Religion

[Haden]

Oh.

Look at that!

What a surprise! A religious person has taken the points of a non-believer, thrown them out the window, and claimed they're being told "religions shit lolz".

 

This is one reason why I really, really, don't like religious people. They just refuse to take into account the arguments of others. Thank you for demonstrating my point nicely...

 

Haden, you were totally and completely PWNED. And The fish is absolutely right.

 

 

Um ok... lol. If we just reign in the aggression for a moment you have picked up the wrong end of the stick. I was saying that in most of these threads people just say stuff like religion sucks etc and thats it. There is no point there to refute. I was complimenting the fish as he usually makes good arguments to support his case ive no idea why he threw his toys out the pram the post after with the word pwned in is just wow lol unless you were being ironic?

[The fish]

I don't think religion is good or bad, it is like handling a gun. It all depends on the user's intentions. Religion is another tool for man and it can be used either way, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it.

 

Even though I have my faith and my beliefs, I am more than willing to listen to others and respect them for it as long as I recieve the same respect back. I refuse to become what people on both sides of the debate have evolve into.

 

Firstly: awful, awful metaphor, and yet also a great one - a firearm is always a bad thing, neutralising your point, but making it a good metaphor for me!

 

Secondly - why do religious views deserve "respect"? I don't respect bullshit. Flat-Earth, creationism, young-Earth, god/s - all founded in something other than reality, all fall apart the moment they go anywhere near Occam's Razor.

 

Um ok... lol. If we just reign in the aggression for a moment you have picked up the wrong end of the stick. I was saying that in most of these threads people just say stuff like religion sucks etc and thats it. There is no point there to refute. I was complimenting the fish as he usually makes good arguments to support his case ive no idea why he threw his toys out the pram the post after with the word pwned in is just wow lol unless you were being ironic?

 

My bad - I misread your post - in my defence, I had 4 hours sleep last night.

 

Thanks for the compliment. You're generally one of the better pro-religion types.

[Oxigen_Waste]

why do religious views deserve "respect"? I don't respect bullshit. Flat-Earth, creationism, young-Earth, god/s - all founded in something other than reality, all fall apart the moment they go anywhere near Occam's Razor.

 

QFT.

 

Oh and... Haden. Yeah, PWNED. This is the internet, after all...

[fex]

Theres as much chance as a fairly tale like Shrek being real than there is a religion.

 

Slap some proof in front of me.

________

IPAD ACCESSORIES

Edited April 28, 2011 by fex

[Haden]

Firstly: awful, awful metaphor, and yet also a great one - a firearm is always a bad thing, neutralising your point, but making it a good metaphor for me!

 

Secondly - why do religious views deserve "respect"? I don't respect bullshit. Flat-Earth, creationism, young-Earth, god/s - all founded in something other than reality, all fall apart the moment they go anywhere near Occam's Razor.

 

 

 

My bad - I misread your post - in my defence, I had 4 hours sleep last night.

 

lol ok no problem hope you sleep well tonight.

 

I think views dont really deserve respect but because people are behind them unless they are abhorrent the people deserve ploitness when being dealt with. Your more likely to change someones mind if you talk to them nicely than if you shout at them no matter how stupid their views are.

[Aimless]

The purpose of my post, Gizmo, was to draw parallels between religion and science. I'm not trying to discount either, I just think it's healthy to question one's beliefs whether they be in God or scientific fact.

 

Haver, you don't have to convert me from religion as I'm not a believer. I'm sure that presentation is interesting, though, and I'll try to give it a look when I've bandwidth to spare.

[Guest bluey]

i think unless it's hurting others, then everyone's views and opinions deserve respect... that is, i think it's good to respect the fact the people are going to do and believe whatever they want and MY views and opinions arent going to matter to someone who's convicted enough to believe in and give their life to god... or allah... or the supreme space pumpkin.

 

when i was a believer i saw people who doubted god as a challenge - a test of my faith, because that's what i was taught to see it as. it took me looking at my own choices in life and my OWN ideas for me to decide that christianity wasn't for me... nobody could convince me other than myself.

 

so in that way, there's just no point arguing about someone's beliefs or telling them it's "bullshit" because that's just something you have to decide for yourself... so surely, showing them respect by not causing unnecessary tension by needlessly arguing would make for a nicer atmosphere between beliefs... i guess what i'm saying is *puts oh hippy poncho* "can't we all just get along?"

 

@fish, what's occam's razor? i mean i kind of know what it is, and what context it's used in, but explain it to me?

[Raining_again]

i think unless it's hurting others, then everyone's views and opinions deserve respect... that is, i think it's good to respect the fact the people are going to do and believe whatever they want and MY views and opinions arent going to matter to someone who's convicted enough to believe in and give their life to god... or allah... or the supreme space pumpkin.

 

Bluey for president! ^_^

 

Some of you might think religion is all a pile of pish, but jeez get over it they aren't hurting you. It's only the internet people XD

[Coolness Bears]

ALL HAIL THE SUPREME SPACE PUMPKIN!!!

 

:bowdown: :bowdown:

[The fish]

I think views dont really deserve respect but because people are behind them unless they are abhorrent the people deserve ploitness when being dealt with. Your more likely to change someones mind if you talk to them nicely than if you shout at them no matter how stupid their views are.

 

Ah, I mean respect in the kind of PC-tiptoe around "offence" kind of way. I of all people believe in being civil.

 

@fish, what's occam's razor? i mean i kind of know what it is, and what context it's used in, but explain it to me?

 

"The solution with the least things presumed is the correct solution." It's often misquoted as "the simplest solution is the correct one", and has still holds strong to this day.

 

ALL HAIL THE SUPREME SPACE PUMPKIN!!!

 

:bowdown: :bowdown:

 

HERATIC!

 

PRAISE BE TO THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!

Blessed be his noodley appendage...

[Supergrunch]

@fish, what's occam's razor? i mean i kind of know what it is, and what context it's used in, but explain it to me?

Effectively it is the idea that the theory involving the least assumptions is likely to be the correct one.

But scientific 'fact' is often proven incorrect, and everything starts as theory before being validated to a reasonable degree. Science also requires faith, and ultimately it is another form of belief, albeit one that is far easier to swallow in this day and age.

 

Also, you are doing the Bible a gross disservice. I'm not a religious person, but even if I don't believe in a higher power I can agree that if more people upheld religious values then the world could be a better place.

 

At its heart, I think religion, much like science, is a good thing that can improve people's lives. However, both can be misused and manipulated to amplify the darkness in men's hearts. As always, people are the problem.

The thing is, science really doesn't require faith - the reason you give for this shows exactly why it does not. If evidence suggests that a theory is incorrect, then that theory is dicarded in favour of another. This is simply an application of the scientific principle.

 

Religion works not by the scientific principle but by the principle of faith. I see no problem with this, all it means is that religion is not science, and science is not religion.

[Guest bluey]

Bluey for president! ^_^

 

Some of you might think religion is all a pile of pish, but jeez get over it they aren't hurting you. It's only the internet people XD

 

true. unless it's in real life. in that case: "it's only life people!"

if anyone's seen dave gorman's googlewhack adventure, i think my views can best be described with a quote from when he's talking about creationism;

he explains how he thinks creationism is "poppycock", but he's sure if you looked into HIS beliefs you'd find some "cock or the poppiest variety" there, too - so if people just chilled out and let others believe whatever poppycock they choose - the world'd be a better place

[Raining_again]

true. unless it's in real life. in that case: "it's only life people!"

if anyone's seen dave gorman's googlewhack adventure, i think my views can best be described with a quote from when he's talking about creationism;

he explains how he thinks creationism is "poppycock", but he's sure if you looked into HIS beliefs you'd find some "cock or the poppiest variety" there, too - so if people just chilled out and let others believe whatever poppycock they choose - the world'd be a better place

 

Exactly!

 

It must be a girl thing haha ^^

 

chill out people

[Aimless]

The thing is, science really doesn't require faith - the reason you give for this shows exactly why it does not. If evidence suggests that a theory is incorrect, then that theory is dicarded in favour of another. This is simply an application of the scientific principle.

 

Religion works not by the scientific principle but by the principle of faith. I see no problem with this, all it means is that religion is not science, and science is not religion.

But scientific theories are proven via science, and sometimes these theories are ultimately proven incorrect by that same methodology. In the end science thrives on doubt as it allows it to hone in on the actuality of things, but this also means that things can't really be known, simply believed to be the case based on current evidence.

 

I suppose what I really mean is that science is not infallible. Conceptually faith is damaging to scientific reasoning, but you need only witness the sparks fly between two scientists with opposing convictions to see that belief — whether it be in oneself or a theory — is still a driving force behind its development.

 

You're right that science and religion are different, I was simply trying to highlight the similarities between them to encourage some empathy between what are ostensibly two opposing sides; I'm a man, not a woman, but that doesn't mean I can't attempt to understand and tolerate the opposite sex.

[Haden]

But scientific theories are proven via science, and sometimes these theories are ultimately proven incorrect by that same methodology. In the end science thrives on doubt as it allows it to hone in on the actuality of things, but this also means that things can't really be known, simply believed to be the case based on current evidence.

 

I suppose what I really mean is that science is not infallible. Conceptually faith is damaging to scientific reasoning, but you need only witness the sparks fly between two scientists with opposing convictions to see that belief — whether it be in oneself or a theory — is still a driving force behind its development.

 

You're right that science and religion are different, I was simply trying to highlight the similarities between them to encourage some empathy between what are ostensibly two opposing sides; I'm a man, not a woman, but that doesn't mean I can't attempt to understand and tolerate the opposite sex.

 

Good luck in that! High Five anyone?????

 

 

Im sorry I thought the thread needed humour im gonna go to my corner before bluey sends me there.

[Haver]

The purpose of my post, Gizmo, was to draw parallels between religion and science. I'm not trying to discount either, I just think it's healthy to question one's beliefs whether they be in God or scientific fact.

 

Haver, you don't have to convert me from religion as I'm not a believer. I'm sure that presentation is interesting, though, and I'll try to give it a look when I've bandwidth to spare.

 

I'm sure you're not. But the idea that religion could/should be used as a code for human behaviour is just as dangerous as belief, and is based on the same devaluation of the species, the Self.

 

----

 

On the Science thing, hate to bore but: Scientific theories are grounded in evidence. When or if the theory is proved to be wrong (based on reasoned evidence) the theory is adjusted or scrapped. Religion is the anti-thesis to this. It is not based on evidence. It is based on faith, blind belief. It is not rational.

 

Seriously, read on this. Hitchens's book is great.

[Aimless]

I'm sure you're not. But the idea that religion could/should be used as a code for human behaviour is just as dangerous as belief, and is based on the same devaluation of the species, the Self.

I said that if more people lived by religious values — i.e. didn't immerse themselves in gang culture, or commit rape and murder.

 

For the record I think the world as a whole would be better off without religion, but as it isn't going anywhere I'd rather see the most made of its positive aspects. At least if everyone is selfless we are still all looked after by someone.

 

On the Science thing, hate to bore but: Scientific theories are grounded in evidence. When or if the theory is proved to be wrong (based on reasoned evidence) the theory is adjusted or scrapped. Religion is the anti-thesis to this. It is not based on evidence. It is based on faith, blind belief. It is not rational.

So you have never come across a scientist that would not withdraw their disproved theory even on their deathbed? Not all belief is in God.

 

I agree that science as a concept is the antithesis of religion, but humans as a whole aren't exactly paragons of rationality: our superstitious and spiritual nature will always taint reason at some point.

[conzer16]

I can't respect religious people. I just can't.

 

You can't respect a person for having their own beliefs?

 

Then it's you who shouldn't be respected.

[Fierce_LiNk]

As Aimless touched on in his last post:

 

Science is the human mind looking for meaning.

 

Religion is the human mind believing in something that goes way beyond our own capacity for understanding. Believing that their is something greater and more divine out there than us, and that being is the reason why we are all here.

 

In a way, it's almost like a child's imagination. Think of the ending for Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Haha.

[Paj!]

I can respect religious people, as I myslef would love to be religious. But I "know" it's not true.

 

It's logic that the bible is simply a "fairytale" if you will. As someone said, if Shrek isn't real, how is God?

 

It's a shame it's not real, but yeah.

 

TBH, it's not faith I dislike, it's those that take on rules made by dickheads hundreds of years ago. I like to have faith that there is a force out there that does something, but to me it's much more rooted in nature.

 

But I don't really believe that sadly.

 

Also, the part of me that believe in a spirit knows that it's not benevolent. Since my world revolves around me, no one else is truly real, so I decided that there IS something, but it's testing me, or toying with me.

 

That's not really revelant though.

[Supergrunch]

So you have never come across a scientist that would not withdraw their disproved theory even on their deathbed? Not all belief is in God.

This is perfectly true, but also not science - it is people getting in the way of science. The difference is that faith is an integral part of religion, whereas it has no place in science. Hence trying to equate the two will merely result in problems - the scientific principle should not be applied to religion, just as faith should not be applied to science. The fact that people try both these things is a result of them being unaware that science and religion have nothing in common.

 

By contrast, men and women have a great deal of things in common, and one sex trying to understand the other is the antithesis of futility.

[Indigo]

All too often in these debates we let the prejudices of this matter steer us away from the real philosophical issues, instead focusing our attention on the manufactured 'clash' between science and God. In doing so we distract ourselves from our original questions and any logical pursuit of the reasons and arguments. This is what people such as Dawkins attempt to do - they mischaracterise the question of whether God exists as a battle between faith and science, as if they are mutually-exclusive, incompatible areas. It is then suggested that an affirmation of belief in God somehow constitutes a rejection of science. But this just isn't credible.

 

The reality is that much of our questions about God concern a realm with which science lacks the capacity to explain and inform us. Science may be able to answer what Elliot Sober called 'local-why questions' - questions concerned with a point in the earth's history. However, it lacks the capacity to explain 'global-why questions' - questions concerned with the totality of the universe and its history, eg. why is there something rather than nothing.

 

Materialism (the atheistic philosophy of Dawkins et al) operates on the basis that science has the capacity in principle to explain everything. We can observe the naivety of this simply be asking whether science can explain its own laws. Sure, it can explain the laws of geology with the laws of physics. But what about the fundamental laws? For the materialist the fundamental laws 'just are', they are the stopping place - but as Swinburne says "that sort of stopping place is just where no rational enquirer will stop."

 

Science can't account for the universe. Based on the Materialist principle of causal closure, every physical event must have a complete, sufficient, physical cause. So what about the universe itself? You might point to the Big Bang - but that's part of the universe itself. The universe requires an explanation outside of itself, just like you can't explain why a novel exists just by pointing to the title page. Science does not have the capacity to provide that - and this is why metaphysical explanations are necessary, and it is why it is a mistake to be fooled into thinking the existence of God is an irrational proposition.

[The fish]

Materialism (the atheistic philosophy of Dawkins et al) operates on the basis that science has the capacity in principle to explain everything. We can observe the naivety of this simply be asking whether science can explain its own laws. Sure, it can explain the laws of geology with the laws of physics. But what about the fundamental laws? For the materialist the fundamental laws 'just are', they are the stopping place - but as Swinburne says "that sort of stopping place is just where no rational enquirer will stop."

 

Science can't account for the universe. Based on the Materialist principle of causal closure, every physical event must have a complete, sufficient, physical cause. So what about the universe itself? You might point to the Big Bang - but that's part of the universe itself. The universe requires an explanation outside of itself, just like you can't explain why a novel exists just by pointing to the title page. Science does not have the capacity to provide that - and this is why metaphysical explanations are necessary, and it is why it is a mistake to be fooled into thinking the existence of God is an irrational proposition.

 

Lets play a game: a game called "applying Occam's Razor".

 

Up Quarks, down quarks, electrons, and electromagnetic waves, along with the laws that govern them, are, in my mind, simpler than an infinitely complex trans-dimensional super being.

[Haden]

All too often in these debates we let the prejudices of this matter steer us away from the real philosophical issues, instead focusing our attention on the manufactured 'clash' between science and God. In doing so we distract ourselves from our original questions and any logical pursuit of the reasons and arguments. This is what people such as Dawkins attempt to do - they mischaracterise the question of whether God exists as a battle between faith and science, as if they are mutually-exclusive, incompatible areas. It is then suggested that an affirmation of belief in God somehow constitutes a rejection of science. But this just isn't credible.

 

The reality is that much of our questions about God concern a realm with which science lacks the capacity to explain and inform us. Science may be able to answer what Elliot Sober called 'local-why questions' - questions concerned with a point in the earth's history. However, it lacks the capacity to explain 'global-why questions' - questions concerned with the totality of the universe and its history, eg. why is there something rather than nothing.

 

Materialism (the atheistic philosophy of Dawkins et al) operates on the basis that science has the capacity in principle to explain everything. We can observe the naivety of this simply be asking whether science can explain its own laws. Sure, it can explain the laws of geology with the laws of physics. But what about the fundamental laws? For the materialist the fundamental laws 'just are', they are the stopping place - but as Swinburne says "that sort of stopping place is just where no rational enquirer will stop."

 

Science can't account for the universe. Based on the Materialist principle of causal closure, every physical event must have a complete, sufficient, physical cause. So what about the universe itself? You might point to the Big Bang - but that's part of the universe itself. The universe requires an explanation outside of itself, just like you can't explain why a novel exists just by pointing to the title page. Science does not have the capacity to provide that - and this is why metaphysical explanations are necessary, and it is why it is a mistake to be fooled into thinking the existence of God is an irrational proposition.

 

I agree with pretty much all of that and it was put better than I could have done. Science vs Religion is such a human thing to do putting to things against each other like that into teams. So many great scientists were and are today religous its amazing how its even an issue.

[The fish]

You can't respect a person for having their own beliefs?

 

Then it's you who shouldn't be respected.

 

Why would you respect a flat-earthiest, young-earthiest or creationist? And I mean respect as in the "don't say that what they believe is a tad stupid", not the being civil type of respect - I strive to be as civil as possibly, when I can.

 

So many great scientists were and are today religious its amazing how its even an issue.

 

Most revered scientists today are not religious. Those in the past are most likely to be religious due to belief in a god being the zeitgeist, much like Abraham Lincoln's racism...