02-16-2014 01:50 AM
146 12345 ...
tools
  1. phlamethrowre's Avatar
    You know what they say about reality.......it sucks.
    01-03-2014 02:34 PM
  2. Mooncatt's Avatar
    ....after all, putting your faith in science IS putting your faith in man and that's just nuts
    Well let me ask you a philosophical/theological question. Let's say there is a higher power, god, or Italian food that created us. Do you think it would be so self serving as to create and use every living being as its puppets, or do you think it would want all creatures to live to their full potential and make their own choices?

    Personally I wouldn't want to live under a being that expected 100% faith with no allowing me free thought to explore the world around me and see how things work.
    01-03-2014 02:42 PM
  3. anon(4903109)'s Avatar
    Science is what untangles perception from reality. How I perceive things is irrelevant to reality, they are not the same thing. I do not take issue answering questions with "I don't know" and I certainly don't claim to know.

    He who makes the claim has a burden of proof. He who makes an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Intelligent design has made their claim and failed to provide their evidence other than "god dun it".
    01-03-2014 02:44 PM
  4. Scott7217's Avatar
    Seriously though, GREAT question, but I think what is considered a "legitimate religion" is only in the eye of the beholder.
    In general, I think legitimate religions depend on two things: how long they've been around, and how many people follow them. Most religions have been around for hundreds or thousands of years. They also have many people following them. (In some cases, you have entire countries with almost all of the people following a single religion.)

    So, using these criteria, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are legitimate religions. Ancient Greeks used to worship deities like Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades, but we don't consider that a religion anymore because no one really worships them today. Instead, we consider that to be Greek mythology, and many public schools teach it for literary purposes.
    01-03-2014 02:56 PM
  5. phlamethrowre's Avatar
    Personally I wouldn't want to live under a being that expected 100% faith with no allowing me free thought to explore the world around me and see how things work.


    Is that your impression of God?
    kellyjdrummer likes this.
    01-03-2014 02:56 PM
  6. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Is that your impression of God?
    I don't claim to know or even guess if a god exists. But if one did and was that oppressive to free thought, then you have my statement. How about you address the first part of my post, as you seem to rely so much on your god over science.
    01-03-2014 03:13 PM
  7. phlamethrowre's Avatar
    Well let me ask you a philosophical/theological question. Let's say there is a higher power, god, or Italian food that created us. Do you think it would be so self serving as to create and use every living being as its puppets, or do you think it would want all creatures to live to their full potential and make their own choices?
    I believe in Free Will so obviously the second choice in your question is what I believe.
    01-03-2014 03:25 PM
  8. phlamethrowre's Avatar
    I don't claim to know or even guess if a god exists.
    If you don't claim to know or even guess if God exist then where did you come up with the scenario that you would not want to live under??

    "Personally I wouldn't want to live under a being that expected 100% faith with no allowing me free thought to explore the world around me and see how things work."

    Where did that come from??
    01-03-2014 03:28 PM
  9. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Thank God for that since I don't put my faith in science.
    ....after all, putting your faith in science IS putting your faith in man and that's just nuts
    That's where.
    01-03-2014 03:38 PM
  10. phlamethrowre's Avatar
    That's where.



    you're claiming that I said that??
    01-03-2014 03:48 PM
  11. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Well, by saying you don't put your faith in science and put it in your chosen god, that's the logic. Look around at every man made thing. Science is all around us in action. Going by what you said, I'm lead to believe that you think everything doesn't fall apart simply by the will of god. That sounds pretty oppressive to me. Unless you don't think that, in which case you have too give faith in science after all.
    01-03-2014 04:02 PM
  12. Aquila's Avatar
    Well, by saying you don't put your faith in science and put it in your chosen god, that's the logic. Look around at every man made thing. Science is all around us in action. Going by what you said, I'm lead to believe that you think everything doesn't fall apart simply by the will of god. That sounds pretty oppressive to me. Unless you don't think that, in which case you have too give faith in science after all.
    I apologize Mooncatt, but I had to remove your debate partner from the discussion. Their purpose here is to troll the forums, and so I doubt the sincerity of their arguments in any case.
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-03-2014 04:34 PM
  13. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Awww... I was having fun.

    (Seriously, I understand if he's been an issue around the forums.)
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-03-2014 04:41 PM
  14. anon(4903109)'s Avatar
    gah, oh well
    01-03-2014 05:19 PM
  15. Aquila's Avatar
    The "Religion vs Science" argument will never be settled. Mostly because the argument will never be had on the same terms.

    Religion says "Prove God does not exist"

    Science says "Prove that God does exist"

    Neither will ever happen(unless a religious rapture happens of course).
    I think to be more accurate, science doesn't want anyone to try to prove or disprove God, what they want is for people to follow evidence to conclusions supported by the evidence and not make models of the workings of the universe based on preconceptions that are not supported by the evidence. The good thing about science is that it learns from it's mistakes and throws away incorrect hypothesis to move on to a more accurate understanding based on evidence. Religion on the other hand, is very slow to adopt new findings and even slower still to throw away junk assumptions because they still have to fit the new conclusions in with the old paradigms, to a large extent.

    In many ways, the Vatican for example, religion as a whole HAS moved on to accepting the facts of evolution through natural selection, the big bang, germ theory, etc and many scientists who practice Christianity are able to separate 4th century religious doctrine from biology, cosmology, etc. It's not necessarily cognitive dissonance, since they are amending the substance of their faith to include God, but not using God as "god of the gaps" or in place of evidence, or in contradiction to evidence. They are accepting of the facts, but are adding to them. There is a huge difference there, from fundamentalist new age creationists, who are far more perverse in their practice of the application of available knowledge.

    There is no actual argument about whether or not evolution by natural selection is a fact, it simply is. There's no "faith" in that statement, it's the simple truth that 100% of evidence found so far fits the theory (which is actual 5 major rules that all have to be true) and no single piece of credible evidence has ever contradicted or not fit with the theory. In fact, if that were to happen, such as if we found a fossil of a rabbit on a motorcycle in the stomach of a tyrannosaurus, the theory would be debunked immediately, because all 5 parts have to be true. What is NOT known, although the great minds of biochemistry and other disciplines have many working models under rapid advancement, is how the first thing that we would consider to be "alive", became "alive".

    It is wrong to automatically assume, "God" directly breathed life into whatever it was, because that's, "god of the gaps", however if your belief is that the perceived order of the universe was created by an intelligent God, then it might not be wrong to consider the possibility that God initiated the circumstances that kicked off the process, so to speak. There's still no evidence for that, and very little philosophical reason to try to make that consideration, but there's also no evidence yet to suggest that didn't happen. Science doesn't need religion to try to prove if there is or is not a god or God or gods, etc. The best models of the workings of every single level of the universe that we've studied so far have no need for that element or hypothesis in order to work beautifully. Religion clearly has no need for Science to support them nor try to disprove God, as proving a negative is impossible and the more intelligent deists and theists just incorporate new scientific discoveries and understanding into their worldview as PART of their faith, rather than evidence against their faith.

    Obviously believing something despite the preponderance (an understatement in the case of evolution) evidence is just dumb, but not knowing the information isn't stupid, it's just not educated enough. While there is no reason to suspect that God did start the evolutionary process, there is also no evidence (because there cannot be) to say that he/she/it did not. (Good) Science (and religion) knows it is wrong and is trying to become more correct. (Bad) Religion (and science) thinks it is right and gets just silly when challenged. If we all started from, "lets learn more" then the starting place of each group of students matters much less.

    The idea that 2000 years ago the arguments were flat or round and zeus cheating on hera or moses on a mountain, I think our debate is in a better place and I fully expect both sides of this debate to appear exactly as silly 2000 years from now, if not more so. The difference in our understanding of the universe now cannot be understated, and of course we're always just starting that journey until the day we get lazy and just start assuming again, then we need to trust the next generation to take over and find out the stuff we were too weak to seek.
    01-04-2014 05:01 AM
  16. Aquila's Avatar
    There are some extremely brilliant people that know far more about science and theology than I do that are able to reconcile the two together in their minds. There are equally brilliant people that can only hold one view or the other in anything other than a theoretical sense. Faith doesn't equate to "stupid" in any way, but the level of sophistication in the arguments have to be sound in order for an honest debate to take place. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is one of the most brilliant people alive today, and he's not a theist or deist, but he has some extremely valuable insight into the invocation of intelligent design by some of the greatest scientific minds in history. In a way it's not necessarily an expression of faith or literal belief or contraction, but an expression of awe and respect for the enormity, complexity, majesty and ultimate beauty of the universe that we try to understand, the point at the end of our individual knowledge where we just can't find the words to continue. THAT's where the next generation comes in, allowing us to "stand on the shoulders of giants" and continue to expand our knowledge of, and appreciation for, this universe: be it probability or creation.
    01-04-2014 05:14 AM
  17. llamabreath's Avatar
    I still think Google had something to do with the creation of the universe.



    I think signatures are stupid.
    Aquila likes this.
    01-04-2014 06:22 AM
  18. Aquila's Avatar
    I still think Google had something to do with the creation of the universe.



    I think signatures are stupid.
    That would take a very unorthodox understanding of time... unless you know more about Google than I do, in which case... do share!
    01-04-2014 03:13 PM
  19. llamabreath's Avatar
    That would take a very unorthodox understanding of time... unless you know more about Google than I do, in which case... do share!
    Nah, it was just a stupid joke that I'm too tired to run with, lol.




    I think signatures are stupid.

    (⊙.⊙)
    01-04-2014 03:59 PM
  20. xceeder's Avatar
    To each their own.

    Now to expand on what should be taught in the class room, I say creationism, intelligent design, etc. should be left out of public schools. Not only can it be considered putting religion in the class room, but the public schools should keep to sound scientific principles on the subject of how the planet and life was formed. Any other forms based on religion should be kept to their teachings in religious based private schools in my opinion.
    I couldn't agree more as religion is the main reason of war....

    sent from my Nexus 7 using tapatalk pro..
    01-04-2014 04:22 PM
  21. Scott7217's Avatar
    I couldn't agree more as religion is the main reason of war....
    There are religions that are opposed to killing and promote peace. Not all religions encourage war.
    01-07-2014 08:47 PM
  22. anon(4903109)'s Avatar
    There are religions that are opposed to killing and promote peace. Not all religions encourage war.
    The fact that there exists some religions that don't encourage violence doesn't negate the notion that generally religion and religious ideas are very involved with violence and war. I do also believe that when most people refer to "religion" they are mostly referring to the "Big 3" (Christianity, Islam and Judaism).
    01-07-2014 08:58 PM
  23. Scott7217's Avatar
    Pastafarians were able to get a holiday display in place in the Florida Capitol last December:

    Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to join Capitol holiday displays

    The Flying Spaghetti Monster joined 4 other displays, including a nativity scene, 2 signs from atheist groups, and a Festivus pole (made of Pabst Blue Ribbon cans). An additional display, submitted by the Satanic Temple, was under review because the application was incomplete.
    01-07-2014 09:43 PM
  24. anon8126715's Avatar
    Pastafarians were able to get a holiday display in place in the Florida Capitol last December:

    Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to join Capitol holiday displays

    The Flying Spaghetti Monster joined 4 other displays, including a nativity scene, 2 signs from atheist groups, and a Festivus pole (made of Pabst Blue Ribbon cans). An additional display, submitted by the Satanic Temple, was under review because the application was incomplete.
    Out of all of those religious displays, I'd probably be the most comfortable with the Festivus pole, mostly because it may encourage some young, taut, spirited young lady to use the pole to increase her cardio.....


    Flying Spaghetti Monster-i-support-single-moms-41133951-800x800.jpg
    01-09-2014 08:11 PM
  25. Scott7217's Avatar
    The fact that there exists some religions that don't encourage violence doesn't negate the notion that generally religion and religious ideas are very involved with violence and war. I do also believe that when most people refer to "religion" they are mostly referring to the "Big 3" (Christianity, Islam and Judaism).
    I wonder if nonreligious people also promote violence and war. I don't know if there are any statistics that show differences between religious and nonreligious people and their attitude for these things.

    If forum poster xceeder (whom I was replying to) used the word "religion" as a shorthand for "Christianity, Islam, and Judaism," I would ask that he or she put a clarification in a future post.
    01-10-2014 03:07 AM
146 12345 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Free Android Games: Monster Killer: Shooter Mayhem
    By peaksel in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-23-2013, 07:12 AM
  2. [FREE][GAME][4.0+] Monster Burger - Burger Maker Game
    By SmilingDragon in forum Android Games
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-22-2013, 12:17 AM
  3. Amazing Flying Hearts LWP
    By Precept Software Creations in forum Wallpapers, Ringtones, and Themes
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-13-2013, 07:33 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-27-2013, 03:44 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD