Will science ever wipe out organized religion?

[Whisper]

Originally posted by: 3NF
Where do I sign up to become relgious, like a Catholic? Let's take a look here. I'm sure one of these guys would be a great teacher .... awesome.

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/

I'm sure if I truly wanted to, I could dig up equally large numbers of non-religious individuals who have perpetuated equally-heinous crimes.

Edit: I should also point out, how exactly is Catholicism, as an example, to blame for these abuses? I haven't yet read the entire Catechism, but I don't recall any portion of it stating that its bishops should molest young boys.

 

[3NF]

Originally posted by: Whisper

True, but you did infer that religion has provided nothing of benefit to society. Vic has addressed and countered your point, giving concrete examples of meritorious products of religion. Additionally, as I mentioned before, countless individuals associated with, or followers of, various religions have contributed greatly to the betterment of mankind...often via the science and technology you mentioned earlier.

Infer? I did say that religion hasn't provided any value to society - I don't deny that

But where is Vic's list of meritorious products of religion?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: 3NF

Originally posted by: Dic

Originally posted by: 3NF

Originally posted by: Dic

I didn't insult you or call you names. Your mind is full of so many obvious and glaring factual inaccuracies that the only logical conclusion for how you can both (1) reconcile them with yourself, and (2) speak them openly is that you are a bigoted moron.

And I'm not religious, so what am I blinded by?

Now... what religion was WWII fought over again? What religion was it that caused Stalin, Mao, and Hitler to murder tens of millions? And (for your religion has provided no good things to society nonsense) what religion does NOT both endorse and support charity?

These things are obvious and factual, not opinions. I suggest you start believing what you see, instead of seeing what you believe, otherwise you're just yet another of the worst of the blind faithful.

I didn't say all wars were because of religion. I think BUSH said this before invading IRAQ.

Behind all of life and all of history, there's a dedication and purpose, set by the hand of a just and faithful God
President Bush

That's just great ...

WTF has Bush got do with this? Take that propagandistic nonsense to P&N where it belongs.

And what you actually did say is quoted in this thread, so don't pretend you said something else. This isn't a verbal discussion.

I thought I said this,

Let's write down all the good things that organized religion has provided to society ... Wait, I can't think of anything. Only bad things, like war and senseless killings over stupid ideas.

What does that have to with WWII? It doesn't say that all wars were because of religion, but I believe many of them were due to religious differences.

True, but you did infer that religion has provided nothing of benefit to society. Vic has addressed and countered your point, giving concrete examples of meritorious products of religion. Additionally, as I mentioned before, countless individuals associated with, or followers of, various religions have contributed greatly to the betterment of mankind...often via the science and technology you mentioned earlier.

Yep, because Newton, Descartes, and Faraday weren't all devoutly religious, while Stalin, Mao, and Hitler obviously all were... can't you seee.... ?

 

[3NF]

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: 3NF
Where do I sign up to become relgious, like a Catholic? Let's take a look here. I'm sure one of these guys would be a great teacher .... awesome.

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/

I'm sure if I truly wanted to, I could dig up equally large numbers of non-religious individuals who have perpetuated equally-heinous crimes.

Edit: I should also point out, how exactly is Catholicism, as an example, to blame for these abuses? I haven't yet read the entire Catechism, but I don't recall any portion of it stating that its bishops should molest young boys.

True, but we don't have any religions that follow these people, do we?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 3NF

Originally posted by: Whisper

True, but you did infer that religion has provided nothing of benefit to society. Vic has addressed and countered your point, giving concrete examples of meritorious products of religion. Additionally, as I mentioned before, countless individuals associated with, or followers of, various religions have contributed greatly to the betterment of mankind...often via the science and technology you mentioned earlier.

Infer? I did say that religion hasn't provided any value to society - I don't deny that

But where is Vic's list of meritorious products of religion?

Mother Teresa was a murderous warmonger...

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Whisper
Edit: I should also point out, how exactly is Catholicism, as an example, to blame for these abuses? I haven't yet read the entire Catechism, but I don't recall any portion of it stating that its bishops should molest young boys.

QFT. Like I said before, religion is not to blame for the actions of a few nutcases.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3NF

Originally posted by: Whisper

True, but you did infer that religion has provided nothing of benefit to society. Vic has addressed and countered your point, giving concrete examples of meritorious products of religion. Additionally, as I mentioned before, countless individuals associated with, or followers of, various religions have contributed greatly to the betterment of mankind...often via the science and technology you mentioned earlier.

Infer? I did say that religion hasn't provided any value to society - I don't deny that

But where is Vic's list of meritorious products of religion?

Mother Teresa was a murderous warmonger...

No, but she was a self-aggrandizing sadist. I'm sure you ignore that fact with as much fervor as you ignore what science does to your religious myths.

 

[Whisper]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3NF

Originally posted by: Whisper

True, but you did infer that religion has provided nothing of benefit to society. Vic has addressed and countered your point, giving concrete examples of meritorious products of religion. Additionally, as I mentioned before, countless individuals associated with, or followers of, various religions have contributed greatly to the betterment of mankind...often via the science and technology you mentioned earlier.

Infer? I did say that religion hasn't provided any value to society - I don't deny that

But where is Vic's list of meritorious products of religion?

Mother Teresa was a murderous warmonger...

As were Jesus, Buddha, the Dalai Lama, Gahndi, and a whole host of other individuals.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3NF

Originally posted by: Whisper

True, but you did infer that religion has provided nothing of benefit to society. Vic has addressed and countered your point, giving concrete examples of meritorious products of religion. Additionally, as I mentioned before, countless individuals associated with, or followers of, various religions have contributed greatly to the betterment of mankind...often via the science and technology you mentioned earlier.

Infer? I did say that religion hasn't provided any value to society - I don't deny that

But where is Vic's list of meritorious products of religion?

Mother Teresa was a murderous warmonger...

No, but she was a self-aggrandizing sadist. I'm sure you ignore that fact with as much fervor as you ignore what science does to your religious myths.

:laugh:

I don't hold any religious myths. Nor have I advocated any. Obviously you can't argue without straw men.

When (and if) you ever develop a REAL understanding of science, then maybe you'll understand how science and religion are not in conflict with each other, how conflict thesis is debunked 19th century psychobabble, and you'll quit spouting equally debunked marxist revisionist history (which marxism spouted, incidentally, while cynically murdering more innocents than any other ideology in history).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3NF

Originally posted by: Whisper

True, but you did infer that religion has provided nothing of benefit to society. Vic has addressed and countered your point, giving concrete examples of meritorious products of religion. Additionally, as I mentioned before, countless individuals associated with, or followers of, various religions have contributed greatly to the betterment of mankind...often via the science and technology you mentioned earlier.

Infer? I did say that religion hasn't provided any value to society - I don't deny that

But where is Vic's list of meritorious products of religion?

Mother Teresa was a murderous warmonger...

As were Jesus, Buddha, the Dalai Lama, Gahndi, and a whole host of other individuals.

Clearly. When Jesus told people to love one another, he obviously meant the opposite.

 

[Doomer]

I'd be satisfied if I could just live me life free of religion but that ain't gonna happen. Bible thumping holy rollers are everywhere.

God save me from your followers.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3NF

Originally posted by: Whisper

True, but you did infer that religion has provided nothing of benefit to society. Vic has addressed and countered your point, giving concrete examples of meritorious products of religion. Additionally, as I mentioned before, countless individuals associated with, or followers of, various religions have contributed greatly to the betterment of mankind...often via the science and technology you mentioned earlier.

Infer? I did say that religion hasn't provided any value to society - I don't deny that

But where is Vic's list of meritorious products of religion?

Mother Teresa was a murderous warmonger...

No, but she was a self-aggrandizing sadist. I'm sure you ignore that fact with as much fervor as you ignore what science does to your religious myths.

:laugh:

I don't hold religious myths. Nor have I advocated any. Obviously you can't argue with straw men.

When (and if) you ever develop a REAL understanding of science, then maybe you'll understand how science and religion are not in conflict with each other, how conflict thesis is debunked 19th century psychobabble, and you'll quit spouting equally debunked marxist revisionist history.

I agree, religion and science are not in conflict with each other any more than Isaac Newton was in conflict with the easter bunny. Science does not conflict with fairy tales, science is above all that. Science shows what is and lets the fairy tales evaporate under the weight of their own lies. I really don't understand you Vic, I truly don't know whether you're truly ignorant, just a troll looking to fight or if you've been so brainwashed by your false mytholigies that you don't even listen to the foolishness that spews forth from you every time religion is called into question. It's absolutely mesmerizing to watch your fly into a spittle-flecked rage every time someone with an education understands what a twisted web of lies your religion is.

 

[Whisper]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3NF

Originally posted by: Whisper

True, but you did infer that religion has provided nothing of benefit to society. Vic has addressed and countered your point, giving concrete examples of meritorious products of religion. Additionally, as I mentioned before, countless individuals associated with, or followers of, various religions have contributed greatly to the betterment of mankind...often via the science and technology you mentioned earlier.

Infer? I did say that religion hasn't provided any value to society - I don't deny that

But where is Vic's list of meritorious products of religion?

Mother Teresa was a murderous warmonger...

As were Jesus, Buddha, the Dalai Lama, Gahndi, and a whole host of other individuals.

Clearly. When Jesus told people to love one another, he obviously meant the opposite.

Yeah, that's how I've always interpreted it. Everyone knows his teachings were all espoused on opposite day.

 

[Whisper]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3NF

Originally posted by: Whisper

True, but you did infer that religion has provided nothing of benefit to society. Vic has addressed and countered your point, giving concrete examples of meritorious products of religion. Additionally, as I mentioned before, countless individuals associated with, or followers of, various religions have contributed greatly to the betterment of mankind...often via the science and technology you mentioned earlier.

Infer? I did say that religion hasn't provided any value to society - I don't deny that

But where is Vic's list of meritorious products of religion?

Mother Teresa was a murderous warmonger...

No, but she was a self-aggrandizing sadist. I'm sure you ignore that fact with as much fervor as you ignore what science does to your religious myths.

:laugh:

I don't hold religious myths. Nor have I advocated any. Obviously you can't argue with straw men.

When (and if) you ever develop a REAL understanding of science, then maybe you'll understand how science and religion are not in conflict with each other, how conflict thesis is debunked 19th century psychobabble, and you'll quit spouting equally debunked marxist revisionist history.

I agree, religion and science are not in conflict with each other any more than Isaac Newton was in conflict with the easter bunny. Science does not conflict with fairy tales, science is above all that. Science shows what is and lets the fairy tales evaporate under the weight of their own lies. I really don't understand you Vic, I truly don't know whether you're truly ignorant, just a troll looking to fight or if you've been so brainwashed by your false mytholigies that you don't even listen to the foolishness that spews forth from you every time religion is called into question. It's absolutely mesmerizing to watch your fly into a spittle-flecked rage every time someone with an education understands what a twisted web of lies your religion is.

I consider myself to be a fairly educated individual, yet I also consider myself to be religious. This has done little to cause me any internal distress, and I have yet to see anything that would adamantly label my personal religion as mythology or a fairy tale.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3NF

Originally posted by: Whisper

True, but you did infer that religion has provided nothing of benefit to society. Vic has addressed and countered your point, giving concrete examples of meritorious products of religion. Additionally, as I mentioned before, countless individuals associated with, or followers of, various religions have contributed greatly to the betterment of mankind...often via the science and technology you mentioned earlier.

Infer? I did say that religion hasn't provided any value to society - I don't deny that

But where is Vic's list of meritorious products of religion?

Mother Teresa was a murderous warmonger...

No, but she was a self-aggrandizing sadist. I'm sure you ignore that fact with as much fervor as you ignore what science does to your religious myths.

:laugh:

I don't hold religious myths. Nor have I advocated any. Obviously you can't argue with straw men.

When (and if) you ever develop a REAL understanding of science, then maybe you'll understand how science and religion are not in conflict with each other, how conflict thesis is debunked 19th century psychobabble, and you'll quit spouting equally debunked marxist revisionist history.

I agree, religion and science are not in conflict with each other any more than Isaac Newton was in conflict with the easter bunny. Science does not conflict with fairy tales, science is above all that. Science shows what is and lets the fairy tales evaporate under the weight of their own lies. I really don't understand you Vic, I truly don't know whether you're truly ignorant, just a troll looking to fight or if you've been so brainwashed by your false mytholigies that you don't even listen to the foolishness that spews forth from you every time religion is called into question. It's absolutely mesmerizing to watch your fly into a spittle-flecked rage every time someone with an education understands what a twisted web of lies your religion is.

I consider myself to be a fairly educated individual, yet I also consider myself to be religious. This has done little to cause me any internal distress, and I have yet to see anything that would adamantly label my personal religion as mythology or a fairy tale.

it really depends on how you interpret your holy texts. Since we're in America I'll guess you're Christian (feel free to correct me), do you take the Bible literally? Do you believe in creationism and that all the animals in the world were created in their present form?

 

[Whisper]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3NF

Originally posted by: Whisper

True, but you did infer that religion has provided nothing of benefit to society. Vic has addressed and countered your point, giving concrete examples of meritorious products of religion. Additionally, as I mentioned before, countless individuals associated with, or followers of, various religions have contributed greatly to the betterment of mankind...often via the science and technology you mentioned earlier.

Infer? I did say that religion hasn't provided any value to society - I don't deny that

But where is Vic's list of meritorious products of religion?

Mother Teresa was a murderous warmonger...

No, but she was a self-aggrandizing sadist. I'm sure you ignore that fact with as much fervor as you ignore what science does to your religious myths.

:laugh:

I don't hold religious myths. Nor have I advocated any. Obviously you can't argue with straw men.

When (and if) you ever develop a REAL understanding of science, then maybe you'll understand how science and religion are not in conflict with each other, how conflict thesis is debunked 19th century psychobabble, and you'll quit spouting equally debunked marxist revisionist history.

I agree, religion and science are not in conflict with each other any more than Isaac Newton was in conflict with the easter bunny. Science does not conflict with fairy tales, science is above all that. Science shows what is and lets the fairy tales evaporate under the weight of their own lies. I really don't understand you Vic, I truly don't know whether you're truly ignorant, just a troll looking to fight or if you've been so brainwashed by your false mytholigies that you don't even listen to the foolishness that spews forth from you every time religion is called into question. It's absolutely mesmerizing to watch your fly into a spittle-flecked rage every time someone with an education understands what a twisted web of lies your religion is.

I consider myself to be a fairly educated individual, yet I also consider myself to be religious. This has done little to cause me any internal distress, and I have yet to see anything that would adamantly label my personal religion as mythology or a fairy tale.

it really depends on how you interpret your holy texts. Since we're in America I'll guess you're Christian (feel free to correct me), do you take the Bible literally? Do you believe in creationism and that all the animals in the world were created in their present form?

I won't get too in-depth in terms of my religious beliefs, but I don't know that I'd technically label myself as Christian. As for the bible, no, I don't interpret it literally because I know those who recorded it were human, and as such were capable of inaccuracy.

Perhaps the easiest way to explain my personal religiosity would be to say that I don't use it to explain anything. If I want to find out why something is the way that it is, I use science; that's what science is for, and why it was developed. Religion is a personal journey used to examine a multitude of things, the findings of science among them.

Edit: a better way to describe myself would likely be spiritual rather than religious.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: 3NF

Originally posted by: Excelsior
You're almost certainly wasting your time with this dude, Dic.

Yea, I'm not a fan of you either

Only because I don't agree with your POV? Fantastic.

Fact is, you couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag. Its as if you saw a George Carlin special and saw the light. Now you just repeat the usual "Organized Religion is the worst thing ever, it is responsible for more deaths and wars than anything else...etc, etc..." bullsh!t.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3NF

Originally posted by: Whisper

True, but you did infer that religion has provided nothing of benefit to society. Vic has addressed and countered your point, giving concrete examples of meritorious products of religion. Additionally, as I mentioned before, countless individuals associated with, or followers of, various religions have contributed greatly to the betterment of mankind...often via the science and technology you mentioned earlier.

Infer? I did say that religion hasn't provided any value to society - I don't deny that

But where is Vic's list of meritorious products of religion?

Mother Teresa was a murderous warmonger...

No, but she was a self-aggrandizing sadist. I'm sure you ignore that fact with as much fervor as you ignore what science does to your religious myths.

:laugh:

I don't hold religious myths. Nor have I advocated any. Obviously you can't argue with straw men.

When (and if) you ever develop a REAL understanding of science, then maybe you'll understand how science and religion are not in conflict with each other, how conflict thesis is debunked 19th century psychobabble, and you'll quit spouting equally debunked marxist revisionist history.

I agree, religion and science are not in conflict with each other any more than Isaac Newton was in conflict with the easter bunny. Science does not conflict with fairy tales, science is above all that. Science shows what is and lets the fairy tales evaporate under the weight of their own lies. I really don't understand you Vic, I truly don't know whether you're truly ignorant, just a troll looking to fight or if you've been so brainwashed by your false mytholigies that you don't even listen to the foolishness that spews forth from you every time religion is called into question. It's absolutely mesmerizing to watch your fly into a spittle-flecked rage every time someone with an education understands what a twisted web of lies your religion is.

The issue here is, quite frankly, is that what you consider to be education is barely high school level science and history to me.
And if you're looking for spittle-flecked rage, I strongly suggest you look at your own first post in this thread, which came long before I entered into it.

And speaking of Newton, did you know that it is said of him that he spent more time studying the Bible than science? How could that be?

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3NF

Originally posted by: Whisper

True, but you did infer that religion has provided nothing of benefit to society. Vic has addressed and countered your point, giving concrete examples of meritorious products of religion. Additionally, as I mentioned before, countless individuals associated with, or followers of, various religions have contributed greatly to the betterment of mankind...often via the science and technology you mentioned earlier.

Infer? I did say that religion hasn't provided any value to society - I don't deny that

But where is Vic's list of meritorious products of religion?

Mother Teresa was a murderous warmonger...

No, but she was a self-aggrandizing sadist. I'm sure you ignore that fact with as much fervor as you ignore what science does to your religious myths.

:laugh:

I don't hold religious myths. Nor have I advocated any. Obviously you can't argue with straw men.

When (and if) you ever develop a REAL understanding of science, then maybe you'll understand how science and religion are not in conflict with each other, how conflict thesis is debunked 19th century psychobabble, and you'll quit spouting equally debunked marxist revisionist history.

I agree, religion and science are not in conflict with each other any more than Isaac Newton was in conflict with the easter bunny. Science does not conflict with fairy tales, science is above all that. Science shows what is and lets the fairy tales evaporate under the weight of their own lies. I really don't understand you Vic, I truly don't know whether you're truly ignorant, just a troll looking to fight or if you've been so brainwashed by your false mytholigies that you don't even listen to the foolishness that spews forth from you every time religion is called into question. It's absolutely mesmerizing to watch your fly into a spittle-flecked rage every time someone with an education understands what a twisted web of lies your religion is.

I consider myself to be a fairly educated individual, yet I also consider myself to be religious. This has done little to cause me any internal distress, and I have yet to see anything that would adamantly label my personal religion as mythology or a fairy tale.

it really depends on how you interpret your holy texts. Since we're in America I'll guess you're Christian (feel free to correct me), do you take the Bible literally? Do you believe in creationism and that all the animals in the world were created in their present form?

I won't get too in-depth in terms of my religious beliefs, but I don't know that I'd technically label myself as Christian. As for the bible, no, I don't interpret it literally because I know those who recorded it were human, and as such were capable of inaccuracy.

Perhaps the easiest way to explain my personal religiosity would be to say that I don't use it to explain anything. If I want to find out why something is the way that it is, I use science; that's what science is for, and why it was developed. Religion is a personal journey used to examine a multitude of things, the findings of science among them.

Edit: a better way to describe myself would likely be spiritual rather than religious.

Fair enough, personally I look at those two things differently. So just curious, do u believe in God, universal creator, mover of things yadda yadda yadda? Or that theres merely something beyond the physical that we are not aware of

 

[Crono]

To all those who put their faith in science: How can you put your faith in something that is always changing? And even if science could be perfected and complete (which it can't), you or I will never live long enough to see it become so.

I'm not saying science is a bad thing, but rather how you use it (technology) can either be for good or bad. And the researchers of science are imperfect people, just like the rest of us, and science is definitely subject to the biases and will of those who use it (science is knowledge, and knowledge is power). Science is merely a tool for us to better understand the physical workings of the universe, and not a means for salvation. No matter how much scientific knowledge increases, it will never be able to address sin, which is, whether you acknowledge it or not, the single greatest problem with mankind. No matter how many contributions science has given us, mankind is still depraved and corrupt. Don't think people aren't so bad? Just take a look at the news. And before you say "not everyone is evil", yes, everyone is evil. The quality of man extends to sin; the only thing preventing many of from committing the same crimes that land others in jail for life is the fear of consequences. Even "Mother" Teresa was an evil person by nature, no matter what good deeds she did. To say that one person is any more good or just then any other person is prideful and ignorant of the sad nature that every person is born with. The only one who can save you from sin is the God, by Jesus Christ His Son, who died on the cross for your sins.

 

[Whisper]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3NF

Originally posted by: Whisper

True, but you did infer that religion has provided nothing of benefit to society. Vic has addressed and countered your point, giving concrete examples of meritorious products of religion. Additionally, as I mentioned before, countless individuals associated with, or followers of, various religions have contributed greatly to the betterment of mankind...often via the science and technology you mentioned earlier.

Infer? I did say that religion hasn't provided any value to society - I don't deny that

But where is Vic's list of meritorious products of religion?

Mother Teresa was a murderous warmonger...

No, but she was a self-aggrandizing sadist. I'm sure you ignore that fact with as much fervor as you ignore what science does to your religious myths.

:laugh:

I don't hold religious myths. Nor have I advocated any. Obviously you can't argue with straw men.

When (and if) you ever develop a REAL understanding of science, then maybe you'll understand how science and religion are not in conflict with each other, how conflict thesis is debunked 19th century psychobabble, and you'll quit spouting equally debunked marxist revisionist history.

I agree, religion and science are not in conflict with each other any more than Isaac Newton was in conflict with the easter bunny. Science does not conflict with fairy tales, science is above all that. Science shows what is and lets the fairy tales evaporate under the weight of their own lies. I really don't understand you Vic, I truly don't know whether you're truly ignorant, just a troll looking to fight or if you've been so brainwashed by your false mytholigies that you don't even listen to the foolishness that spews forth from you every time religion is called into question. It's absolutely mesmerizing to watch your fly into a spittle-flecked rage every time someone with an education understands what a twisted web of lies your religion is.

I consider myself to be a fairly educated individual, yet I also consider myself to be religious. This has done little to cause me any internal distress, and I have yet to see anything that would adamantly label my personal religion as mythology or a fairy tale.

it really depends on how you interpret your holy texts. Since we're in America I'll guess you're Christian (feel free to correct me), do you take the Bible literally? Do you believe in creationism and that all the animals in the world were created in their present form?

I won't get too in-depth in terms of my religious beliefs, but I don't know that I'd technically label myself as Christian. As for the bible, no, I don't interpret it literally because I know those who recorded it were human, and as such were capable of inaccuracy.

Perhaps the easiest way to explain my personal religiosity would be to say that I don't use it to explain anything. If I want to find out why something is the way that it is, I use science; that's what science is for, and why it was developed. Religion is a personal journey used to examine a multitude of things, the findings of science among them.

Edit: a better way to describe myself would likely be spiritual rather than religious.

Fair enough, personally I look at those two things differently. So just curious, do u believe in God, universal creator, mover of things yadda yadda yadda? Or that theres merely something beyond the physical that we are not aware of

I do believe in God specifically, rather than believing in a more vague-ish something beyond the physical, yes.

Edit: and damn, I should stop nesting quotations right about now.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Crono
To all those who put their faith in science: How can you put your faith in something that is always changing? And even if science could be perfected and complete (which it can't), you or I will never live long enough to see it become so.

I'm not saying science is a bad thing, but rather how you use it (technology) can either be for good or bad. And the researchers of science are imperfect people, just like the rest of us, and science is definitely subject to the biases and will of those who use it (science is knowledge, and knowledge is power). Science is merely a tool for us to better understand the physical workings of the universe, and not a means for salvation. No matter how much scientific knowledge increases, it will never be able to address sin, which is, whether you acknowledge it or not, the single greatest problem with mankind. No matter how many contributions science has given us, mankind is still depraved and corrupt. Don't think people aren't so bad? Just take a look at the news. And before you say "not everyone is evil", yes, everyone is evil. The quality of man extends to sin; the only thing preventing many of from committing the same crimes that land others in jail for life is the fear of consequences. Even "Mother" Teresa was an evil person by nature, no matter what good deeds she did. To say that one person is any more moral or just then any other person is prideful and ignorant of the sad nature that every person is born with. The only one who can save you from sin is the God, by Jesus Christ His Son, who died on the cross for your sins.

I believe people can be led to do good things (good in the sense that it benefits others) without being motivated by religion. And how would you define "people are evil?" Seems a rather ambiguous term given that everyone has commited SOME kind of misdeed yet most have commited many more good deeds. And I think your assertion that you can't describe one person as being more moral than anyother is just silly. Mother Teresa is more moral than Hitler. Maybe not by nature (although this could easily be argued) but atleast by their actions.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
it really depends on how you interpret your holy texts. Since we're in America I'll guess you're Christian (feel free to correct me), do you take the Bible literally? Do you believe in creationism and that all the animals in the world were created in their present form?

American fundamentalist Christianity is a tiny and unique faction of larger Christianity whose origins date back only to the Millerite revivalist movements of the early 19th century. Being derived from Anglicanism, they all had copies of the Ussher Chronology in their KJV's.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Whisper
SNIP



I agree, religion and science are not in conflict with each other any more than Isaac Newton was in conflict with the easter bunny. Science does not conflict with fairy tales, science is above all that. Science shows what is and lets the fairy tales evaporate under the weight of their own lies. I really don't understand you Vic, I truly don't know whether you're truly ignorant, just a troll looking to fight or if you've been so brainwashed by your false mytholigies that you don't even listen to the foolishness that spews forth from you every time religion is called into question. It's absolutely mesmerizing to watch your fly into a spittle-flecked rage every time someone with an education understands what a twisted web of lies your religion is.

I consider myself to be a fairly educated individual, yet I also consider myself to be religious. This has done little to cause me any internal distress, and I have yet to see anything that would adamantly label my personal religion as mythology or a fairy tale.

it really depends on how you interpret your holy texts. Since we're in America I'll guess you're Christian (feel free to correct me), do you take the Bible literally? Do you believe in creationism and that all the animals in the world were created in their present form?

I won't get too in-depth in terms of my religious beliefs, but I don't know that I'd technically label myself as Christian. As for the bible, no, I don't interpret it literally because I know those who recorded it were human, and as such were capable of inaccuracy.

Perhaps the easiest way to explain my personal religiosity would be to say that I don't use it to explain anything. If I want to find out why something is the way that it is, I use science; that's what science is for, and why it was developed. Religion is a personal journey used to examine a multitude of things, the findings of science among them.

Edit: a better way to describe myself would likely be spiritual rather than religious.[/quote]
Fair enough, personally I look at those two things differently. So just curious, do u believe in God, universal creator, mover of things yadda yadda yadda? Or that theres merely something beyond the physical that we are not aware of
[/quote]

I do believe in God specifically, rather than believing in a more vague-ish something beyond the physical, yes.

Edit: and damn, I should stop nesting quotations right about now.[/quote]
Here's something I've been wondering about, and anyone else believes in a singular God can feel free to chime in.

Supposedly God is omniscient, the alpha and the omega so he knows the future. Which would also mean, he knows what choices you will make and God has already seen the future. WHich would mean he has put souls onto this Earth with full knowledge they will make the series of choices that ultimately damn them to hell. THese peopel can't escape from their future because any free choice they make is mere illusion since the future has already been seen by God. Assuming you CAN make a free choice that God can not predict, it would mean God is NOT omnisciient

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Here's something I've been wondering about, and anyone else believes in a singular God can feel free to chime in.

Supposedly God is omniscient, the alpha and the omega so he knows the future. Which would also mean, he knows what choices you will make and God has already seen the future. WHich would mean he has put souls onto this Earth with full knowledge they will make the series of choices that ultimately damn them to hell. THese peopel can't escape from their future because any free choice they make is mere illusion since the future has already been seen by God. Assuming you CAN make a free choice that God can not predict, it would mean God is NOT omnisciient

What you're referring to is theological fatalism.

From the scientific argument, it is flawed because it assumes that God (should He exist) exists in and experiences time the same way we do.

From the theological argument, it assumes that God is not omnipotent. If He said we have Free Will, then we have it.

Remember, He is supposed to be the Alpha and Omega. That doesn't mean that He knows the future, that means He's already there.