth, just to trick people!

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by tooki

AAAAAAAAH!

tooki

I think a new internet meme has just been created.
This has MAJOR potential.
She could be the next Star Wars (light saber) kid.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I think a new internet meme has just been created.
This has MAJOR potential.
She could be the next Star Wars (light saber) kid.

But she's from TV.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

The lord always makes stupid decisions according to people who believe in him. Hence why he put all those dinosaur fossils in our earth, just to trick people!

Not only that but he mad her fat, nutty and unattractive. Just the thing you would look for in one of your warriors.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Dude you just don't understand god's ineffable wisdom!!!

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Not only that but he mad her fat, nutty and unattractive. Just the thing you would look for in one of your warriors.

Yeah, I know. You'd think God would want to choose someone a little more charismatic to try to convert people to Christianity.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Dude you just don't understand god's ineffable wisdom!!!

I do! Floods/Tsunami's are caused by God punishing gay people, never-mind if it takes out children and women.. everyone is a sinner anyway.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

Yeah, I know. You'd think God would want to choose someone a little more charismatic to try to convert people to Christianity.

You sound like a dark sided one!!!

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

I would say the difference comes down to where your ideas come from. I base my viewpoint on logic, science, reason, and things that make sense. Organized religion IS man-made. You can plot religion on a time line and see how it evolves to keep people happy, and see how some 'versions' rise and decline in popularity. Given enough time, eventually any religion dies out because it is replaced with a new religion. Sometimes this happens and the religion even keeps the same name. Early christianity was all about Jesus's life and miracles. Catholosicsm turned his story into one of death, suffering, and guilt. A few hundred years ago, if you disagreed with the church and said that the earth was rotating around the sun, you were harassed and sometimes even burned at the stake. Today, generally even Christians believe that evolution is true. So how can one be Christian and believe in evolution? That's a good question, considering the bible flat out disagrees with the concept on almost any level..... yet you WILL find that some people 'call themselves' christian, and believe in evolution. How? They aren't real christians, according to the church. They're merely making their own version of said religion, because the status quo religion is too stupid. It is ALWAYS changing.

My views were (I'd like to think) arrived at through logic, reason, and science as well. But I admit the possibility that human perception and intelligence might not be up to the task of fully understanding the universe. I don't see how to deny that could be anything other than hubris. If we are, as I believe we are, merely animals that gained intelligence through evolutionary forces as a tool to aid in our survival, how could I blindly accept the assertion that said intelligence is enough greater than that of a dog or a horse to truly understand the world around me?

And yes I agree that religion that is man-made, but it is still based on human observation just as science is. That's why they both are constantly changing and adapting themselves to fit current thought. That's why they both have strong conservative influences that refuse to accept change and cling to out-moded ideas far beyond their time. Again it is only our arrogance that makes us assume that we do or even can truly understand what we see. Maybe the Earth really is flat and it's merely a trick of perception that makes it appear round. I certainly would dispute that, but I would also acknowledge that human perception is imperfect and can and does make mistakes. I can't in good conscience put down a person who doesn't make the choice to implicitly trust their senses.

To me, if you study history, you can learn about so many religions that literally hundreds of thousands of people not only believed in, but fought to the death for. And yet, we have people in today's society who claim that Jesus IS the son of god, no questions asked. A few thousand years from now, our ancestors will look back on people like Salty and Zimphire and think of them as simple minded fools who believe any wacky contradictory story just becuase they were raised into it. It's insane. Hence, sure, if disagree with Christians, but it's not because 'god told me to' or I feel they're going to hell, it's because they are purposely not using their brains to their full potential, they are ignoring logic when it comes to the issue of faith because they've been brainwashed since birth, and that pisses me off. They're smart people, but they're choosing not to think. In terms of Jim Bob from Nebraska, I don't really care what religion he is since he's probably a dumbass anyway....but hwen I see intelligent people choosing not to think, it irritates me.

Definitely I agree that the sheer volume of religions essentially eliminates the credibility of any single one. But then again the fact that no one can agree on any system suggests that it would be foolish to assume that mine is any more right than theirs. Yes I think they're wrong, but that doesn't make me better than them because there's a good chance I'm wrong too. Even if my beliefs are entirely defined by scientific observation and study there's a good chance that some future observations will come along and disprove the current leading theories.

There is certainly a difference between science and religion when it comes to their approaches towards finding the truth. However in then end they're both tautological because the one assumes the preeminence of human perception and the other assumes the preeminence of the divine. Neither of which can be proved because both are the contexts from which we view the world (according to your particular bent).

[goMac]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

They don't matter. Catholicism is basically the oldest biggest strongest sect around. Without them, I doubt Christianity would be near what it is today.

Old != Conservative

I've heard a lot of Catholic stuff which is very non-traditional.

Remember, Catholics are in a minority in the US.

[tooki]

OK, enough religion discussion. This isn't the Poli Lounge. Talk about the lady being crazy, but leave the theological discussion out of here.

tooki

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

My views were (I'd like to think) arrived at through logic, reason, and science as well. But I admit the possibility that human perception and intelligence might not be up to the task of fully understanding the universe. I don't see how to deny that could be anything other than hubris. If we are, as I believe we are, merely animals that gained intelligence through evolutionary forces as a tool to aid in our survival, how could I blindly accept the assertion that said intelligence is enough greater than that of a dog or a horse to truly understand the world around me?

Exactly my point. Why the hell do people claim to know hte answers with their stupid religious texts?! It's like a microbe living in the digestive system of the world's largest whale claiming that he knows how everything works. The idea that Zimphire or Salty could look me in the eye and tell me they KNOW Jesus was hte son of god and he died for our sins is just hilarious.

And yes I agree that religion that is man-made, but it is still based on human observation just as science is. That's why they both are constantly changing and adapting themselves to fit current thought. That's why they both have strong conservative influences that refuse to accept change and cling to out-moded ideas far beyond their time.

I have to disagree. Sure, there might be a small minority of scientists who resist change, but the vast majority are FOR change, for a better life, for better everything. Religions on the other hand... I mean, hell, they don't evne change their architecture! Christian churches are usually based on the design of buildings in Rome. When you compare the two, science is EXTREMELY progressive and EXTREMELY willing ot change, because it's nothing but ideas, concepts, and theories backed up by DATA. If the data changes, the idea changes. The church on the other hand refuses change because it refuses any new data, it believes only in teh bible and people who believe in the bible, never anything truly new.

Again it is only our arrogance that makes us assume that we do or even can truly understand what we see. Maybe the Earth really is flat and it's merely a trick of perception that makes it appear round. I certainly would dispute that, but I would also acknowledge that human perception is imperfect and can and does make mistakes. I can't in good conscience put down a person who doesn't make the choice to implicitly trust their senses.

Why? If you saw a homeless guy on the street who chose not to lead a self sufficient life, but was perfectly capable of doing so, would you respect him much? I wouldn't. Sure, he may be happy and merry while stumbling around drunk and ignorant, but that does not mean it warrants respect from anybody. And I honestly don't believe I'm being arrogant, because I'm not making arrogant calls. When I see total BS, I call it. I don't make up answers about he afterlife, or move data around to fit my agenda, because I don't have one. I DONT KNOW. Anbody who claims otherwise (priests, preachers, ministers, etc) are all LIARS because they don't know either, but they are pushing an obviously man-made agenda with obvious flaws that's caused the deaths of MILLIONS of people. So yeah, I feel better about my choice than theirs, becuase it's justified. I don't recall a point in history where a group of people who werne't sure about the 'supreme creator' or if there even was one decided to go slaughter another group of people who felt differently.... do you?

Definitely I agree that the sheer volume of religions essentially eliminates the credibility of any single one. But then again the fact that no one can agree on any system suggests that it would be foolish to assume that mine is any more right than theirs. Yes I think they're wrong, but that doesn't make me better than them because there's a good chance I'm wrong too. Even if my beliefs are entirely defined by scientific observation and study there's a good chance that some future observations will come along and disprove the current leading theories.

Incorrect. Just because there's disagreement does not mean they're all equally valid. The notion of putting the scientific process on EQUAL terms with the church's lunacy is just insane. Think about waht you just said. You're putting every technological invention and method from all of mankind up against mysticism. Without religion, where would we be? Probably at least 1800 years ahead of where we are now, thank you Christianity.

There is certainly a difference between science and religion when it comes to their approaches towards finding the truth. However in then end they're both tautological because the one assumes the preeminence of human perception and the other assumes the preeminence of the divine. Neither of which can be proved because both are the contexts from which we view the world (according to your particular bent).

Science is based on the scientific process, which STARTS with observation, then hypothesizes, then experiments, and then makes conclusions. Any conclusion is always up for re-evaluation when new data comes along. Christianity is based on a greek and hebrew text translated into latin translated into english which hasn't changed for thousands of years thought he people claiming to interpret it are constantly changing their positions on how they interpret it, and it was based off from observation, getting stoned*, and NO EXPERIEMENTATION WHATSOEVER.

Here's a few quotes to ponder:

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
-Lazarus Long, Time Enough for Love

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
-Voltaire

So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.
-Bertrand Russell

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
-Galileo Galilei

And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter.
-Thomas Jefferson

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson

The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.
-Albert Einstein

Think about it... let's say for a second there was a god. Do you really think he'd give you your faculty of reason if he intended you to blindly follow him and ignore reason? It's just insane. In summary:

We have fossils... We win!!!!
-Lewis Black, on creationism

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

I have to disagree. Sure, there might be a small minority of scientists who resist change, but the vast majority are FOR change, for a better life, for better everything. Religions on the other hand... I mean, hell, they don't evne change their architecture! Christian churches are usually based on the design of buildings in Rome. When you compare the two, science is EXTREMELY progressive and EXTREMELY willing ot change, because it's nothing but ideas, concepts, and theories backed up by DATA. If the data changes, the idea changes. The church on the other hand refuses change because it refuses any new data, it believes only in teh bible and people who believe in the bible, never anything truly new.

I suspect you're right that I'm over-estimating the conservative element of science, but you're probably also under-estimating it. But there's also the issue of the lay person's understanding of science/religion and the scientist/clergyman's understanding of it. The lay people are the vast majority and so they are the ones that control the social understanding of science and religion. They also tend to be the least flexible in their beliefs because they don't really understand them and are forced to treat them as gospel truth.

Why? If you saw a homeless guy on the street who chose not to lead a self sufficient life, but was perfectly capable of doing so, would you respect him much? I wouldn't. Sure, he may be happy and merry while stumbling around drunk and ignorant, but that does not mean it warrants respect from anybody. And I honestly don't believe I'm being arrogant, because I'm not making arrogant calls. When I see total BS, I call it. I don't make up answers about he afterlife, or move data around to fit my agenda, because I don't have one. I DONT KNOW. Anbody who claims otherwise (priests, preachers, ministers, etc) are all LIARS because they don't know either, but they are pushing an obviously man-made agenda with obvious flaws that's caused the deaths of MILLIONS of people. So yeah, I feel better about my choice than theirs, becuase it's justified. I don't recall a point in history where a group of people who werne't sure about the 'supreme creator' or if there even was one decided to go slaughter another group of people who felt differently.... do you?

I have a great respect for monks and nuns who do exactly that: choose not to lead a self sufficient life despite being perfectly capable of doing so. Civilization was created when some people stopped being self sufficient and started pursuing their interests over their survival. If it weren't for people like that we'd all still be hunter/gatherers.

And are they liars if they truly believe what they say? Or are they just misguided?

Incorrect. Just because there's disagreement does not mean they're all equally valid. The notion of putting the scientific process on EQUAL terms with the church's lunacy is just insane. Think about waht you just said. You're putting every technological invention and method from all of mankind up against mysticism. Without religion, where would we be? Probably at least 1800 years ahead of where we are now, thank you Christianity.

It's not that their equally valid, obviously the majority of people are wrong. It's that they're all have equal potential to be wrong.

And technology is not the same as science, it's the practical application that proves the underlying principle. Of course that doesn't mean we actually really understand the underlying principles, just that we're capable of reliably manipulating our environment to suit our needs.

If you knew that by putting plates of certain metals into a particular liquid God would reliably send his will through metal wires attached to those plates which you could then apply to your own purposes would you not still be able to build a battery? You don't need to understand technology to use it or even to create it. You just need to be able to identify patterns, a very basic human trait.

Science is based on the scientific process, which STARTS with observation, then hypothesizes, then experiments, and then makes conclusions. Any conclusion is always up for re-evaluation when new data comes along. Christianity is based on a greek and hebrew text translated into latin translated into english which hasn't changed for thousands of years thought he people claiming to interpret it are constantly changing their positions on how they interpret it, and it was based off from observation, getting stoned*, and NO EXPERIEMENTATION WHATSOEVER.

If people are constantly changing their positions on religion based on observation and practical result, how is that different from modifying scientific theories based on observation and practical result?

Here's a few quotes to ponder:

Some excellent quotes. Thanks.

Think about it... let's say for a second there was a god. Do you really think he'd give you your faculty of reason if he intended you to blindly follow him and ignore reason? It's just insane.

Perhaps God is insane. Or perhaps we're just incapable of understanding His true intention. However this is exactly why I abandoned Christianity in the first place. I realized that even if it could be proven to me that God existed and that Bible was the Truth I still couldn't bring myself to worship that being. Respect and even fear the power of, yes. But worship, never. And having taken that step it was much easier for me to then question the other assumptions and eventually I've ended up where I am now.

[edit: Sorry tooki....]

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

I have a great respect for monks and nuns who do exactly that: choose not to lead a self sufficient life despite being perfectly capable of doing so. Civilization was created when some people stopped being self sufficient and started pursuing their interests over their survival. If it weren't for people like that we'd all still be hunter/gatherers.

That is simply untrue. Civilization started with agriculture and the domestication of animals. Not with nuns. Also, nuns and monks WERE self sufficient. They lived small, true, but they did afford to not only live, but also to have enough free time to spread the word, and have enough money to build massive churches and places of worship.

And are they liars if they truly believe what they say? Or are they just misguided?

Liars. A long time ago they allowed themselves to be decieved, which started a whole string of mental stagnation and acceptance of BS.

It's not that their equally valid, obviously the majority of people are wrong. It's that they're all have equal potential to be wrong.

Potential or probability? That is also false. Let's say someone steals your laptop from your house. You find a blue sneaker. You go outside and see two people walking on the street. One has a big lump underneaht their shirt in the shape of a laptop, and is wearing one blue shoe. The other person with red shoes is just hanging out. A preacher comes along and says that god spoke to him and the guy in the red shoes stole your laptop. So do you think that both people have an equal potential to have stolen your laptop? What about probability?

If you knew that by putting plates of certain metals into a particular liquid God would reliably send his will through metal wires attached to those plates which you could then apply to your own purposes would you not still be able to build a battery? You don't need to understand technology to use it or even to create it. You just need to be able to identify patterns, a very basic human trait.

I get it. You're one of those people who thinks that science IS god's work, that they're the same thing. When you see an amazing scientific discovery you think "Wow, god allowed that to happen" etc. Bleh. Well, I suppose my argument is moot then. Let me ask you this though, in terms of evolution...why would god, the all powerful all knowing being, mimic the form of evolution, which requires absoutely no plan, no thought, no knowledge, or anything? Why would the most POWERFUL INCREDIBLE FORCE IN THE UNIVERSE mimic a vast series of largely FAILURES, since most species go extinct and only a very small minority are evne alive today? Why would he do that? It seems rather.... um... backwards. Ever heard of hte KISS theory? Keep it simple, stupid? The simplest solution is the most likely to be true? What seems more simple, that some divine being is using as little as power possible to create life by making millions of mistakes over eons letting creatures slowly evolve, or that god is total BS and evolution is what actually happened?

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

If people are constantly changing their positions on religion based on observation and practical result, how is that different from modifying scientific theories based on observation and practical result?

Religious organizations modify their interpretations to keep followers. They have an agenda, which is to expand and maintain the church's believers. They want more. They are running a business. Organized religion is about hte pursuit of a large number of people to give donations and keep the system going.

Science is not after more numbers or any human agenda, it's after TRUTH. Science is about the pursuit of knowledge.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Ramblings SNIPPED

Think about it... let's say for a second there was a god. Do you really think he'd give you your faculty of reason if he intended you to blindly follow him and ignore reason? It's just insane.

For those that believe in him, they will tell you that God gave man Free Will in order to give man a choice in whether or not to believe in him. They would say God loves you unconditionally. Enough in fact to give you the chance to choose not to love him in return.

This has been a precept of Christianity--and after the Reformation, Catholicism--since the time of Augustine (approx 400 AD). Heck, even Boethius--a 5th-century neo-Platonist--with a mixture of Christian and pagan beliefs espoused Free Will as one of God's greatest gifts. Read the Consolation of Philosophy, the Summa Theologica of Aquinas, Kant's Critique of Practical Reason and Kant's Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals for a thorough and complete discussion on how Free Will is NOT incompatible with a belief in God.


(I am in the middle of writing a paper on that very topic. Or at least I should be. )

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

For those that believe in him, they will tell you that God gave man Free Will in order to give man a choice in whether or not to believe in him. They would say God loves you unconditionally. Enough in fact to give you the chance to choose not to love him in return.

This has been a precept of Christianity--and after the Reformation, Catholicism--since the time of Augustine (approx 400 AD). Heck, even Boethius--a 5th-century neo-Platonist--with a mixture of Christian and pagan beliefs espoused Free Will as one of God's greatest gifts. Read the Consolation of Philosophy, the Summa Theologica of Aquinas, Kant's Critique of Practical Reason and Kant's Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals for a thorough and complete discussion on how Free Will is NOT incompatible with a belief in God.


(I am in the middle of writing a paper on that very topic. Or at least I should be. )

So if I put a gun to your head and demand money, you'd tell people that I'm giving you a choice right? Whatever dude. You can season it anyway you like but a spiritual gun to your head is NOT free will. Especially when saying you believe God means you accept all the ******** the church has spewed over the past few thousand years. IF that is the case, I'd much rather be in hell, that's where all the fun smart people will be. Heaven would be full of simple minded folks who think that god created light meant that he just went click and flipped a switch.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Religious organizations modify their interpretations to keep followers.

So does Science.

I support your position, but when you look at it, science is just another religion.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by goMac

So does Science.

I support your position, but when you look at it, science is just another religion.

Back it up. I have not seen any evidence of science ever modifying what is an accepted scientific theory in order to gain or keep followers.

Actually... what hte **** are you even talking about? How can one be a follower of science? Where is the church of science? Also, religion is a belief system that has to do with a divine being, so no, science is not just another religion.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

So if I put a gun to your head and demand money, you'd tell people that I'm giving you a choice right? Whatever dude. You can season it anyway you like but a spiritual gun to your head is NOT free will. Especially when saying you believe God means you accept all the ******** the church has spewed over the past few thousand years. IF that is the case, I'd much rather be in hell, that's where all the fun smart people will be. Heaven would be full of simple minded folks who think that god created light meant that he just went click and flipped a switch.

Well then, by the beliefs of those who believe in God--I for one do not--you will wind
up in Hell. They would think you belong there and you don't seem to mind the idea.
Granted, it's just a tad ironic someone who doesn't believe in God is talking about being
in Hell but I assume you are already aware of that inconsistency.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Back it up. I have not seen any evidence of science ever modifying what is an accepted scientific theory in order to gain or keep followers.

Actually... what hte **** are you even talking about? How can one be a follower of science? Where is the church of science? Also, religion is a belief system that has to do with a divine being, so no, science is not just another religion.

Huh?

Science used to think tides were caused by the Earth's rotations slopping water back and forth. This was accepted as fact. When people began to find that it was caused by the moon, science had to change it's dogma about tides in order to keep it's followers.

A religion is just an idea about how the universe works and what our part is in it. Science would fall right under that.

A common thing I hear from scientists is there is no such thing as scientific fact. You cannot point to something and say it is always true. It's been proven true up until the current point. You have to take that it will be true in the future on faith.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Well then, by the beliefs of those who believe in God--I for one do not--you will wind
up in Hell. They would think you belong there and you don't seem to mind the idea.
Granted, it's just a tad ironic someone who doesn't believe in God is talking about being
in Hell but I assume you are already aware of that inconsistency.

I'm telling you, if heaven is full of the thumping nut-jobs I have seen that I rather be in hell. If those people are setting an example for God I rather not meet him. What type of coward God kills children?

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Well then, by the beliefs of those who believe in God--I for one do not--you will wind
up in Hell. They would think you belong there and you don't seem to mind the idea.
Granted, it's just a tad ironic someone who doesn't believe in God is talking about being
in Hell but I assume you are already aware of that inconsistency.

I can talk about things without believing them. If you discuss the fact that Coca Cola was the company that changed santa's outfit to red instead of the traditional green, that doesn't mean you believe in santa.

I'm just saying that hypothetically, according to the 'good' book, only people who accept Jesus as their savior get to go to heaven. And in order to do that, you need to believe a bunch of retarded lies propogated by the church. All the hindus, buddhists, jews, athiests, undecideds etc etc etc all burn in hell forever. I'd rather hang out with them than lunatic christians.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by goMac

Huh?

Science used to think tides were caused by the Earth's rotations slopping water back and forth. This was accepted as fact. When people began to find that it was caused by the moon, science had to change it's dogma about tides in order to keep it's followers.

Are you mentally retarded? The theory was changed because of MORE DATA, not to keep followers. You still haven't answered me... who is a follower of science? How does one become one? Do they pay money to a big organization of science to keep science in business? Your viewpoint fails. Sorry. You aren't making any sense whatsoever. There are no followers of science, and theories such as orbit, round earth etc etc etc have all changed when the available data changes, and when a powerful religious organization isn't there to burn you at the stake for thinking differently. Strike 1.

A religion is just an idea about how the universe works and what our part is in it. Science would fall right under that.

Press F12. Load the dictionary widget. Notice the definition. "Belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power". Science is not a religion. Strike 2.

A common thing I hear from scientists is there is no such thing as scientific fact. You cannot point to something and say it is always true. It's been proven true up until the current point. You have to take that it will be true in the future on faith.

Any scientist worth his salt will take NOTHING on faith, and everything on EVIDENCE. Sure, you rely on the facts UNTIL DATA SAYS OTHERWISE. .... you know what? This isn't even worth my time. Your arguments are actually somehow DUMBER than Zimphire's. I don't know how that's possible, but please don't respond. I think I'm actually getting a headache from trying to dumb down my brain in order to comprehend your inane statements.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Are you mentally retarded? The theory was changed because of MORE DATA, not to keep followers. You still haven't answered me... who is a follower of science? How does one become one? Do they pay money to a big organization of science to keep science in business? Your viewpoint fails. Sorry. You aren't making any sense whatsoever. There are no followers of science, and theories such as orbit, round earth etc etc etc have all changed when the available data changes, and when a powerful religious organization isn't there to burn you at the stake for thinking differently. Strike 1.



Press F12. Load the dictionary widget. Notice the definition. "Belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power". Science is not a religion. Strike 2.



Any scientist worth his salt will take NOTHING on faith, and everything on EVIDENCE. Sure, you rely on the facts UNTIL DATA SAYS OTHERWISE. .... you know what? This isn't even worth my time. Your arguments are actually somehow DUMBER than Zimphire's. I don't know how that's possible, but please don't respond. I think I'm actually getting a headache from trying to dumb down my brain in order to comprehend your inane statements.

And religion changes based on new information presented to it...

You can't take anything science presents as fact. Sorry. Scientists make that mistake over and over and over again. If science was unchangeable fact, we'd still have the four greek elements.

A scientist can get exiled from the scientific community for presenting a theory that is disagreed with.

A follower of science would be someone who believes in science's viewpoint on the universe. An example would be you. You even go around preaching science in this thread and try to convert people. Fancy that!

Sorry, I don't believe that god exists and I agree with science, but you aren't thinking very deeply about this or understanding it.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by goMac

And religion changes based on new information presented to it...

You can't take anything science presents as fact. Sorry. Scientists make that mistake over and over and over again. If science was unchangeable fact, we'd still have the four greek elements.

When did I ever say otherwise? Jesus christ!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

...and people wonder why foreigners hate America. My god, I hope if they're aliens out there they never find us because they'd be right to exterminate us if they ever saw that video.

Crazy people are all over the world.

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

They don't matter. Catholicism is basically the oldest biggest strongest sect around. Without them, I doubt Christianity would be near what it is today.

Rob yet again showing how ignorant he is about the subject.

The lord always makes stupid decisions according to people who believe in him. Hence why he put all those dinosaur fossils in our earth, just to trick people!

The only real people that I've heard say that are atheists.

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

Yeah, I know. You'd think God would want to choose someone a little more charismatic to try to convert people to Christianity.

Don't look like God had his hand in that at all. But of course, you wouldn't know either way would you?

The idea that Zimphire or Salty could look me in the eye and tell me they KNOW Jesus was hte son of god and he died for our sins is just hilarious.

Just like you told use you KNOW that Zoroaster was the first person to come up with heaven and hell and the Christians copied him! Cept you have no proof. And even when you are showed that you facts aren't facts, you still claim it to be true. Even when you show no proof of your own beliefs or "facts" It's because it's your own little belief system Rob. And you are acting no better than the religious you are bashing.

And you are wrong again, I don't KNOW in the strict sense of it, nor would I try to tell you that. I have FAITH he did. Unlike you I don't try to turn my beliefs or faith into facts, and then get mad when people show me otherwise.

BTW Rob, fossils don't negate the Bible. But you'd know that if you actually knew what you were talking about. One day Rob you'll realize the only thing you know about religion is what the crackpot anti-God zealots have told you on the interweb. But you'll just assume take it as fact because it fits what you want to believe.

I see there are alot of insecure people in this forum. Insecure about their beliefs.

I can only applaud nonhuman for being one of the few non-believers that is actually tolerant of others beliefs.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by goMac

Huh?

Science used to think tides were caused by the Earth's rotations slopping water back and forth. This was accepted as fact. When people began to find that it was caused by the moon, science had to change it's dogma about tides in order to keep it's followers.

A religion is just an idea about how the universe works and what our part is in it. Science would fall right under that.

A common thing I hear from scientists is there is no such thing as scientific fact. You cannot point to something and say it is always true. It's been proven true up until the current point. You have to take that it will be true in the future on faith.

I think you greatly misunderstand science (don't feel bad - most people do). Sometime, maybe when I get home tonight, I will write something that will clear things up for everyone here.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

That is simply untrue. Civilization started with agriculture and the domestication of animals. Not with nuns. Also, nuns and monks WERE self sufficient. They lived small, true, but they did afford to not only live, but also to have enough free time to spread the word, and have enough money to build massive churches and places of worship.

The development of agriculture is what allowed there to be such a thing as leisure time and therefore such things as art, philosophy, and more advanced forms of technology, religion, and government. Prior to agriculture and the domestication of animals people had to spend all their time working to find food and survive. Afterwards a few people were able to provide for the whole and so the rest were free to pursue other things (and therefore they weren't self-sufficient because they relied on the farmers for survival).

Some monks and nuns are self-sufficient, but not all of them. I'm not overly familiar with the various Christian monastic orders, but Buddhist monks and nuns are entirely reliant on the laity to support them. They are only allowed to eat the food that is donated to them.

Liars. A long time ago they allowed themselves to be decieved, which started a whole string of mental stagnation and acceptance of BS.

Perpetuating an untruth that you don't know is untrue is not lying. If you solve some mathematical equation and, at some point in the process, make a mistake you are unaware of. It's not lying when you present your solution as the truth now is it?

Potential or probability? That is also false. Let's say someone steals your laptop from your house. You find a blue sneaker. You go outside and see two people walking on the street. One has a big lump underneaht their shirt in the shape of a laptop, and is wearing one blue shoe. The other person with red shoes is just hanging out. A preacher comes along and says that god spoke to him and the guy in the red shoes stole your laptop. So do you think that both people have an equal potential to have stolen your laptop? What about probability?

I agree that religion is more probably wrong than science for exactly the reasons you state. But not everything that you or I agree with is based solely on fact. A lot of it, even the 'scientific' stuff is based on faith. Faith that the scientists know what they're talking about. Faith that our limited perception of the universe is sufficient to actually understand it.

A color blind person might thing that something is red when in fact it is green. How do we know that we aren't 'color blind' to certain aspects of the universe and as a result our conclusions, while consistent, aren't necessarily correct?

I get it. You're one of those people who thinks that science IS god's work, that they're the same thing. When you see an amazing scientific discovery you think "Wow, god allowed that to happen" etc. Bleh. Well, I suppose my argument is moot then. Let me ask you this though, in terms of evolution...why would god, the all powerful all knowing being, mimic the form of evolution, which requires absoutely no plan, no thought, no knowledge, or anything? Why would the most POWERFUL INCREDIBLE FORCE IN THE UNIVERSE mimic a vast series of largely FAILURES, since most species go extinct and only a very small minority are evne alive today? Why would he do that? It seems rather.... um... backwards. Ever heard of hte KISS theory? Keep it simple, stupid? The simplest solution is the most likely to be true? What seems more simple, that some divine being is using as little as power possible to create life by making millions of mistakes over eons letting creatures slowly evolve, or that god is total BS and evolution is what actually happened?

I don't believe in God or gods. I don't believe there is any intelligence or meaning behind life. I believe essentially in a mechanistic universe that behaves according to certain rules. And I'd like to believe that we're capable of determining and understanding those rules, but I'm not entirely convinced of it.