Ye Religion Thread

[{TNP}Dukie]

Your ear is really, really, really red!
Someone has been talking about you I bet, cause your ear is burning!   

[paradisel0st]

Haunted says:

ROFL.

[cyberneticimplant]

In general the more educated people are, the less religious they are.

   Really??

You don't think so? Do you ever see Atheist African tribes?

[QuakeDuke]

Science is composed of a never-ending stream of questioning that never says "this is how it must have been and no other way is right".

   You obviously never met any of my professors. 

Seriously, if we will honestly  and unbiasedly consider, we find it still that way today. Science has always been just as dogmatic in its assurances that "this is how it must have been and no other way is right" until shown to be wrong as any religious fanatic that has ever been. Flat world, sun revolving around the earth, mendelson genetics. "who would ever need more than 640K memory"   or more recently, 9 planets in the solar system are just a few that spring to mind and I'm sure others can think of many others.

Some of the most closed minded people I have ever dialoged with have been scientists. On the other hand, some of the most refreshing people I have ever met have been scientists - who are willing to say "here's what we presently know - it could change into something diametrically opposite tommorrow." The problem between the two disciplines (which actually should fit together like a hand and a well-fitting glove but for some reason are remincent of a certain "if it don't fit, you can't convict" mentality) is we can't prove or disprove (according to our "rules of evidence") anything pertaining to the metaphysical - thus, like everything else we can't control or influence we fear, and what we fear we first reject, then villify, then crucify.

Closed mindedness benefits no one - scientist or metaphysist alike.

QD

[QuakeDuke]

indeed, no matter what you call your supernatural inspirational stories, they still fall into one category to me: fiction.

In regione caecorum rex est luscus.

At one time wrist, satellite & laser communications, space travel & space stations & nuculear fision were considered fiction. Our perception or non-perception of a thing cannot be used to categorize the existence or non-existence of anything. A little over 100 years ago people died by the thousands because no one understood antiseptics (still do in some parts of the world). More recently people endured terrible agony with stomach ulcers until the viral link was discovered and a treatment was created.

My daughter has treated a young man who was born without eyes from the time he was 3 years old (he graduates high school next year) and taught him how to walk, dress himself and many other things that helped him to become an extremely intelligent self-assured young man who needs very little help to function in society. He once asked us to describe to him the color green. Talk about a stumper. No way in the world to do that. Green didn't ceast to exist because he cannot understand or see it.

QD

[QuakeDuke]

Not that it probably matters to anyone but I must say I have throughly enjoyed reading this thread. I really like how most everyone has posted truly intellegient questions, answers & opinions and so far, it hasn't degenrated into what most discussions concerning such a controversial subject ends up being.


KUDOS TO ALL

QD

[QuakeDuke]

In general the more educated people are, the less religious they are.

   Really??

You don't think so? Do you ever see Atheist African tribes?

I have met many Africans in Benin, Kinsasha & the Republic of the Congo who claim to be athiests. I guess it would depend on the defintion of Atheist used.
QD

[QuakeDuke]

The only difference between religion in modern culture, and the practices described here:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/frazer/gb00503.htm
is that modern believers don't realize there is no difference.
 

Depends on the definition of religion

QD

[QuakeDuke]

It it not an instinct to believe in god, it is a desire for knowledge. Thousands of years ago people didn't know any better and came to conclusions that "supernatural beings" cause things to happen. We now know that is not true. In general the more educated people are, the less religious they are.

Out of all the more educated people out there, I would say the less religous ones are most likely to be the ones less religous.

  I LOVE IT! U rule Dukie!

QD

[haunted]

Wow he just beat blood.

[quadz]

Science is composed of a never-ending stream of questioning that never says "this is how it must have been and no other way is right".

 

[DaHanG]

the difference between science and religion is science is willing to admit they are wrong when new evidence comes in. science is not arrogant, however, when the claims that the earth is round and not the center of the universe are made. some science we can call indisputable fact, some we cannot. sacred texts, however, are NOT considered evidence from a rational perspective. the 'fact' that god made eve with one of adam's ribs can be called poetic and not literal. however, there is no implied allegorical meaning behind the first men living hundreds and hundreds of years. it is pretty clear that humans cannot live 900+ years old. if there was real evidence people lived this long, science would consider the possibility and not call it ridiculously stupid.

Science is composed of a never-ending stream of questioning that never says "this is how it must have been and no other way is right".

Science has always been just as dogmatic in its assurances that "this is how it must have been and no other way is right" until shown to be wrong as any religious fanatic that has ever been. Flat world, sun revolving around the earth, mendelson genetics. "who would ever need more than 640K memory"   or more recently, 9 planets in the solar system are just a few that spring to mind and I'm sure others can think of many others.

that's a contradiction in itself. if science was as dogmatic as religion, we would still believe that the world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, etc. calling the world flat and saying the sun revolves around the earth simply because it looks that way is not real science anyway (that's why these claims are outdated by hundreds of years).

9 planets in the solar system...i would like to see a scientist who claimed that "there are only 9 planets and it's impossible to find more or invalidate the title of some planets" because that statement is the opposite of the nature of science (although some scientists have egos). the fact is, we believed there were 9 planets because of what we knew up to a particular point, and as knew knowledge is aqcuired, we simply accepted the new data. some religious beliefs cannot be disproven even on rational grounds, but that does not make them the slightest bit probable.

 

[jägermonsta]

9 planets in the solar system...i would like to see a scientist who claimed that "there are only 9 planets and it's impossible to find more". the fact is, we believed there were 9 planets because of what we knew up to a particular point, and as knew knowledge is aqcuired, we simply accepted the new data.

8 planets in the solar system. 

good edit ;d

[cyberneticimplant]

the difference between science and religion is science is willing to admit they are wrong when new evidence comes in. science is not arrogant, however, when the claims that the earth is round and not the center of the universe are made. some science we can call indisputable fact, some we cannot. sacred texts, however, are NOT considered evidence from a rational perspective. the 'fact' that god made eve with one of adam's ribs can be called poetic and not literal. however, there is no implied allegorical meaning behind the first men living hundreds and hundreds of years. it is pretty clear that humans cannot live 900+ years old. if there was real evidence people lived this long, science would consider the possibility and not call it ridiculously stupid.

Science is composed of a never-ending stream of questioning that never says "this is how it must have been and no other way is right".

Science has always been just as dogmatic in its assurances that "this is how it must have been and no other way is right" until shown to be wrong as any religious fanatic that has ever been. Flat world, sun revolving around the earth, mendelson genetics. "who would ever need more than 640K memory"   or more recently, 9 planets in the solar system are just a few that spring to mind and I'm sure others can think of many others.

that's a contradiction in itself. if science was as dogmatic as religion, we would still believe that the world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, etc. calling the world flat and saying the sun revolves around the earth simply because it looks that way is not real science anyway (that's why these claims are outdated by hundreds of years).

9 planets in the solar system...i would like to see a scientist who claimed that "there are only 9 planets and it's impossible to find more or invalidate the title of some planets" because that statement is the opposite of the nature of science (although some scientists have egos). the fact is, we believed there were 9 planets because of what we knew up to a particular point, and as knew knowledge is aqcuired, we simply accepted the new data. some religious beliefs cannot be disproven even on rational grounds, but that does not make them the slightest bit probable.

 

Well said.

The earth is flat is a pretty bad example too. When people believed earth is flat there was no scientists. It was religious scholars who were persecuting Galileo for blasphemy.

[The Dreaming Dragon]

The odd thing is,the parody aside,the Flying Spagetti Monster fits very well into my ontological viewpoint:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster


An entity constantly tweaking our perceptions of reality hiding its existance yet making its presence felt through its actions. An entirely alien viewpoint with its own agendas and subtle subterfuges,prodding us in directions through the ilusion of this reality and a deeper illusion of self will.Most human based religions tend to focus around the inheritantly flawed humn viewpoint.Consider the symbolic nature of this Flying Spagetti monster: a duality of Meat surrounded by acting tendrils of noodles,or natural forces(wheat as the nurturing Gaia principal) corrupted into appendages with agendas,the conscience redirecting and reshaping of these natural forces.It Flies,a symbol of freedom and omniscience,and its Monsterous,its agendas are so alien they provoke fear in our tiny minds. Like the maching language Windows communicates with to get things done,the FSM dwells in its own perception and clouds up ou own ideas of it.

I could go on... but I need sleep.Maybe another day...