IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Organized Religion
Renegades
post Jan 29 2004, 01:52 AM
Post #1


Estou perdido...
****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 4,778
Joined: 30-November 02
From: SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE...
Member No.: 20



I just got this in an email from a friend of a friend who lives in the States...

Before outlining the nature of this document, several constants must first be stated.

0. No experiment can penetrate the frontier of Death, and no modern coming of god has been widely documented or recorded. Therefore it is impossible to confirm or deny any extra-life structure, afterlife, or deity.

1. Established Organized Religions are dependant on Blind Faith.

2. A Faithful member of said religion follows the teaching of a text or prophet without proof of its integrity.

3. Following without questioning stimulates auto-compliant behavior. The person becomes more apt to accept baseless information for fear of damaging his or her ideology.

4. Accepting all such information retards independent thought and leads to ignorance.

5. Mass ignorance is entirely detrimental to human intellectual evolution.

6. A species that fails to evolve cannot survive.
The Elaboration is as follows: Firstly #0., No experiment can penetrate the frontier of death, and no modern-coming of god has been widely documented or recorded. This means that any modern religion (created within the last 150 years or so) has absolutely no way of illustrating that its claims hold true, aside from the claim itself. As for an ancient religion such as Christianity or Islam or Judaism which derives it's structure from several ancient texts, there is no way to provide concrete proof that any of the events outlined therein occurred as claimed or even that they happened at all.

Furthermore it is most likely(and there is evidence to support this, if you research it) that these texts have been altered several(depending on the document) times throughout their journey from the past to the present. Altered by members or enemies of whichever religion to further his own agenda. A handy example to call upon in this instance is the popular childhood game of 'telephone'. This is the game where ten or more children sit in a circle. One person is chosen to make up a message, and he or she writes this message down on a secret piece of paper. The message is then whispered to the person directly to the message holder’s right. That person then whispers the message to the person to his or her right... and so on and so fourth until the message returns to the initiator. In almost every instance, the message is misunderstood and bares resemblance to, but is not the original message. If one takes into account humanities tendency to misunderstand itself and then weighs in the fact that many a person has sought power by lying and manipulating the public - and compound it with the fact that this cycle has been going on for thousands of years in these religions, it becomes strikingly clear that these texts can not be weighed as proof in any way.

Therefore #1., Established Religion is dependant on blind faith, and #2., a faithful member of said religion follows the teachings or texts without proof of it's integrity as there cannot be any such proof. There are, of course, several theories to explain this behavior in modern man, ranging from insecurity, to complications of being raised with a religion as truth according to a parent(s), or even a general lack of problem solving ability and overall intelligence. Since putting so much importance on something that is seemingly so unreliable and yet completely non-provable raises more than a few eyebrows, a faithful person can find him or herself asked questions that he or she will find impossible to answer, such as 'how do *you* know the bible is accurate?'.

Each time something along these lines occurs, the faithful person must confront a member of his or her clergy about the issue, or leave it to him or her self for resolution. Whatever the case, the point is often dismissed and the faithful continues on with his or her religious regimen. This is #4., accepting such absurd information as fact without a shred of credible proof is auto-compliance in action. The longer this sort of behavior continues, the more damage the religious person's independent thought capabilities suffer. It becomes harder and harder to envision detaching him or herself from the religion as time goes on.

When you have events such as this occurring within an organized religion, you've got them on a mass scale. #5., Mass ignorance. An incredibly large population of people, caught up in these mind-limiting belief systems, unable to dismiss them or even question them for any length of time. These people will in turn raise children, most of which will grow up around the religion and may have problems with independent thought later on in life as a direct result - making them more likely to adopt a religion in an effort to validate themselves and or their actions and more importantly, the actions of their parents. To really allow for human intellectual evolution, we must be willing to alter our perceptions of ourselves and our environment as our knowledge of life and the universe grows.

People who are hopelessly entrenched in these belief-systems are unable to participate in this aspect of evolution and their children are automatically at a disadvantage if they are raised under the same principles - there by retarding the human intellectual evolution process. A good example of this sort of conflict is evident in the incredibly large amount of people who are against stem cell research, cloning, growing organs, in-vitro fertilization and basically any sort of new biomedical technology, on the grounds that humans are 'playing god', that we are engaging in 'sin', or that life, no matter how undeveloped is 'sacred' and 'god's miracle'. This sort of behavior is already limiting our research and development of such lifesaving and enhancing biomedical technological discoveries.

Yet another, older example of the same ignorance interfering with general human intellectual evolution is that of ancient astronomer Galileo. He was jailed by the church when, through use of his telescope and other scientific methods he devised, he announced that the earth was in fact not the center of the solar system as the church claimed, and as millions of faithful blindly believed. A fact that we know today, for we have seen it with our own eyes. Some will rush to the defense of these religions saying that not everyone who believes in them is as ignorant. This is quite true, but they are *all* dependant in one way or another on that religion, otherwise they would not need to engage in it's organization. Such dependency can easily, and often does still result in narrow-minded ignorance, and inability to grasp revolutionary concepts.

There are still others who do not engage in the organization, follow whichever rules of that religion as they like, and generally think for themselves. These people are also quick to attack this point. Unfortunately, they themselves have some sort of dependency issue (they always vehemently deny this, despite it's obviousness) or they would not need to so much as affiliate themselves with a religion. When these people are asked why they insist on calling themselves Ba'hai or Christians or Muslims or Jews even though they don't follow the teachings, often the response is 'just because.' or 'I’ve got faith' or some other such nonsensical rubbish.

This intellectually limiting disease is well spread and well embedded in humanity, and the problem shall only get worse as we #6., fail to evolve to meet the changing needs of the species..



--------------------
"Do not be afraid of death so much as an inadequate life” - Bertolt Brecht

"I don't listen to what art critics say. I don't know anybody who needs a critic to find out what art is."
- Jean-Michel Basquiat
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sara
post Jan 29 2004, 03:16 AM
Post #2


Sunny Sunflower
****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,265
Joined: 30-November 02
From: Isla del Sol
Member No.: 3



QUOTE (Renegades @ Jan 29 2004, 10:52 PM)
Furthermore it is most likely(and there is evidence to support this, if you research it) that these texts have been altered several(depending on the document) times throughout their journey from the past to the present. Altered by members or enemies of whichever religion to further his own agenda.

i know that that would have happened in some texts, but if the text has been altered, then it would have to come in more than one version? like all the different bibles right? but if u have one text that everyone uses, can we still make the claim that its been altered? like i think if someone was to alter something, then that something, that book will undergo so many alterations so we'd end up with more than just one copy.

QUOTE
Therefore #1., Established Religion is dependant on blind faith, and #2., a faithful member of said religion follows the teachings or texts without proof of it's integrity as there cannot be any such proof.

well some of the instructions in some of these books make sense? i agree on the blind faith thing, but if someone was to see that their religion is vague or contradicts itself in certain aspects then one can do something bout it? like give it up? religion can give one inner peace, any kind of religion, and it seems like here, he's talking bout "proof" in a scientific kinda way? which i guess it's the only way "proof" is interpreted to in modern times? i guess what i mean is, things working out, and do's and dont's making sense, can be proof enough for some ppl...now for a scientist to argue that it's blind faith or it's not um proof enough, well...that's open for debate i guess? dunno.gif

and i agree that religion can be used by insititutions and groups to serve political purposes and it has been this mechanism of control, but is it so much like that now? since most of us live in countries where at least in theory there's a seperation of the state and religious institutions?

QUOTE
This is #4., accepting such absurd information as fact without a shred of credible proof is auto-compliance in action. The longer this sort of behavior continues, the more damage the religious person's independent thought capabilities suffer. It becomes harder and harder to envision detaching him or herself from the religion as time goes on.

ppl are not robots and i've had conversations with religious ppl who have critiqued some aspects of their religion, i think it would depend on what religon one is refferring to.

QUOTE
#5., Mass ignorance. An incredibly large population of people, caught up in these mind-limiting belief systems, unable to dismiss them or even question them for any length of time.

is he talking bout christianity and the church in the middle ages?

QUOTE
This intellectually limiting disease is well spread and well embedded in humanity, and the problem shall only get worse as we #6., fail to evolve to meet the changing needs of the species..

um he makes it sound like our biological evolution will be um restricted by ppl having faith? or is he referring to cultural evolution? either way, we have been evolving and there r so many ppl who have embraced organized religions whom have contributed to the world...greatly...not every religious person is george w. bush unsure.gif



annnyyywaaaay that's just what i think and im rambling my apologies...it's late here...im not attacking anyone or anything, im just sharing what i think smile.gif


--------------------
Reina, reina de mi vida Llena mi reino de alegria Tiene brillo en su mirada Goza de belleza consagra
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Jan 29 2004, 11:13 AM
Post #3


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



Bah, I scoff at organized religion. If you're going to believe in God, at least try the God of the philosophers. Organized religion leads to control and oppression, especially in the working class that can hinder their movements. It teaches them to be happy with their places because "God put them there." It's what the feudalists used, and it's what capitalists are using. GET RID OF IT ALL I SAY!

Belive in God all you want, but don't push opinions that you cannot prove on me or anyone else as some sort of "right" or "wrong."

Of course this is just my take on organized religion.


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sara
post Jan 29 2004, 12:21 PM
Post #4


Sunny Sunflower
****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,265
Joined: 30-November 02
From: Isla del Sol
Member No.: 3



well there's no right and wrong coz religion is not universal and it's a cultural construct wether its true or not or legit or not, it's all cultural and one cannot define "right" and "wrong" universally, it's all subjected to our perception and cultural background, what one might think is right in NZ, might not be the same for one who's from india, different cultures means different understandings of right and wrong.



smile.gif


--------------------
Reina, reina de mi vida Llena mi reino de alegria Tiene brillo en su mirada Goza de belleza consagra
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Jan 29 2004, 12:33 PM
Post #5


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (Sarah @ Jan 29 2004, 08:21 PM)
well there's no right and wrong coz religion is not universal and it's a cultural construct wether its true or not or legit or not, it's all cultural and one cannot define "right" and "wrong" universally, it's all subjected to our perception and cultural background, what one might think is right in NZ, might not be the same for one who's from india, different cultures means different understandings of right and wrong.



smile.gif

QUOTE
well there's no right and wrong coz religion is not universal and it's a cultural construct wether its true or not or legit or not,


You didn't understand my point. My point is that religion causes division among the proletariat. Many religions believe their religion is "universal" and that all people must adhere to their "rules" or "God" will punish them. Thus they will most certainly try to enforce their "divine" rules on the population. This can be seen with the State of Israel, anti-gay marriage movements, and other similar stances.

This was what I was getting at. If you want to believe in a creator (which I don't because I don't see a need to believe in something that wont show himself), fine, but don't take these so-called "revelations" that have no proof to their authority or certainty and pass them on as facts and try to enforce certain restrictions on people for it.


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sara
post Jan 29 2004, 01:22 PM
Post #6


Sunny Sunflower
****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,265
Joined: 30-November 02
From: Isla del Sol
Member No.: 3



my post wasnt aimed at u, u said something bout wrong and right and ppl shoving their beliefs and i simply shared my view on right and wrong and belief. smile.gif

QUOTE
You didn't understand my point.  My point is that religion causes division among the proletariat.

yeah i get u, thu i dont think i would blame religion for that, i mean politics get involved and ppl misuse belief and the religious texts, again that's what i think and its based on my knowledge of religious texts.

QUOTE
Many religions believe their religion is "universal" and that all people must adhere to their "rules" or "God" will punish them.  Thus they will most certainly try to enforce their "divine" rules on the population.


what i said was, wrong and right are not universal, they are cultural constructs, as in they are not natural not genetic, and that's why we disagree on so many things here, coz we all have different understandings of right and wrong based on our cultural knowledge. the fact that religion is perceived by its followers as universal is not what i meant. of course it would be viewed as universal by its followers, that provides this validation of it, it's valid coz it's universal, that is how its followers perceive it. my point was us disagreeing on it is understandable, and we cannot really think that our opinion is "right" or "wrong" from everyone's point of view, i cannot expect understanding of religion to be applied on ppl and get all fired up when someone disagrees, because what you think is right is just as valid as what i think is right, because it's all subjective and cultural.

those who want to enforce their divine rules on the population are doing so as a mechanism of control, to make everyone behave like they should so to speak, someone mentioned that before, and i agree. but this is open for debate coz we all perceive things differently and because a group of ppl choose to misuse religious texts i won't just dismiss the idea of religion completely...again this is just what i think, and i understand that alot of ppl will disagree, but that is perfectly fine coz again there's no right and wrong.

QUOTE
If you want to believe in a creator... fine, but don't take these so-called "revelations" that have no proof to their authority or certainty and pass them on as facts and try to enforce certain restrictions on people for it.


like i said before, what u perceive as facts may not be so for me, or others, and vice versa. i didnt try and enforce anything on anyone, i was sharing my point of view like everyone else.

and what's with the "if u want to believe in a creator, fine?" Crylol.gif yep hahahaha i'm sure it's fine laugh.gif


--------------------
Reina, reina de mi vida Llena mi reino de alegria Tiene brillo en su mirada Goza de belleza consagra
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Jan 29 2004, 01:53 PM
Post #7


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (Sarah @ Jan 29 2004, 09:22 PM)
my post wasnt aimed at u, u said something bout wrong and right and ppl shoving their beliefs and i simply shared my view on right and wrong and belief. smile.gif

QUOTE
You didn't understand my point.  My point is that religion causes division among the proletariat.

yeah i get u, thu i dont think i would blame religion for that, i mean politics get involved and ppl misuse belief and the religious texts, again that's what i think and its based on my knowledge of religious texts.

QUOTE
Many religions believe their religion is "universal" and that all people must adhere to their "rules" or "God" will punish them.  Thus they will most certainly try to enforce their "divine" rules on the population.


what i said was, wrong and right are not universal, they are cultural constructs, as in they are not natural not genetic, and that's why we disagree on so many things here, coz we all have different understandings of right and wrong based on our cultural knowledge. the fact that religion is perceived by its followers as universal is not what i meant. of course it would be viewed as universal by its followers, that provides this validation of it, it's valid coz it's universal, that is how its followers perceive it. my point was us disagreeing on it is understandable, and we cannot really think that our opinion is "right" or "wrong" from everyone's point of view, i cannot expect understanding of religion to be applied on ppl and get all fired up when someone disagrees, because what you think is right is just as valid as what i think is right, because it's all subjective and cultural.

those who want to enforce their divine rules on the population are doing so as a mechanism of control, to make everyone behave like they should so to speak, someone mentioned that before, and i agree. but this is open for debate coz we all perceive things differently and because a group of ppl choose to misuse religious texts i won't just dismiss the idea of religion completely...again this is just what i think, and i understand that alot of ppl will disagree, but that is perfectly fine coz again there's no right and wrong.

QUOTE
If you want to believe in a creator... fine, but don't take these so-called "revelations" that have no proof to their authority or certainty and pass them on as facts and try to enforce certain restrictions on people for it.


like i said before, what u perceive as facts may not be so for me, or others, and vice versa. i didnt try and enforce anything on anyone, i was sharing my point of view like everyone else.

and what's with the "if u want to believe in a creator, fine?" Crylol.gif yep hahahaha i'm sure it's fine laugh.gif

QUOTE
yeah i get u, thu i dont think i would blame religion for that, i mean politics get involved and ppl misuse belief and the religious texts, again that's what i think and its based on my knowledge of religious texts.


Nor did I say it was to blame for it all. But it is to blame for some if not a majority of these things.

QUOTE
what i said was, wrong and right are not universal, they are cultural constructs, as in they are not natural not genetic, and that's why we disagree on so many things here, coz we all have different understandings of right and wrong based on our cultural knowledge.


This is in terms of morality. Right and wrong still exist in terms of facts and fiction. If someone is to claim the world is flat, then that is a WRONG assumption based on the facts and evidence related to the subject. The same could be said of certain religious Gods.

What this assertion applies to is certain moral ramifications, what is the "good" or "pious" thing to do versus the immoral "bad" thing to do.

QUOTE
my point was us disagreeing on it is understandable, and we cannot really think that our opinion is "right" or "wrong" from everyone's point of view, i cannot expect understanding of religion to be applied on ppl and get all fired up when someone disagrees, because what you think is right is just as valid as what i think is right, because it's all subjective and cultural.


In terms of MORALITY this is true. In terms of political, social, and scientific ramifications it is not. This should NOT be applied on all levels of thinking.

QUOTE
those who want to enforce their divine rules on the population are doing so as a mechanism of control, to make everyone behave like they should so to speak, someone mentioned that before, and i agree.


You can most certainly say this is right or wrong, you are thinking of morality, which this has nothing to do with. This has to do with the facts, whether or not the people really ARE trying to make people behave like they do is the issue here.

QUOTE
like i said before, what u perceive as facts may not be so for me, or others, and vice versa. i didnt try and enforce anything on anyone, i was sharing my point of view like everyone else.


Which is fine, my comment wasn't aimed sepcifically at you. It was aimed at the religious fanatics who take part in this. Facts are independent of human interpretation, they are separate points. Facts exist, whether you want to accept them or not is up to you.

QUOTE
and what's with the "if u want to believe in a creator, fine?"  yep hahahaha i'm sure it's fine 


It most certainly is fine to believe in a Creator. As long as you don't press your creator on me as if it's some sort of FACT for which you have no evidence for, then I'm fine with it.


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
defiance
post Jan 31 2004, 09:31 AM
Post #8


mind of a revolutionary
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,951
Joined: 17-November 03
From: Minnesota
Member No.: 1,117



QUOTE
The Elaboration is as follows: Firstly #0., No experiment can penetrate the frontier of death, and no modern-coming of god has been widely documented or recorded. This means that any modern religion (created within the last 150 years or so) has absolutely no way of illustrating that its claims hold true, aside from the claim itself. As for an ancient religion such as Christianity or Islam or Judaism which derives it's structure from several ancient texts, there is no way to provide concrete proof that any of the events outlined therein occurred as claimed or even that they happened at all.


Actually there is, archeology has again and again proved the existence of many people who skeptics once said did not exist. It has also uncovered tablets and scrolls that attest to the truth of many events that are said to have happened in those documents. Of course, we could be even more blind and believe that evolution happened when there is no written evidence that it did. As for miraculous happenings, that depends on the credibility of the writers. In the case of such old texts as the books of Moses, I would say his credibility was very good, considering he wrote several times of his or his peoples evils against god (assuming that there is one).

QUOTE
Furthermore it is most likely(and there is evidence to support this, if you research it) that these texts have been altered several(depending on the document) times throughout their journey from the past to the present. Altered by members or enemies of whichever religion to further his own agenda. A handy example to call upon in this instance is the popular childhood game of 'telephone'. This is the game where ten or more children sit in a circle. One person is chosen to make up a message, and he or she writes this message down on a secret piece of paper. The message is then whispered to the person directly to the message holder’s right. That person then whispers the message to the person to his or her right... and so on and so fourth until the message returns to the initiator. In almost every instance, the message is misunderstood and bares resemblance to, but is not the original message. If one takes into account humanities tendency to misunderstand itself and then weighs in the fact that many a person has sought power by lying and manipulating the public - and compound it with the fact that this cycle has been going on for thousands of years in these religions, it becomes strikingly clear that these texts can not be weighed as proof in any way.


Have you heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? They are incredibly old, much older than the manuscripts used for the New Testament and except for differences in language and style, they are exactly the same as the modern translations. The printers who copied the manuscripts of the Bible were extremely accurate in their copying, so that if they got one sentence wrong they would start the whole page or even the entire scroll over again. The example of little children quickly passing a sentence from one child to the next without any chance for editing, is very childish in itself, in that it completely leaves out many other important factors involved in the proccess reprinting.

QUOTE
Therefore #1., Established Religion is dependant on blind faith, and #2., a faithful member of said religion follows the teachings or texts without proof of it's integrity as there cannot be any such proof. There are, of course, several theories to explain this behavior in modern man, ranging from insecurity, to complications of being raised with a religion as truth according to a parent(s), or even a general lack of problem solving ability and overall intelligence. Since putting so much importance on something that is seemingly so unreliable and yet completely non-provable raises more than a few eyebrows, a faithful person can find him or herself asked questions that he or she will find impossible to answer, such as 'how do *you* know the bible is accurate?'.


These are all nice ideas, but than again same arguments can be made for atheism or evolutionism, which has absolutely no written or recorded evidence of it happening. But with those you would probably call it scientific and therefore it is not the same thing. However this is not the case, there are many people who believe what scientists say, simply because they don't have the patience to study these subjects for themselves. So they choose to depend on what theories scientists can come up with, which makes it even worse, as it puts pressure on scientists to find a reasoon as quickly as they can, even one that makes no sense at all for those who bother to study it. For instance, how did conscious live come from nothing, if it wasn't already there? Or, why has every human culture in the world (further back than any records can tell) had some form of religion. You said might be insecurity, without any reason behind it, but doesn't that in itself show that we seem to instinctively need god? Why do we seem to naturally believe in god? Why is it so inherently in us? To say that it's unreasonable and therefore unreliable, not only leaves out the ever increasing evidence behind certain beliefs, but it also leaves out certain arguments that could be made through the argument that you presented. As I already said, why do we inherently believe in some form of god? And to refute the argument that it is unreasonabe, it could also be argued that we are unreasonably devoted to our family and we are unreasonably devoted to our true mother and father. Children naturally stick to their biological parents, but are very unreceptive to foster parents. Some call this unreasonable, but the fact is that it is totally natural and should be held with utmost respect, not with disdain and hostility. This same reason may be true of religion.

QUOTE
When you have events such as this occurring within an organized religion, you've got them on a mass scale. #5., Mass ignorance. An incredibly large population of people, caught up in these mind-limiting belief systems, unable to dismiss them or even question them for any length of time. These people will in turn raise children, most of which will grow up around the religion and may have problems with independent thought later on in life as a direct result - making them more likely to adopt a religion in an effort to validate themselves and or their actions and more importantly, the actions of their parents. To really allow for human intellectual evolution, we must be willing to alter our perceptions of ourselves and our environment as our knowledge of life and the universe grows.

Once again, you make it sound as if religion itself is responsible for this, but yet the problem also occurs in many other fields of reason. For example, politics are often very limiting, many times people become so wrapped up in their ideologies that they are unable or unwilling to see beyond them and actually reason on the subject. Nazism for instance was very unreasonable, there was absolutly no logical reason for believing many of the things they did. This same kind of reasoning, often called nationalism, is also very common throughout the United States. But I seriously doubt that you would be willing to eliminate all forms of political parties, such as the democratic party, or the green party. by the reasoning, not all religions are like that either.

QUOTE
People who are hopelessly entrenched in these belief-systems are unable to participate in this aspect of evolution and their children are automatically at a disadvantage if they are raised under the same principles - there by retarding the human intellectual evolution process. A good example of this sort of conflict is evident in the incredibly large amount of people who are against stem cell research, cloning, growing organs, in-vitro fertilization and basically any sort of new biomedical technology, on the grounds that humans are 'playing god', that we are engaging in 'sin', or that life, no matter how undeveloped is 'sacred' and 'god's miracle'. This sort of behavior is already limiting our research and development of such lifesaving and enhancing biomedical technological discoveries.


If you think that religion is the only barrier to this kind of research, than you'd better start studying the better, cause there are many nonreligious activists who are strongly against things like abortion and genetic engineering. Pesticides were once hailed as a scientific miracle that would make our food cleaner and healthier and better tasting. However, if you ask most intelligent people today, you probably find that most of them would prefer to eat organic food. The same situation is being repeated with genetic modification. As for abortion, what kind of true activist could say that it isn't sacred? For that matter, newborn babies are also unaware of anything around them other than their own comfort. But would you be willing to kill a newborn child for the sake of the mothers comfort or convenience? I'm straying from the subject, but I think you get my point.

QUOTE
Yet another, older example of the same ignorance interfering with general human intellectual evolution is that of ancient astronomer Galileo. He was jailed by the church when, through use of his telescope and other scientific methods he devised, he announced that the earth was in fact not the center of the solar system as the church claimed, and as millions of faithful blindly believed. A fact that we know today, for we have seen it with our own eyes. Some will rush to the defense of these religions saying that not everyone who believes in them is as ignorant. This is quite true, but they are *all* dependant in one way or another on that religion, otherwise they would not need to engage in it's organization. Such dependency can easily, and often does still result in narrow-minded ignorance, and inability to grasp revolutionary concepts.


If you really want to get into it on scientific facts like, the Earth is round etc, here's some interesting points from the Bible. The Bible calls the Earth a ball or circle that "hangs on nothing" and stands "compactly out of water" yet is also surrounded in water. Of course you could attempt to distort those sayings and on purpose take them the wrong way, but those facts were all said in the Bible, long before scientists had even come up with those ideas. And to say that the organization of religion is a sign of dependency, really shows how desperate you are to find something wrong with it. But if you really think like that, I want you to publicly denounce organized political parties, because it is sign of peoples dependency on those parties to keep their ideas strong. If you don't believe in doing that, than don't try to do it to religion either.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Jan 31 2004, 10:39 PM
Post #9


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (defiance @ Jan 31 2004, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE
The Elaboration is as follows: Firstly #0., No experiment can penetrate the frontier of death, and no modern-coming of god has been widely documented or recorded. This means that any modern religion (created within the last 150 years or so) has absolutely no way of illustrating that its claims hold true, aside from the claim itself. As for an ancient religion such as Christianity or Islam or Judaism which derives it's structure from several ancient texts, there is no way to provide concrete proof that any of the events outlined therein occurred as claimed or even that they happened at all.


Actually there is, archeology has again and again proved the existence of many people who skeptics once said did not exist. It has also uncovered tablets and scrolls that attest to the truth of many events that are said to have happened in those documents. Of course, we could be even more blind and believe that evolution happened when there is no written evidence that it did. As for miraculous happenings, that depends on the credibility of the writers. In the case of such old texts as the books of Moses, I would say his credibility was very good, considering he wrote several times of his or his peoples evils against god (assuming that there is one).

QUOTE
Furthermore it is most likely(and there is evidence to support this, if you research it) that these texts have been altered several(depending on the document) times throughout their journey from the past to the present. Altered by members or enemies of whichever religion to further his own agenda. A handy example to call upon in this instance is the popular childhood game of 'telephone'. This is the game where ten or more children sit in a circle. One person is chosen to make up a message, and he or she writes this message down on a secret piece of paper. The message is then whispered to the person directly to the message holder’s right. That person then whispers the message to the person to his or her right... and so on and so fourth until the message returns to the initiator. In almost every instance, the message is misunderstood and bares resemblance to, but is not the original message. If one takes into account humanities tendency to misunderstand itself and then weighs in the fact that many a person has sought power by lying and manipulating the public - and compound it with the fact that this cycle has been going on for thousands of years in these religions, it becomes strikingly clear that these texts can not be weighed as proof in any way.


Have you heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? They are incredibly old, much older than the manuscripts used for the New Testament and except for differences in language and style, they are exactly the same as the modern translations. The printers who copied the manuscripts of the Bible were extremely accurate in their copying, so that if they got one sentence wrong they would start the whole page or even the entire scroll over again. The example of little children quickly passing a sentence from one child to the next without any chance for editing, is very childish in itself, in that it completely leaves out many other important factors involved in the proccess reprinting.

QUOTE
Therefore #1., Established Religion is dependant on blind faith, and #2., a faithful member of said religion follows the teachings or texts without proof of it's integrity as there cannot be any such proof. There are, of course, several theories to explain this behavior in modern man, ranging from insecurity, to complications of being raised with a religion as truth according to a parent(s), or even a general lack of problem solving ability and overall intelligence. Since putting so much importance on something that is seemingly so unreliable and yet completely non-provable raises more than a few eyebrows, a faithful person can find him or herself asked questions that he or she will find impossible to answer, such as 'how do *you* know the bible is accurate?'.


These are all nice ideas, but than again same arguments can be made for atheism or evolutionism, which has absolutely no written or recorded evidence of it happening. But with those you would probably call it scientific and therefore it is not the same thing. However this is not the case, there are many people who believe what scientists say, simply because they don't have the patience to study these subjects for themselves. So they choose to depend on what theories scientists can come up with, which makes it even worse, as it puts pressure on scientists to find a reasoon as quickly as they can, even one that makes no sense at all for those who bother to study it. For instance, how did conscious live come from nothing, if it wasn't already there? Or, why has every human culture in the world (further back than any records can tell) had some form of religion. You said might be insecurity, without any reason behind it, but doesn't that in itself show that we seem to instinctively need god? Why do we seem to naturally believe in god? Why is it so inherently in us? To say that it's unreasonable and therefore unreliable, not only leaves out the ever increasing evidence behind certain beliefs, but it also leaves out certain arguments that could be made through the argument that you presented. As I already said, why do we inherently believe in some form of god? And to refute the argument that it is unreasonabe, it could also be argued that we are unreasonably devoted to our family and we are unreasonably devoted to our true mother and father. Children naturally stick to their biological parents, but are very unreceptive to foster parents. Some call this unreasonable, but the fact is that it is totally natural and should be held with utmost respect, not with disdain and hostility. This same reason may be true of religion.

QUOTE
When you have events such as this occurring within an organized religion, you've got them on a mass scale. #5., Mass ignorance. An incredibly large population of people, caught up in these mind-limiting belief systems, unable to dismiss them or even question them for any length of time. These people will in turn raise children, most of which will grow up around the religion and may have problems with independent thought later on in life as a direct result - making them more likely to adopt a religion in an effort to validate themselves and or their actions and more importantly, the actions of their parents. To really allow for human intellectual evolution, we must be willing to alter our perceptions of ourselves and our environment as our knowledge of life and the universe grows.

Once again, you make it sound as if religion itself is responsible for this, but yet the problem also occurs in many other fields of reason. For example, politics are often very limiting, many times people become so wrapped up in their ideologies that they are unable or unwilling to see beyond them and actually reason on the subject. Nazism for instance was very unreasonable, there was absolutly no logical reason for believing many of the things they did. This same kind of reasoning, often called nationalism, is also very common throughout the United States. But I seriously doubt that you would be willing to eliminate all forms of political parties, such as the democratic party, or the green party. by the reasoning, not all religions are like that either.

QUOTE
People who are hopelessly entrenched in these belief-systems are unable to participate in this aspect of evolution and their children are automatically at a disadvantage if they are raised under the same principles - there by retarding the human intellectual evolution process. A good example of this sort of conflict is evident in the incredibly large amount of people who are against stem cell research, cloning, growing organs, in-vitro fertilization and basically any sort of new biomedical technology, on the grounds that humans are 'playing god', that we are engaging in 'sin', or that life, no matter how undeveloped is 'sacred' and 'god's miracle'. This sort of behavior is already limiting our research and development of such lifesaving and enhancing biomedical technological discoveries.


If you think that religion is the only barrier to this kind of research, than you'd better start studying the better, cause there are many nonreligious activists who are strongly against things like abortion and genetic engineering. Pesticides were once hailed as a scientific miracle that would make our food cleaner and healthier and better tasting. However, if you ask most intelligent people today, you probably find that most of them would prefer to eat organic food. The same situation is being repeated with genetic modification. As for abortion, what kind of true activist could say that it isn't sacred? For that matter, newborn babies are also unaware of anything around them other than their own comfort. But would you be willing to kill a newborn child for the sake of the mothers comfort or convenience? I'm straying from the subject, but I think you get my point.

QUOTE
Yet another, older example of the same ignorance interfering with general human intellectual evolution is that of ancient astronomer Galileo. He was jailed by the church when, through use of his telescope and other scientific methods he devised, he announced that the earth was in fact not the center of the solar system as the church claimed, and as millions of faithful blindly believed. A fact that we know today, for we have seen it with our own eyes. Some will rush to the defense of these religions saying that not everyone who believes in them is as ignorant. This is quite true, but they are *all* dependant in one way or another on that religion, otherwise they would not need to engage in it's organization. Such dependency can easily, and often does still result in narrow-minded ignorance, and inability to grasp revolutionary concepts.


If you really want to get into it on scientific facts like, the Earth is round etc, here's some interesting points from the Bible. The Bible calls the Earth a ball or circle that "hangs on nothing" and stands "compactly out of water" yet is also surrounded in water. Of course you could attempt to distort those sayings and on purpose take them the wrong way, but those facts were all said in the Bible, long before scientists had even come up with those ideas. And to say that the organization of religion is a sign of dependency, really shows how desperate you are to find something wrong with it. But if you really think like that, I want you to publicly denounce organized political parties, because it is sign of peoples dependency on those parties to keep their ideas strong. If you don't believe in doing that, than don't try to do it to religion either.

QUOTE
Of course, we could be even more blind and believe that evolution happened when there is no written evidence that it did.


Are you saying that you don't think evolution occured?

QUOTE
In the case of such old texts as the books of Moses, I would say his credibility was very good, considering he wrote several times of his or his peoples evils against god (assuming that there is one).


Considering Moses supposedly wrote when he died, I doubt he wrote anything.

QUOTE
The printers who copied the manuscripts of the Bible were extremely accurate in their copying, so that if they got one sentence wrong they would start the whole page or even the entire scroll over again.


I agree that the Bible is probably the same today as it was when it was written.

QUOTE
The example of little children quickly passing a sentence from one child to the next without any chance for editing, is very childish in itself, in that it completely leaves out many other important factors involved in the proccess reprinting.


I think what the author was trying to do was show that people put their own spin on things when they are telling traditions or "copying the story." It would be easy for them to add their own spin on things. I don't think this necessarily happened with the Bible, but I see his point.

QUOTE
These are all nice ideas, but than again same arguments can be made for atheism or evolutionism, which has absolutely no written or recorded evidence of it happening.


Evolutionism has TONS of evidence behind its occurence.

QUOTE
However this is not the case, there are many people who believe what scientists say, simply because they don't have the patience to study these subjects for themselves.


Yes there are, but the majority come to conclusions based on scientific research and fact.

QUOTE
So they choose to depend on what theories scientists can come up with, which makes it even worse, as it puts pressure on scientists to find a reasoon as quickly as they can, even one that makes no sense at all for those who bother to study it.


Evolution makes PLENTY OF SENSE and is correspondant with the facts. Don't tell me you're a creationist.

QUOTE
Or, why has every human culture in the world (further back than any records can tell) had some form of religion.


Every culture in the world had some form of religion because of ignorance, they couldn't explain everything so they believed in some sort of higher power who could do it for them.

QUOTE
Why do we seem to naturally believe in god?


Actually children are born atheist and learn to "believe" God as a reason to explain things that they can't explain at the current time set.

QUOTE
Why is it so inherently in us?


Well which God are you talking about? Allah? Hinduism's God? The God of the pagans? They all seemed to "believe" God inherently, right?

QUOTE
To say that it's unreasonable and therefore unreliable, not only leaves out the ever increasing evidence behind certain beliefs, but it also leaves out certain arguments that could be made through the argument that you presented.


What evidence is that? Could you provide it?

QUOTE
Children naturally stick to their biological parents, but are very unreceptive to foster parents.


So do animals.

QUOTE
Some call this unreasonable, but the fact is that it is totally natural and should be held with utmost respect, not with disdain and hostility. This same reason may be true of religion.


I don't know any atheists who think taht we shouldn't love our mothers and fathers. But okay. And how you are comparing religion to loving mothers and fathers I'll never know.

QUOTE
Once again, you make it sound as if religion itself is responsible for this, but yet the problem also occurs in many other fields of reason.


It is the problem with the religious philosophies that influence people to think in that way.

QUOTE
For example, politics are often very limiting, many times people become so wrapped up in their ideologies that they are unable or unwilling to see beyond them and actually reason on the subject. Nazism for instance was very unreasonable, there was absolutly no logical reason for believing many of the things they did.


Yes I agree, but the political ideologies are just as much to blame as the people practicing it.

QUOTE
But I seriously doubt that you would be willing to eliminate all forms of political parties, such as the democratic party, or the green party. by the reasoning, not all religions are like that either.


Not all religions are like that, true, but the majority are and are only a result of supersticious ignorance.

QUOTE
If you think that religion is the only barrier to this kind of research, than you'd better start studying the better, cause there are many nonreligious activists who are strongly against things like abortion and genetic engineering.


Not challegning this, but what are some?

QUOTE
Pesticides were once hailed as a scientific miracle that would make our food cleaner and healthier and better tasting. However, if you ask most intelligent people today, you probably find that most of them would prefer to eat organic food.


Which is why Science is better than religion. If a religious book said to eat pesticides, followers would do it no matter how much evidence was provided to the contrary. Science is bending and flexible and deals with research and data. If the data doesn't support a theory then the theory is dropped.

QUOTE
But would you be willing to kill a newborn child for the sake of the mothers comfort or convenience?


Of course this is granted that a fetus is a "newborn" and a "child."

QUOTE
The Bible calls the Earth a ball or circle that "hangs on nothing" and stands "compactly out of water" yet is also surrounded in water


Circle is the actual translation of the verse you're referring to and means a flat circle. Sort of like a pancake. They still thought the earth was flat.

QUOTE
And to say that the organization of religion is a sign of dependency, really shows how desperate you are to find something wrong with it.


Organized religion is just that, dependency. Dependency on a father figure to make your life better.

QUOTE
But if you really think like that, I want you to publicly denounce organized political parties, because it is sign of peoples dependency on those parties to keep their ideas strong. If you don't believe in doing that, than don't try to do it to religion either.


Political parties are based on ideas that can be tested and evidence behind their philosophies is needed.

Religion, on the other hand, demands faith as its central tenet. Lack of evidence is no problem for the believer because he has faith. This stands only as an obstruction to further human developement.


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
guerrillainmate
post Feb 1 2004, 07:37 PM
Post #10


Your Only God
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 760
Joined: 30-November 02
From: parts unknown, New Zealand
Member No.: 16



omg this is a long conversation.. the quotes make this completely unreadalbe...


--------------------

I can feel them pushing, I can feel them pulling
I can feel them holding, I can feel them moving,
I can feel them prying, I can feel them prodding,
I can feel them breathing, I can feel them digging
I can feel them stabbing, I can feel them scoping,
I can feel them living, I can feel it, Consume, take in, plunging, plumbing,
Instruments prying, aliens inside me, Tooling the machine, Intoxicating,
Feel it unfolding, riddles in me
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sara
post Feb 1 2004, 08:56 PM
Post #11


Sunny Sunflower
****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,265
Joined: 30-November 02
From: Isla del Sol
Member No.: 3



to say that science is better than religion is just as valid as saying religion is better than science...also, someone mentioned that if religion says take something bad for u or something, ppl would, well actually scientists have made mistakes in the past saying "such and such is good for u" and we see ppl rushing to the stores to buy it, and a year or so later "research shows, it's not as good as ppl thought" examples such as having eggs, dont eat eggs, then "one can eat 3 eggs a week", and now it's "1 egg a day", or the conraceptive pills that made mothers have deformed babies...and ddt, and what bout the crap science makes like nuclear weapons, agent orange, and all that stuff....

also, a person who has blind faith in science is just as bad as a person who has blind faith in religion.

evidence of evolution is all well and great, but there's a missing link between apes and humans that means that the notion of us evolving from a common ancestor with apes still has a long way to go, and at this point it's all speculations than can be falsified. i am not saying i dont believe in evolution, but i am saying, one has to be skeptical sometimes in the face of science.

it's funny how science has almost become like the church in the middle ages, if one dares to reject it or question it, one is "ignorant"




--------------------
Reina, reina de mi vida Llena mi reino de alegria Tiene brillo en su mirada Goza de belleza consagra
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
defiance
post Feb 1 2004, 10:27 PM
Post #12


mind of a revolutionary
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,951
Joined: 17-November 03
From: Minnesota
Member No.: 1,117



QUOTE
Considering Moses supposedly wrote when he died, I doubt he wrote anything.


Somebody else could have easily finished that part for him, like his successor Joshua. There are several books in the bible that were written by more than one person. I would also like to point out the gospels, in which the apostels (two of whom wrote some of the gospels) are very often shown as commiting wrong deeds. At one point, Peter (who wrote several books of the New Testament) even denies his relationship with Jesus, but later repents for doing so.

QUOTE
Evolutionism has TONS of evidence behind its occurence.


Can you please show me some?

QUOTE
Evolution makes PLENTY OF SENSE and is correspondant with the facts. Don't tell me you're a creationist.


I am a creationist.

QUOTE
Every culture in the world had some form of religion because of ignorance, they couldn't explain everything so they believed in some sort of higher power who could do it for them.


Well than explain this, why does almost every religion in the world have some sort of flood legend, like the great flood of the Old Testament?

QUOTE
Well which God are you talking about? Allah? Hinduism's God? The God of the pagans? They all seemed to "believe" God inherently, right?


I was referring to god in general, as in why are we so naturally receptive to religion. There has not been one single society in the entire world that does not have some form of religion.

QUOTE
What evidence is that? Could you provide it?


More and more archeological evidence is coming up that proves certain people or places existed, or that certain events took place, which were once strongly denied by scientists and other critics. I'll post some of it as soon as I can.

QUOTE
So do animals.


Well thanks for reinforcing my point, but just out of curiosity, what is your point.

QUOTE
I don't know any atheists who think taht we shouldn't love our mothers and fathers. But okay. And how you are comparing religion to loving mothers and fathers I'll never know.


Most people don't that, but sometimes foster parents will get very angry because a child is not willing to accept them as their new parents, very often it is taken as being irrational, but any normal person should realize that it's natural.

God is sometimes referred to as a father, or in some religions, a mother. I thought that would work as a good comparison, but I guess not. But anyway, I think you understand what I was saying.

QUOTE
Yes I agree, but the political ideologies are just as much to blame as the people practicing it.


That is exactly my point. Should we outlaw political parties too? Most people would go crazy at the thought of that, just like they would with religion.

QUOTE
Not all religions are like that, true, but the majority are and are only a result of supersticious ignorance.


So what do want to do about it, outlaw it. Wouldn't that be violating peoples rights? I know I don't want some government telling me that I don't have the right to practise my religion, but since you don't have a religion you must see things differently. Not to mention it would be no different than what the Catholic Church did back in the Middle Ages. I guess we could call it the atheist inquisition.

QUOTE
Not challegning this, but what are some?


Please don't slow down the topic with rediculous questions like that. You already know that there are, some people even posted on the Genetic Engineering debate who were evolutionists and were completely against it. The same is true of the abortion debate.

QUOTE
Which is why Science is better than religion. If a religious book said to eat pesticides, followers would do it no matter how much evidence was provided to the contrary. Science is bending and flexible and deals with research and data. If the data doesn't support a theory then the theory is dropped.


I agree with what Sarah said, lots of people have sufferred because of scientific failures, like the examples she gave. And despite the fact that many people are strongly opposed to use geneticaly modified foods, scientists are still determined to use these foods before they have been able to prove that it won't be harmful. I say, quit screwing with nature, than maybe it wouldn't bother us so much.

QUOTE
Of course this is granted that a fetus is a "newborn" and a "child."


Please go to the Abortion debate if you want to discuss that subject.

QUOTE
Circle is the actual translation of the verse you're referring to and means a flat circle. Sort of like a pancake. They still thought the earth was flat.


Not neccessarily, we often refer to the Sun or the Moon as a circle, so how can you say they weren't referring to the Earth that way? It's very interesting to me, but if you choose to take it the wrong way, than that's your problem. You know, the same argument has been used before on the use of terms like "the four corners of the Earth", but that same terminology is still used by many people today, even though we know that the Earth is round. not to mention that if the Earth was supposed to be a circle according to the Bible, why would its authors purposely contradict their own belief, if they weren't just using it as a way to refer to the entire Earth? And a sphrere is considered to be a type of circle, it doesn't have to be flat. But anyway, sorry for the mistake, I'll be sure to double check next time.

QUOTE
Organized religion is just that, dependency. Dependency on a father figure to make your life better.


Actually not all religions are for that purpose. Some Christian churches today (as well as the first Christian Church and Christ himself) focus on issues of after the end, that is the end of the current system that is predicted in the Bible. I think Islam is somewhat focused on that too, but I don't know as much about it, so you'l have to read about it yourself. Besides, what kind of true religion isn't organized, cause if it isn't, than it's obviously not a real religion, that is an actual belief system that a large group of people follow. That argument is just an weak attempt to discredit religion, by finding ways to make it look bad.

Political parties are based on ideas that can be tested and evidence behind their philosophies is needed.

QUOTE
Religion, on the other hand, demands faith as its central tenet. Lack of evidence is no problem for the believer because he has faith. This stands only as an obstruction to further human developement.


As a matter of fact, there are many parts in the Bible where it says to have wisdom and reason behind your beliefs, and it does not demand blind faith, it's lust been corrupted that way. Anyway, feel free to argue against any of these points.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Feb 2 2004, 10:03 AM
Post #13


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE
to say that science is better than religion is just as valid as saying religion is better than science...


What in the BLAZES? Science is based on observation of data. Religion is based on the exact opposite. One involves reason and logic and assessment of specific data, while Religion depends on faith. How in the HELL is RELIGION as VALID as SCIENCE?

By your reasoning the Jews have every right to Palestine because their RELIGION says so, and we all know Religion>Science. GIve me a break.

QUOTE
also, someone mentioned that if religion says take something bad for u or something, ppl would, well actually scientists have made mistakes in the past saying "such and such is good for u" and we see ppl rushing to the stores to buy it, and a year or so later "research shows, it's not as good as ppl thought" examples such as having eggs, dont eat eggs, then "one can eat 3 eggs a week", and now it's "1 egg a day", or the conraceptive pills that made mothers have deformed babies...and ddt, and what bout the crap science makes like nuclear weapons, agent orange, and all that stuff....


Holy Crap, there was a lot of bull in this post. Let me respond to it point by point:

1: I never said Science doesn't make mistakes, what I said is that if it does, it's not afraid to change it's assumptions based on the data. Religion wouldn't do it no matter how much evidence wsa provided to the contrary. You are acting like I said science was perfect, which is the beauty of science. It's not perfect, nor has it ever claimed to be. It's about observation of data and making theories based on the data. Religion is the very opposite of this, and is about making theories either based or nonbased on data. It doesn't matter because some Jesus figure says it's so.

2: Are you saying people who used science to create weapons that science (a field of STUDY not dependent on some book or anything) is to blame? Holy crap, that's like blaming mathematics for it (because mathematics are very involved in science). The difference between this and Religion is that religion is based on faith that followers follow (most of the time without adequate questioning). Thus they follow specific principles based on these rules given by a creator and they act accordingly. Mathematics has no "rules" for living and neither does science, they are both objectively different from a way of "life."

QUOTE
also, a person who has blind faith in science is just as bad as a person who has blind faith in religion.


No because science is based ond ata. Sure it's bad to have blind faith in science, but it's worse to have it in religion because it is based on the absence of evidence and facts.

QUOTE
evidence of evolution is all well and great, but there's a missing link between apes and humans that means that the notion of us evolving from a common ancestor with apes still has a long way to go, and at this point it's all speculations than can be falsified.


What? Are you saying because the theory isn't perfect that it's false? What kind of nonsense? You either lack knowledge of the nature of scientific inquiry or you're being willfully argumentative. In either case, you've shown your lack of scientific knowledge.

Evolution is a FACT, how evolution is a THEORY that is not absolute.

QUOTE
i am not saying i dont believe in evolution, but i am saying, one has to be skeptical sometimes in the face of science.


SCIENCE IS SKEPTICISM!! The origins of science (as in science that has really started changing the world) is rooted in skepticism. Science is the observation of data and then making a THEORY based on this data.

For instance, GRAVITY is a FACT, the THEORY of gravity attempts to EXPLAIN this fact.

QUOTE
it's funny how science has almost become like the church in the middle ages, if one dares to reject it or question it, one is "ignorant"


No, Science is not based on dogma like the religious church of the middle ages. Once again, it's based on theories formulated from data. That evolution happens/happened is a FACT, the THEORY of evolution describes how it happened.

QUOTE
Somebody else could have easily finished that part for him, like his successor Joshua. There are several books in the bible that were written by more than one person. I would also like to point out the gospels, in which the apostels (two of whom wrote some of the gospels) are very often shown as commiting wrong deeds. At one point, Peter (who wrote several books of the New Testament) even denies his relationship with Jesus, but later repents for doing so.


The apostles didn't write the gospels in all likelihood. The Gospel of John wasn't written until about 95 AD, and the other gospels were written for other churches all over Romans.

Scholars have formulated the JEDP theory (or documentary hypothesis) to account for the difference of writing styles and the various small "discontinuities" in the Old Testament. I know you're relatively young, so I'll just tell you to research the subject.

QUOTE
Can you please show me some?
QUOTE
I am a creationist.


I'm sorry you feel this way, Comrade, you have been taken for a ride. Go into about.com forums and go to atheism and agnosticism and ask them for evidence of evolution. I guarantee they will refute creationist claims rather easily.

QUOTE
Well than explain this, why does almost every religion in the world have some sort of flood legend, like the great flood of the Old Testament?


Because they all borrow myths from each other. The canaanite form of the flood was written EARLIER than the Old Testament writer (which, I'll say is Moses) and contains many striking similarities. It's safe to say that Moses or that they borrowed from him.

QUOTE
I was referring to god in general, as in why are we so naturally receptive to religion. There has not been one single society in the entire world that does not have some form of religion.


Because we can't explain everything ourselves so we fall into the "God of the Gaps" philosophy.

QUOTE
More and more archeological evidence is coming up that proves certain people or places existed, or that certain events took place, which were once strongly denied by scientists and other critics. I'll post some of it as soon as I can.


I'll wait for it.

QUOTE
Well thanks for reinforcing my point, but just out of curiosity, what is your point.


I was only providing evidence that it is a natural phenomena and doesn't explain any God.

QUOTE
Most people don't that, but sometimes foster parents will get very angry because a child is not willing to accept them as their new parents, very often it is taken as being irrational, but any normal person should realize that it's natural.


And what does that have to do with an atheist or God?

QUOTE
God is sometimes referred to as a father, or in some religions, a mother. I thought that would work as a good comparison, but I guess not. But anyway, I think you understand what I was saying.


Yes, but it wasn't a good comparison.

QUOTE
That is exactly my point. Should we outlaw political parties too? Most people would go crazy at the thought of that, just like they would with religion.


I would if it consists of objection to proletariat freedom and acts of violence against the revolution that has just occured (if we were living in a post revolutionary society anyway).

QUOTE
So what do want to do about it, outlaw it. Wouldn't that be violating peoples rights? I know I don't want some government telling me that I don't have the right to practise my religion, but since you don't have a religion you must see things differently. Not to mention it would be no different than what the Catholic Church did back in the Middle Ages. I guess we could call it the atheist inquisition.


I wouldn't outlaw it, but I would make it harder for people to be willfully ignorant of science and facts, and relying on superstition to explain things. The Catholic Church persecuted people for just questioning their religion (which itself is based on faith and not data), obviously this shouldn't happen. With atheism I would allow people to check out a "religious" philosophy, but then also allow them to see the errors in these religions and resort back to reason and logic.

Of course, as I've said many times, it's not a belief in God that I am worried about. It's the religions and principles of these religions that I am.

QUOTE
Please don't slow down the topic with rediculous questions like that. You already know that there are, some people even posted on the Genetic Engineering debate who were evolutionists and were completely against it. The same is true of the abortion debate.


Genetic Engineering debate? Where was that at? You said complete organizations were against these people, and I wasn't challenging your claim. I just wanted the name of some of these organizations because I haven't heard of them.

QUOTE
I agree with what Sarah said, lots of people have sufferred because of scientific failures, like the examples she gave.


Which is why Science is better, again. It's not based on unquestioning faith, it's based on observation of data. If the data doesn't fit the theory, it's dropped. If things are brought out that make the theory obsolete or incorrect a new theory is formulated. Science still relies on objective reasoning, whereas religion would depend on dogma and a submission to its rules no matter WHAT evidence was provided to the contrary. Science is much better than Dogma.

QUOTE
Please go to the Abortion debate if you want to discuss that subject.


Easy Comrade, I was just providing a counter argument for your claim.

QUOTE
Not neccessarily, we often refer to the Sun or the Moon as a circle, so how can you say they weren't referring to the Earth that way? It's very interesting to me, but if you choose to take it the wrong way, than that's your problem.


All I am saying is that it's possible that they still thought it was flat. The Bible didn't reveal any kind of scientific knowledge.

QUOTE
ou know, the same argument has been used before on the use of terms like "the four corners of the Earth", but that same terminology is still used by many people today, even though we know that the Earth is round. not to mention that if the Earth was supposed to be a circle according to the Bible, why would its authors purposely contradict their own belief, if they weren't just using it as a way to refer to the entire Earth?


I never brought up that argument.

QUOTE
Actually not all religions are for that purpose. Some Christian churches today (as well as the first Christian Church and Christ himself) focus on issues of after the end, that is the end of the current system that is predicted in the Bible.


How does that contradict the need for a father figure? Jesus appealed to this figure telling his followers to follow his commands because they were the exact same as the father figure's.

QUOTE
Besides, what kind of true religion isn't organized, cause if it isn't, than it's obviously not a real religion, that is an actual belief system that a large group of people follow.


I never made this argument, again.

QUOTE
As a matter of fact, there are many parts in the Bible where it says to have wisdom and reason behind your beliefs, and it does not demand blind faith, it's lust been corrupted that way. Anyway, feel free to argue against any of these points.


Of course it says that, but very few of the followers actually do it. And when they do "question" they still have their belief structure obstructing them from objectively examining the evidence and as such when they find any bit of evidence somewhat "supporting" their religion, they jump, hoot and hollar about it without testing it. That's the main beef I have with religion.


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sara
post Feb 2 2004, 03:15 PM
Post #14


Sunny Sunflower
****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,265
Joined: 30-November 02
From: Isla del Sol
Member No.: 3



^ u sound like the pope or the priest in the middle ages, anyhoot, yeah it is just as valid, u talk bout science like it's the ultimate truth, and u completely ignore that "truth" in itself is a human construct, and we all have different "truths" we believe in, the fact that u choose to go for science doesnt mean u r any more "right" or "wrong". u choose to believe that the relativity of right and wrong can only be applied to some aspects, i suggest u do some cultural studies research and "expand ur horizons".

ur problem is that u refuse to see other's points. i didnt say that we should blame science for agent orange. just like u choose to blame religion for the opression that took place, one can blame science for the weapons that are being given to ppl.

how can u be skeptical of science when u r swept away by the data and the "absolute truth", and how can u tell me that science cannot be falsified?? m d an anthropolgist gave lectures at our univeristy said "with all the fossils we have and DNA evidence, we're still looking for the missing link" so there goes the absolute evolution truth. and also, yeah the whole idea of having an experiment or scientific project is based on coming up with a hypothesis that can be tested, and therefor either one can prove it right or can prove it to be false, if one cannot falsify something it means one cannot question it and argue against it, and if we cannot argue against science then u have proved to me that science today is like the church in the middle ages. again i am not saying that evolution didn't occur, but i am keeping my mind open to more evidence. 30 yrs ago, ppl thought we evolved from apes, now this has changed, hence the previous conceptions have been falsified. so no i didnt say it's false.

judaism doesnt say it's ok for the jews to take palestinian land, what ur talking bout is zionism. a rabbie was interviewed on aljazeera a week ago, he lives in New York i believe, i'll find some more info and post it. anyway he said that isreal is a zionist nation, using judiasm as an excuse to steal land, and it's all political, he even said that the arabs have the right to fight for their land, although it is very sad to see deaths of innocent ppl on both sides.

if u cannot respect the oppositions views and call them "bull[shit]" then u have a long way to go in terms of maturity. however it's good to see u stand by ur beliefs, i repsect that.

agree to disagree.


--------------------
Reina, reina de mi vida Llena mi reino de alegria Tiene brillo en su mirada Goza de belleza consagra
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Feb 2 2004, 03:56 PM
Post #15


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (Sarah @ Feb 2 2004, 11:15 PM)
^ u sound like the pope or the priest in the middle ages, anyhoot,

You still haven't proven it.

QUOTE
u talk bout science like it's the ultimate truth, and u completely ignore that "truth" in itself is a human construct, and we all have different "truths" we believe in, the fact that u choose to go for science doesnt mean u r any more "right" or "wrong".


Truth is for philosophy, what I talk and speak of is FACTS. Facts are things that have been PROVEN TO HAVE HAPPENED. You are again comparing the argument for "relative morality" to science. The two are separate and no reputable philosopher would make the claim that they are intertwined.

Morality is right and wrong as in moral principles such as lying, murder, etc.. Science is an observation of phenomena that has taken place and the collection of data and attempt to explain it. There is no similarity between the two and they are not related.

QUOTE
ur problem is that u refuse to see other's points. i didnt say that we should blame science for agent orange. just like u choose to blame religion for the opression that took place, one can blame science for the weapons that are being given to ppl.


I already went over what the difference was, but you missed the point YET AGAIN. How come that doesn't suprise me?

QUOTE
how can u be skeptical of science when u r swept away by the data and the "absolute truth", and how can u tell me that science cannot be falsified??


When on earth did I say Science was the "absolute truth" and when did I say that scientific data cannot be falsified? Are you making this crap up as you go along or what?

QUOTE
m d an anthropolgist gave lectures at our univeristy said "with all the fossils we have and DNA evidence, we're still looking for the missing link" so there goes the absolute evolution truth.


Okay, I'll explain this nice and slow. THAT WAS ABOUT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. THE FACT THAT EVOLUTION HAS HAPPENED IS A FACT, THE THEORY JUST SHOWS IT.

I'll give you an example, the THEORY OF GRAVITY. Just because the theory of HOW gravity works might have a hole does not mean that GRAVITY itself does not occur, do you UNDERSTAND NOW?

QUOTE
and also, yeah the whole idea of having an experiment or scientific project is based on coming up with a hypothesis that can be tested, and therefor either one can prove it right or can prove it to be false, if one cannot falsify something it means one cannot question it and argue against it, and if we cannot argue against science then u have proved to me that science today is like the church in the middle ages.


I never said you couldn't argue against scientific examinations but if you do, you should have data and research to back up your claim. You have provided neither.

QUOTE
again i am not saying that evolution didn't occur, but i am keeping my mind open to more evidence. 30 yrs ago, ppl thought we evolved from apes, now this has changed, hence the previous conceptions have been falsified. so no i didnt say it's false.


WHAT? It was always known that there was a missing link, in fact based on some science books that were out about 50 years ago, they called AFRICAN AMERICANS that missing link. I'd really like to know where you're getting your information from.

It's good that you're keeping your mind open, but there are no other theories that contain fact and observable phenomena to test in light of Evolution.

QUOTE
judaism doesnt say it's ok for the jews to take palestinian land, what ur talking bout is zionism. a rabbie was interviewed on aljazeera a week ago, he lives in New York i believe, i'll find some more info and post it.


Of course that's his interpretation of Judaism and the Jews of Palestine and their Christian supporters will say he is misinterpreting things. Either way, religion is being used to support the stance they are taking and since religion>science, it's just as valid as the rabbi using "logic and reason" to prove that it's not the case. I mean after all "we all have different truth's" right? See how rediculous you're being?

QUOTE
if u cannot respect the oppositions views and call them "bull[shit]" then u have a long way to go in terms of maturity. however it's good to see u stand by ur beliefs, i repsect that.


If someone believes that the world is flat, I'm sorry but it's BULL. And I wouldn't be afraid to tell them that.

QUOTE
agree to disagree.


Okay... I didn't even start the argument with you in the first place.


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st October 2020 - 02:28 PM