A case for religion, and against AA.

[AViking]

Personally I think an AA is just rude. If I had to describe them I would say they are disrespectful and rude.

Organized religion on the other hand can be downright terrible and harmful to society.

That's a pretty big and distinct difference.

 

[Mursilis]

Science is descriptive. Religion is prescriptive. You need to learn the difference.

You quoted the wrong post in saying that.

 

[Mursilis]

Just read what the Bible says about Slavery.

The Quakers tell me the Bible says slavery is wrong.

Science has improved our lives more than anything else in History. That some parts of its' discoveries have been used to kill others is unfortunate, but not the fault of Science.

If, when the discoveries of science are used to accomplish evil (like nuking cities), it's not the fault of science, how is it to the credit of science when its discoveries are used to accomplish good (liking curing the ill)?

Science gave the doctor the means to save a life. What gave her the desire to do so?

 

[disappoint]

If you're "being misled", someone else is perpetrating a fraud upon you, which is not the same as willingly suspending disbelief. It's the difference between emptying out your 401K yourself and attempting to double your money at the casino, and your broker, after you told her to put it in bonds, emptying out your 401K to "invest" it at the casino instead.

That is a bad analogy. In your example the broker misappropriated the funds without your consent. Can anyone get you to believe their religion without your consent?

 

[Retro Rob]

If, when the discoveries of science are used to accomplish evil (like nuking cities), it's not the fault of science, how is it to the credit of science when its discoveries are used to accomplish good (liking curing the ill)?

Science gave the doctor the means to save a life. What gave her the desire to do so?

I think this is a good point, because if science is only "descriptive", then the motivation to cure ill people has to come from an external cause.

And also true, if science can't be blamed for the misuses of it, it can't be credited for the proper uses of it.

:thumbsup:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Well, you have religions which are non-political, and don't go to war, and simply don't physically harm people.

Yesterday I cleaned out my freezer.

So I can say religion is a promoter of peace, right?

That's about as true as saying Germans didn't kill millions of Jews

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You quoted the wrong post in saying that.

No, I didn't.

 

[Moonbeam]

When human beings invented language they gave one side of their brains the ability to speak and left the other person in the other hemisphere mute. Evolution produced two different cognitive styles that made this possible, linear analytical reasoning based on associative thinking and pattern recognition and instant big picture processing. The I that we know and think of ourselves as became narrow and associated with the thinker who abandoned the gestalt language-less self in the dust. In order to return to a whole and complete being at harmony with itself, religion came into being. Religion was always about the reunification of a divided self. You are not alone. Within you is another being and when the lover and the beloved of the two hemispheres is one, there is only God who has always been our real human nature and always will be. As to whether there is a God out there in the heavens, it is impossible to know, but the one within can be know by the unification of ones being. If you can do that, the question will not matter.

To focus on the notion of God out there that leaves one still divided, or the denial of Him is all part of the same disease, a war that takes place between two uncomprehending entities.

 

[soulcougher73]

The problem is that religion is usually not a "live and let live" mentality that is not harmful to others. It imposes itself upon the world and other people.

Much different than a nut who believes in pink unicorns that just keeps to himself.

 

[Mursilis]

The problem is that religion is usually not a "live and let live" mentality that is not harmful to others. It imposes itself upon the world and other people.

Much different than a nut who believes in pink unicorns that just keeps to himself.

Living in the U.S. has clearly spoiled me. I'm having a very hard time finding a way in which religion has imposed itself upon me on a regular basis.

Alcohol and adult toys/books/DVDs/etc. are readily available.
Divorces are easy to get, and I personally see lots of couples "living in sin". These people are not shunned/abused/harassed. Neither are the mixed-race couples (lots more of those in recent years).
Almost all business are open on Sundays.
Lots of people DON'T attend a church, and these people are not shunned/abused/harassed.
Evolution is taught in our public schools.
Plenty of pork products in the grocery stores.
Etc.

Granted, gays still can't marry, but that's changing. I'm certainly in favor of that. Oh, and it's entirely local churches providing the meals down at the county homeless shelter, which is of course just an awful entanglement of church/state. Hopefully, someone will put a stop to that soon. Religious types imposing their values on the homeless in the form of free meals should not be allowed to stand.

 

[soulcougher73]

Living in the U.S. has clearly spoiled me. I'm having a very hard time finding a way in which religion has imposed itself upon me on a regular basis.

Alcohol and adult toys/books/DVDs/etc. are readily available.
Divorces are easy to get, and I personally see lots of couples "living in sin". These people are not shunned/abused/harassed. Neither are the mixed-race couples (lots more of those in recent years).
Almost all business are open on Sundays.
Lots of people DON'T attend a church, and these people are not shunned/abused/harassed.
Evolution is taught in our public schools.
Plenty of pork products in the grocery stores.
Etc.

Granted, gays still can't marry, but that's changing. I'm certainly in favor of that. Oh, and it's entirely local churches providing the meals down at the county homeless shelter, which is of course just an awful entanglement of church/state. Hopefully, someone will put a stop to that soon. Religious types imposing their values on the homeless in the form of free meals should not be allowed to stand.

If Christians had their way there would be none of those things you just mentioned. glad we have seperation of church and state. So obviously you missed the "live and let live" part. I am fine with Christians having those views of sin or immoral things. But they need to keep it to themselves and live their lives that way. Not demand others who are not Christian to abide by the same views.

Yup only religious people give food to homeless I've done it on many occassions. Darn those athiests for being all moral upstanding citizens and shit.

 

[IronWing]

Here we have a state legislator calling for legalizing discrimination as long as the discrimination is based on religious belief. And for those who will certainly say "It's just one guy" nearly identical legislation passed the Arizona legislature last session.

This is one of the great harms of religeousity, it gives a pass to sloppy thinking and willful ignorance. One could argue that the proposed legislation will certainly be shot down in the courts. However the cost of this pointless exercise in mean-spirited stupidity will be carried by the taxpayers.

 

[justoh]

They can raise children, and vote. Maybe that's why atheists get angry? Because they're often negatively affected by them? Or empathize with those who are? Or do you hate children? Just some ideas. It's not always anger. Stupidity is also quite irritating, and it's hard to appear irritated without also appearing angry?

 

[sandorski]

How is this logically consistent? People kill in the name of religion, its the fault of religion, people use science to kill, its not the fault of science?

And he's right, without science, I wouldn't be able to kill an entire country full of people at the push of a button, yet in the days of religion, the best I could do is run someone through with a sword...and I had to be pretty close and put myself at risk to do that.

No one's criticizing science for the wonders its done, but you're ignoring a human problem you have...and its all to easy to point the finger at religion when I can also point the finger at advances in science and technology which have given religious fanatics more sophisticated means to kill more people with relative ease.

Time for you to start being intellecually honest, Sandorski, because you've spent way to much time avoiding it.

I am being honest, RobM.

 

[sandorski]

The Quakers tell me the Bible says slavery is wrong.



If, when the discoveries of science are used to accomplish evil (like nuking cities), it's not the fault of science, how is it to the credit of science when its discoveries are used to accomplish good (liking curing the ill)?

Science gave the doctor the means to save a life. What gave her the desire to do so?

It doesn't matter what Quakers say, read the Bible. If they said that, they are using some bizzare interpretation, are unaware what it says, or straight out lying to you.

 

[alzan]

I think this is a good point, because if science is only "descriptive", then the motivation to cure ill people has to come from an external cause.

And also true, if science can't be blamed for the misuses of it, it can't be credited for the proper uses of it.

:thumbsup:

Yes and no. I don't have any polls or data to back me up but I don't think I'm wrong in saying that some scientists are motivated by the illness of a relative/friend/themselves and also a few that genuinely give a crap about their fellow man to find cures for fatal/serious diseases. So a certain and significant percentage of the motivation comes from an internal cause.

If you're saying that science as a field of study can't be blamed/credited for abuse/use of it's discoveries I mostly agree. However I don't think that the same can be said for the larger percentage of scientists whose discoveries have been used for good things.

Take computers for example. We've realized many gains from the computers themselves but at the price of pulling of some of us away from human interaction, increased electricity use and costs, etc.

 

[Victorian Gray]

How is this logically consistent? People kill in the name of religion, its the fault of religion, people use science to kill, its not the fault of science?

Part 1 - People kill in the name of religion, its the fault of religion,

Part 2 - people use science to kill, its not the fault of science?

Apples and hub caps?

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Part 1 - People kill in the name of religion, its the fault of religion,

Part 2 - people use science to kill, its not the fault of science?

Apples and hub caps?

If someone killed in your name, it's automatically your fault?

 

[sandorski]

If someone killed in your name, it's automatically your fault?

If you gave them the impression it was acceptable to, yes, it is your fault.

 

[Onceler]

I am very spiritual but believe that some of this religion business is harmful. They try to push it on everyone. I don't think that should be.
I have a daughter who asks me "Do you believe in God?", I tell her yes and she asks why do I never go to church and my reply is that I don't believe in the stuff their pushing there, I have a huge disagreement with the church about what God is and whats in the bible.
I have never tried to indoctrinate her and never will, she has to make up her own mind for herself what to believe. I had parents who never pushed it on me and I am grateful that they let me figure it out on my own.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

If you gave them the impression it was acceptable to, yes, it is your fault.

If you command someone to do something, then you have some responsibility for their following that command.

If they think you told them, but you didn't, then it's not your fault.

Similar to how it's not sandorski's fault that seeing the word "sandorski" gave someone the impression that it was acceptable to murder and they go and murder in name of sandorski.

 

[Victorian Gray]

If someone killed in your name, it's automatically your fault?

When they think that I'm their God and I tell them to do so, yes, I think that it would be my fault. How would it not be?

 

[Victorian Gray]

If you command someone to do something, then you have some responsibility for their following that command.

If they think you told them, but you didn't, then it's not your fault.

Similar to how it's not sandorski's fault that seeing the word "sandorski" gave someone the impression that it was acceptable to murder and they go and murder in name of sandorski.

So, are you calling all those folks in the Christian bible who claimed that they did the stuff they did because their God told them to liars? Or are the people who wrote it all down the one's who are liars?

 

[sandorski]

If you command someone to do something, then you have some responsibility for their following that command.

If they think you told them, but you didn't, then it's not your fault.

Similar to how it's not sandorski's fault that seeing the word "sandorski" gave someone the impression that it was acceptable to murder and they go and murder in name of sandorski.

Wut?

 

[sourceninja]

As long as there are politicians and people writing them to make decisions based on religion I can never consider religion harmless.