Ok, ground rules – no slamming of any particular religion, we don’t need to cross that bridge. For this match, it’s not a decision of which one is better, instead, which has had more impact on the history of mankind?
Ok, ground rules – no slamming of any particular religion, we don’t need to cross that bridge. For this match, it’s not a decision of which one is better, instead, which has had more impact on the history of mankind?
SHARE THIS POST
“nothing can truly be taken literal even in science but some do think that way. in regards to the flooding most of Mesopotamia was flooded at that time which at that time was the known world.”
-
This depends entirely on your own perspective of God, if you believe in a god. I actually believe in the young earth theory, (Flame away if you want), and so I take things literally.
“They refer to “united humanity” frequently.”
-
Yes, united people. Not every person however. For example, the nations that lies in the west, (those who didn’t migrate east), never took part in the construction of the tower in the first place.
iv have overheard countless debates over this very subject both in real life and on forums and i just wanted try and throw more fuel on the fire
@sorrow. The “united humanity” could very easily be allegorical as a combined effort of the masses present, not necessarily global cooperation.
@flood story
Even native Americans, on another continent, have flood stories.this is not isolated to a couple tribes; nearly EVERY tribe has one.
@debate.
Religion had the higher percentage of involvement with humanity in the past, for reasons started. Scientific discoveries stemming from religious peoples, establishments, and even squabbles does NOT detract from the religious side. at worst it would be a “point” on either side
@beliefs
I’m a Christian even though I disagree with the way many denominations are operated. They have fallen into the ruts and spiritual stagnation arising from running a divinely inspired community as a business.
My research and education into many of these issues has created no few schisms between myself and pastors lol. I believe that there is a God who set the universe in motion, allowed various changes to be made via creating genetics, and let it run as a watchmaker would.to the creation bit: not a literal time table imho. during my time at UCLA as pre med student focusing on genetics, many teachers admitted trying to at first disprove God to only believe that it was by design.
@all
A posit: if I gave you everything needed to make a 747 without directions, could you? For those who said yes, could you fly out without a manual? Lol not trying to start anything just i’m a very scientific mind who believes in God, and believes God is scientific too. Cheers all
My stance on this remains mostly unchanged, but due to my below average english back then I coudn’t really voice my opinion regarding this matter.
-
I too believe science and religion share a (love/hate) relationship with eachother.The Greek, who firmly revered their gods still theorized the world wasn’t flat and performed many acts of astrology together with the Egyptians.These 2 people builded great cultures and breeded great minds, yet they where proberly still religious.This is obviously answered by the fact that those people didn’t know better at the time, but for me it pretty much destroys the argument that religion and science cannot co-exsist.
-
After all, it was religion who drove the Catholics to push the science of construction to the limit while building their grand Cathedrals, it where the Germanic/Norse gods who inspired their people to improve and research their forging techniques so that they could inscribe their blades more betterly of their tales and deeds.Great minds have undoubtly been inspired with the tales of whatever their god was and this has resulted in the foundations we have today.
-
Ofcourse their is the nasty aspect, as it can aspire people to fly a plane into a building and it is used plenty to commit hatecrimes against people.Yet as explained before the same counts for science.While I consider nuclear energy to be one of the wonders of the past century it is obvious that it’s use for warfare is utterly devastating.Science can be utterly dangerous, just like religion when used wrong.
-
I do not really care about god(s) and spirituality in general.But when I visit a Cathedral or look upon a viking longsword that has been decorated in ways I cannot even begin to imagine I must say that the world would really have missed a great many beautiful (and ofcourse ugly) things should the humans always have been a atheist mind.
-
In today’s day and age however I am a bit distatefull towards it.But that might be because the ugly side is always on TV these days.Yet I still personally feel that religion’s use is slipping away and is replaced by other things.This might be a very slow process but here in the Netherlands (a big atheist majority) it is clear to me that the future of religion is going to be a downward slope from here on.I also do believe a modern world with no religion would be a world of a bit more progress and less war, but I am not blind and still see billions of people have hope, a guiding line, and a sense of community thanks to religion.
-
So if I where presented a button that would remove religion from the modern age would I press it?I would hesitate, but ultimatly no, as I see too many people still having joy from it and learning from it.And the “religious” wars would primarily be replaced by “resource” wars anyway.The only upside I see would be that brutal religious ethnic cleansings like in Africa would be less common, and those dumbfuck Jehova wouldn’t wake me on my Sunday morning.
“a lot of the bible has been challenged but none has been disproved as untrue and some of it has been proven true.”
-
Do your research before you talk and make yourself look like an idiot.
-
“I agree with a lot of this except for the first statement. A lot of the examples are in Hermits post. Religion used to be the old science, is a motivation for organization and work toward a common good, and still has its place in knowledge and learning today.”
-
Outside of growing spiritually, which is not growing at all, everything it can possibly add to society would be people using science but claiming they used religion. Provide one example where this would not be the case.
-
“This isn’t true though. That’s giving religion no credit to anything in humanity. What about architectural achievements? ”
-
That’s called science, in case you forgot what science is.
-
“God isn’t attributed to be invisible. Signs, churches/temples, prayers, prophets, and miracles. All examples. If you mean physically not visible, then of course. ITS A DIETY. Not a leader you can see on TV and at important events.”
-
No no, that is the definition of invisible. We have no means of detecting whichever God you’re talking about, assuming it’s not the Sun. People building things in tribute to the god doesnot make the god visible, and there’s never been a sign or miracle from a God in the history of mankind. Not one. Not even a little one. Your argument fails. Simply put, you can’t prove a negative. There will never be proof that God doesn’t exist unless you go by extremely strict definitions, such as the Christian god, which is extremely easy to disprove. The extremely popular, more abstract, ‘probably christian’ God that is actually worshiped by most people today is much more difficult since there is no unified definition on the being. You have to put a God in a box, it must be properly identified, then you can go about seeing if it’s there. Ultimately, in this scenario, you can disprove virtually any non-abstract God up until you get to the doesn’t-have-any-fucks-left-to-give God, which just made shit, whether on purpose or accident, and plays no further role in the Universe.
-
“Even natural disasters? Even the civil war? Revolutionary war? War in Iraq?”
-
You know exactly what I mean. Don’t play stupid.
-
“Care to back this up? This is mostly a point of view. Saying that religion is not responsible for any achievement in humanity is a flat out lie. Its the motivation for many human organizations, constructions, and research.”
-
The motivation doesn’t matter if what achieved the results is Science, and used as such.
-
“where if you trace these ALL the way back they have just as much to do with religion.”
-
When you get to that point, Religion is actually Science, just in it’s constantly-falling-on-its-face cute baby and toddler stage.
-
“Actually around the time the story is supposed to take place the Mediterranean did flood. As the place where it took place, it did encompass the people’s “whole world”. Like I said the bible shouldn’t be interpreted word for word.”
-
So the bible lies to us with false, extremely inflated fish tales, and we should accept it as the word of God.. why? Assuming this is your point, that we must interpret what the fuck some all powerful, universe creating sky daddy is trying to tell a bunch of goat herders, and trying to extrapolate what this being (who apparently lacks any real sense of foresight either natural or supernatural) meant in the face of modern day knowledge.
-
“Its just an aspect of the story of creation and how man arose. Shouldn’t be taken literally. And there isn’t enough evidence to disprove it actually. Only enough to say that it probably couldn’t happen. But if god exists as described in the bible then of course it could.”
-
Actually, it has been disproven. There was never a garden of eden where a talking snake tricked a woman who didn’t know right from wrong in to doing wrong by obtaining knowledge (how the fuck is this wrong, btw?) and there fore when a God who has no idea how to keep track of his own creations despite his being all powerful came back and realized what had happened he punished her and her husband.. because apparently he thought it was a good idea to make creatures who aren’t smart enough to understand what is right and wrong, and then go through painful measures of practically insuring that they will actually do what he think is wrong. That story is pretty much 100% untrue in every respect. It never happened. Mankind was not made from magic dust.
-
““What part is false? Remains of it have been uncovered in archaeological digs.”
-
The part where God flung humanity to the four corners of the Earth and made it so no one could understand each other.”
-
THIS!!!
-
“If the North and South pole melted, would the earth be completely under water? The ‘Canopy theory’ can prove this.”
-
Oh my goodness.. do we have a Hovind-fan on the site, folks? I honestly never thought I’d actually run in to one, at least not here. I have to admit a dark part of me feels a little joy at this prospect. So let’s start. Why don’t you explain the canopy theory to everyone, for us, son? So everyone here can get a great big view on the level of fucked-up crazy you’re harboring in that pea brain of yours.
-
“1. Disprove it.
2. If the Christian God is omnipotent then it is obviously possible.”
-
1. Geology
2. The Christian God as depicted in the bible is not actually omnipotent according to its canon. He’s simply very powerful, very angry, very jealous, and veeeerrrry stupid.
-
“The story of creation is also interpretive and isn’t meant to be literally creating the world in 6 days.”
-
Yes, it was. Even the slightest parting of beliefs has resulted in mass murders, wars, and entirely new sects of Christianity. Do you really want us to pick this to pieces? I mean, it’s not my favorite one to bite in to, the World Flood is much more fun, but the creation myth is extremely juicy and easy to just rip to shreds.
-
“nothing can truly be taken literal even in science but some do think that way.”
-
You should expand on that statement. I take absolute zero pretty literally for instance.
Da Fuck?
“Outside of growing spiritually, which is not growing at all, everything it can possibly add to society would be people using science but claiming they used religion. Provide one example where this would not be the case.”
-
I already did, you seem to be ignoring others’ posts as well. Sagrada Familia? Pyramids? Motivation and inspiration for these was completely religious. Anything it could add to society? How about a reason for people to live their lives certain ways? How about people working in organized efforts towards a common good? Sympathizing people of grief? Improving a person’s strength in adverse conditions? Provides a medium for friendships? World famous art? And the ones you deny such as Mendell the Father of Genetics. You give religion no credit in his efforts. But he wouldn’t have ever performed his very long experiments if he wasn’t a friar. Your claim that religion hasn’t provided anything but spiritual growth is just coming from a biased and ignorant perspective.
-
“That’s called science, in case you forgot what science is.”
-
But where would they be without direct influence by religion?
-
“People building things in tribute to the god doesnot make the god visible, and there’s never been a sign or miracle from a God in the history of mankind. Not one. Not even a little one. Your argument fails. Simply put, you can’t prove a negative.”
-
Ok disprove all the events that have been classified as miracles because they are currently inexplicable by science then. Go ahead. I’ve got time. Until then this isn’t a guilty until proven innocent scenario.
-
“There will never be proof that God doesn’t exist unless you go by extremely strict definitions, such as the Christian god, which is extremely easy to disprove. ”
-
Go ahead then.
-
“You know exactly what I mean. Don’t play stupid.”
-
YOU were the one who said every atrocity that comes to your mind can be blamed on religion. You were clearly only selecting a few in your head including the dark ages which so far is your biggest excuse of why religion is a bad thing.
-
“The motivation doesn’t matter if what achieved the results is Science, and used as such.”
-
Are you serious? That’s pretty much saying the method of something isn’t important just the result. The outcome of the atomic bomb was destruction. Is how it works important? Of course it is. Without the religious influence the outcome wouldn’t exist and THEREFORE has credit.
-
“When you get to that point, Religion is actually Science, just in it’s constantly-falling-on-its-face cute baby and toddler stage.”
-
Not really at all. But the point was there are parallels.
-
“So the bible lies to us with false, extremely inflated fish tales, and we should accept it as the word of God.. why? Assuming this is your point, that we must interpret what the fuck some all powerful, universe creating sky daddy is trying to tell a bunch of goat herders, and trying to extrapolate what this being (who apparently lacks any real sense of foresight either natural or supernatural) meant in the face of modern day knowledge.”
-
Do you really think humanity present day knows all that much? Its extremely arrogant to dismiss something just because you don’t see why it makes sense. Also your kind of engaging in reductio ad absurdum.
-
“Actually, it has been disproven. There was never a garden of eden where a talking snake tricked a woman who didn’t know right from wrong in to doing wrong by obtaining knowledge (how the fuck is this wrong, btw?) and there fore when a God who has no idea how to keep track of his own creations despite his being all powerful came back and realized what had happened he punished her and her husband.. because apparently he thought it was a good idea to make creatures who aren’t smart enough to understand what is right and wrong, and then go through painful measures of practically insuring that they will actually do what he think is wrong. That story is pretty much 100% untrue in every respect. It never happened. Mankind was not made from magic dust.”
-
So you say its been disproved but son’t say how. Do you understand what a parable is? Because the bible is chalk full of them.
-
“1. Geology
2. The Christian God as depicted in the bible is not actually omnipotent according to its canon. He’s simply very powerful, very angry, very jealous, and veeeerrrry stupid.”
-
Since when? The Christian God is omnipotent. Explain why hes not please. And btw some of these responses are starting to get offensive. I’m fine with your point of view but still.
If I’m not mistaken, the Dark Ages were the result of the Clusterfuck of gradually worsening chaos caused by the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The Priesthood held onto Latin, and during the Dark Ages were some of the only people capable of reading and writing, and Monastic Orders worked to preserve such whenever they could.
-
Regrettably, close minded and dogmatic groups and individuals deigned to be terribly stupid with their authority.
-
I will admit there are some honkey bits to the bible, but I will account portions of that to Human errors.
-
There are those that speculate that Religion gave rise to Agriculture and Civilization, not the other way around. Organized groups sharing a common notion of divinity attributed a particular area a special connection to their gods or the world of spirits, and would come there to worship, eventually developing permanent tenants that would take on the role of priests to oversee the ceremonies for the still nomadic pilgrims. To support the large demands of the temple crowds, it is supposed that cultivation of food crops and domestication of wildlife was undertaken.
“The Christian God is omnipotent. Explain why hes not please.”
-
Since when did we have to prove your claim?
“Since when did we have to prove your claim?”
-
Because he made the claim that hes not. I didn’t.
@The Sorrow
I think what he means is can you share your reasoning? Can you think of any specific instances in scripture that depict a limitation of His? Something that would suggest less than omnipotence?
“Because he made the claim that hes not. I didn’t.”
-
It was your side who said he was omnipotent, so it’s up to you guys to prove it.
Going strictly by the match description Science has had by far the biggest impact on humanity.
-
Science apparently from the Latin “scientia” meaning “knowledge”. As such the first human ancestor to use fire was demonstrating ‘science’ even if they probably didn’t use the scientific method to get their knowledge of fire.
-
Without fire we would never have starting cooking food (cooked food allows for more food varieties to be consumed and for easier digestion of food and thus easier absorption of vitamins and minerals).
-
Without that extra food energy, vitamins and minerals we would never have been able to devote more and more of our total calorie intake to our brains which speed up the very gradual increase in brain size prior to the widespread utilisation of fire considerably.
-
Without that brainpower we would never have survived ice ages, disasters (the Toba eruption reduced our population down to ~10,000) and other extreme climates in recent geological history.
-
The only thing that could be argued to nice that came out of Religion is art. Though even that was only inspired by the ideas and fairy tales behind Religion. All art is in fact created through the application of science or knowledge through a highly creative mind.
-
Massive church/temple/pyramid? Built using complex engineering and mathematics guiding the buildings.
-
Art? Coming directly through the skill in a man/woman’s hand and the creativity or their evolved mind, through the science of the materials available to them.
-
Since it is entirely possible to be moral with a complete absence of Religion, those can be thrown out the window as a ‘gift’ of Religion.
*Actually cooking food reduces the Nutritional value of consumables. Even toasting bread burns out usable components. Given our intelligence and such, it doesn’t particularly matter anymore of course; but applying heat for any longer than necessary to kill pathogens is purely a matter of taste.
-
In all honesty, I doubt the first Priest or Innovator’s intents were to have their gods and followers yowl at each other trying to disprove the other side’s stuff. This match is bad because you are trying to decide between two incredibly ingrained aspects of human society. Its like debating whether defecation or shaving have had the bigger impact.
*Massive church/temple/pyramid? Built using complex engineering and mathematics guiding the buildings.*
-
Yet these wouldn’t have been constructed if religion didn’t exsist.You are right though.The construction of any building is a based on science, but many of the larger old constructions in our world (cathedrals) where the foundation of advanced engineering and construction.Advanced engineering and construction would have come into exsistance with or without religion, but religion drove people to do it sooner then later.
“Religion will not save you from any kind of apocalypse, but it will give you a goal to live your life by.”
-
it didn´t give me any goal..
everything i set as goal in live
simply came from my personal desire and moral to do so..
i´m a christian..a orthodox greek..
yet i care jack about it
i was given birth..life for a limited time..
i myself have to decide how to live
one can believe in anything he/she wants
but science is were one can improve with
“Since it is entirely possible to be moral with a complete absence of Religion, those can be thrown out the window as a ‘gift’ of Religion.”
-
This is true, but that isn’t how it came about.
@Reaper273:
“Science apparently from the Latin “scientia” meaning “knowledge”. As such the first human ancestor to use fire was demonstrating ‘science’ even if they probably didn’t use the scientific method to get their knowledge of fire.”
-
Avoid the root word fallacy. Otherwise, I can say theology is a science.
Religion can provide hope, for something beyond what even technology can show us, that there truly is a plan to our chaotic mussed up lives.
-
It motivates billions of people on this earth to do good deeds, and bad deeds.
-
Faith allows us to trust our guts, to put stock in people and new things despite the sceptical, to believe that we ourselves can accomplish grand things.
-
Piety and Zeal encourage dedication, to the family, the the neighbor, to the idea, to the cause.
-
Righteousness commands that we observe compassion among our world, to fight-through arms or words-for the common good and the greater right, no matter how it is we come to know what it is.
“I already did, you seem to be ignoring others’ posts as well. Sagrada Familia? Pyramids? Motivation and inspiration for these was completely religious. ”
-
That’s odd.. I could have sworn math was science.. I guess I was wrong. Yes. These people used magic gifted to them by their god to build things like the pyramids are almost nothing compared to the Mir Space Station anyways.
-
“Ok disprove all the events that have been classified as miracles because they are currently inexplicable by science then. Go ahead. I’ve got time. Until then this isn’t a guilty until proven innocent scenario.”
-
There has never been a proven miracle. So my work is kind of done for me. I don’t have to disprove something that hasn’t happened or is in fact not a miracle, but simply claimed to be.
-
“But where would they be without direct influence by religion?”
-
If you’re insinuating that because of motivation certain buildings were built with manpower and resources that would have been better spent elsewhere, then yes, you’re right. So Science is why they were able to make such incredible structures, religion is why resources were squandered on them instead of bettering humanity to begin with. Another point for science.
-
“Go ahead then.”
-
World Flood never happened. The Bible is wrong. The God as depicted in that book can’t exist because there was never a God which completely flooded the planet. Done.
-
“Not really at all. But the point was there are parallels.”
-
There are no parallels, they were essentially the same thing, in the same way alchemy was science. It’s a failed dead end, just like belief in Gods, but it was science, just as attempting to understand and figure out how and why the world exists is Science.. the conclusions they came to are simply wrong, is all.
-
“Are you serious? That’s pretty much saying the method of something isn’t important just the result. The outcome of the atomic bomb was destruction. Is how it works important? Of course it is. Without the religious influence the outcome wouldn’t exist and THEREFORE has credit.”
-
Next time a holy book or god teaches people how to build an atomic weapon I might be more open to the idea that using learned science to figure out how to do something, and then applying said science to do it somehow doesn’t count as science.
-
“So you say its been disproved but son’t say how. Do you understand what a parable is? Because the bible is chalk full of them.”
-
The bible is the core belief of how the world was made, and the history of man kind, you can claim that it shouldn’t be taken literally, but it doesn’t help any. You begin moving goal posts when this happens, because there’s no way to know what really happened. Did the world really flood? Is there really a jealous god controlling everything? You can just begin pretending everything is a hidden message and try to act like the other person is interpreting it wrong at that point. The bible has been disproven repeatedly. It’s a flawed work by men who were looking for meaning in a universe where there is none, cobbling together old stories in order to keep control over their masses. We know the Garden of Eden isn’t real because of our understanding of the god damned planet. There’s no way that story could be true, it’d mean the planet isn’t even 100,000 years old. It’d mean everything we understand about it is false and we should take the word of some story because people feel in their hearts that its true. That’s bullshit nonsense for children, and belongs with palp like santa clause, the easter bunny, and big foot.
-
“*Actually cooking food reduces the Nutritional value of consumables. Even toasting bread burns out usable components. Given our intelligence and such, it doesn’t particularly matter anymore of course; but applying heat for any longer than necessary to kill pathogens is purely a matter of taste.”
-
Cooking our food makes it much easier to digest and kills little things that would otherwise kill us. It’s been hypothesized that cooking food is what allowed us to develop bigger brains because we didn’t have to devote nearly as much energy to digestion anymore. Reaper is not making that up, it’s a popular theory to my knowledge.
-
“Since when? The Christian God is omnipotent. Explain why hes not please. And btw some of these responses are starting to get offensive. I’m fine with your point of view but still.”
-
It’s not my fault that you’re wrong and don’t like that I’m giving your side zero respect at all. It is my fault that I slammed Twinky, I’ll admit, but Hovind has an extremely bad reputation as a YEC and he put a lot of crap out there which his idiot followers still lap up like the dumb ass dogs that they are. Even the other YEC’s hate him and discredit most of his theories.. such as the canopy theory. It’s been out right said that they don’t want people using those when debating on the pro-god side because of how bad it makes the intelligent design base look. Hovind is a fraud, who peddles absolute shit, pure and concentrated, to people who simply don’t know any better.. and then the exceptionally stupid of them go out and repeat his nonsense and always, always, always lose when they argue. They never seem to care though, at least not the ones I’ve seen. They just claim they have faith and keep parroting his ridiculousness.
-
Now, as for why YHWH isn’t omnipotent? Well, he was sure as fuck surprised when he came back and Eve had been nomnoming on some apple goodness. If you’re Omnipotent, you are by default Omniscient as well, which he clearly is not. His plans have fallen through more than once. He didn’t see the Tower of Babel coming, he sure as hell didn’t foresee that he’d have to kill off virtually every living thing on the planet with a ginormous flood. God as depicted in bible canon is NOT omnipotent. This is an outside assumption made by followers who can’t even remember that YHWH isn’t originally from a monotheistic religion. The story has been changed over time, with stolen elements from other cultures. The sad, tattered, and torn remains of this religion’s current canon has him as an emotional wreck, unable to really do all that much at all aside from making stuff.
“This is true, but that isn’t how it came about.”
-
I’m sorry to correct you on this, man, but morality did exist before we made religion.
Aaaaand like I said, Shit or Shaving, which has had the bigger impact?
Shitting. Because we need to do it to live. =P
Well, Gluttonous-Behemoth, philosophy can do all that as well. I think religion and philosophy can be connected in a way, however, since both do involve a way of living and questions concerning why we are here.
@GB
-
“In all honesty, I doubt the first Priest or Innovator’s intents were to have their gods and followers yowl at each other trying to disprove the other side’s stuff. This match is bad because you are trying to decide between two incredibly ingrained aspects of human society. Its like debating whether defecation or shaving have had the bigger impact.”
-
I agree. Religion in the sense of belief in a higher power or spirits, not modern organised religion, was originally just a way of explaining the way the people thought things were in the world and universe. Science is just a more advanced form of this.
-
@Original_A
-
“This is true, but that isn’t how it came about.”
-
Really? Chimp societies have moral and social rules and norms, as do dolphins and whales to an extent. In fact all animals have a ‘code’ they live by, either generally as a species or on an individual level. What are our morals but natural progression from this over many years into something far more complex.
-
Religion certainly had nothing to do with that. It just came along and gave us made up reason’s why these morals should be followed and placing further artificially created morals and cultural values into our societies. Things that have always had negative outcomes.
-
Love? Joy? Charity? Order? Understanding? All these can be seen in the other great ape species and some of them in far more widespread species.
-
Name one good thing to come out of Religion that has truly had a positive impact?
-
Though I’m certainly not going to put the ‘blame’ for violence on Religion. Violence exists extensively in nature; despite most Religion’s assertations of being Religions of peace all they really do is give us extra way’s to divide ourselves into ‘us’ and ‘them’ groups which just gives us extra incentive to hurt one another.
-
@Proto-mind
-
“Avoid the root word fallacy. Otherwise, I can say theology is a science.”
-
It’s not a fallacy, just a decent way of explaining the concept behind a word.
-
The concepts Religion and Science have both existed far longer than the Latin words that represent them have. I think that this is something many people forget. A words that encompass as much as ‘science’ and ‘religion’ do can never be defined, all that can truly happen is the concept’s that they represent be elaborated on.
-
I’m generalising immensely here but as I view it Religion is faith in a higher power that orders the universe. Whereas Science is knowledge and understanding of the universe through experimentation.
“It was your side who said he was omnipotent, so it’s up to you guys to prove it.”
-
Here you go. Its common knowledge.
www.rationalresponders.com/the_omnis_the_bible_assertions_of_the_christian_gods_omnipotence_omniscience
-
“Massive church/temple/pyramid? Built using complex engineering and mathematics guiding the buildings.
-
Art? Coming directly through the skill in a man/woman’s hand and the creativity or their evolved mind, through the science of the materials available to them.”
-
Which again would not exist without religious influence.
-
“Religion will not save you from any kind of apocalypse, but it will give you a goal to live your life by.”
-
And religion is what brought the whole “idea” of an apocalypse into being. Science won’t save you from an apocalypse either.
@Proto
A lot of the major faith systems have in depth philosophies (hell, Buddhism is essentially a way of life that’s been labeled as a religion). Yeah, I’d say they are connected; not exclusively of couse; secular schools of thinking and such.
I only have one thing to say about this particular thread. And one thing to say about the persons in it.
Science and Religion have both had a tremendous impact on human history. Remove the bias towards one side or the other and you see that more often then not the impact of religion on human history is more evident up until the most recent years. But even so religion still has a large impact (Terrorism today for example, Nazi Germany and the Jews, etc.). I do not have a bone to pick with anyone but I do believe that they are equal if not EXTREMELY close if one is greater then the other.
Second. To the people who comment: Remember, try at least try to be civil Sauro. You are purposely being abrasive. You can easily choose words that will have a more logical and appealing tone rather then certain key words that depict just how biased you are and how disdainful you can be towards religion.
Religious folks : I would like you to bring up some miracles or proof you have that God or a god can exist in some form or another be it physical extra-dimensional whatever floats your boat.
@Reaper273:
“It’s not a fallacy, just a decent way of explaining the concept behind a word.”
-
Except, that’s not what science means today, nor is the definition of science today the same as it was in the past. It’s nice to mention if you’re going to be discussing the etymology of the word, but that’s all it’s relevant for.
-
“The concepts Religion and Science have both existed far longer than the Latin words that represent them have. I think that this is something many people forget. A words that encompass as much as ‘science’ and ‘religion’ do can never be defined, all that can truly happen is the concept’s that they represent be elaborated on.”
-
Yes, I know, but you’re using the Latin word, so we’re discussing that and I’m pointing out to you why you’re incorrect. As I said before, if you do that, I can call theology a science. Humans in the past weren’t thinking of the definition of the scientific method.
-
“I’m generalising immensely here but as I view it Religion is faith in a higher power that orders the universe.”
-
You should not generalize because you allow yourself to be open for folly. In this case, you’re incorrect. That is too restrictive of a definition of religion.
Scientology and Zen Buddhism are both nationally recognized Religions that lack a central divinity (no divinity at all in Scientology’s case), as well as Jainism, which holds that the universe has no beginning or end, or creator; they Look to the Tirthankaras as models of ideal living, but do not truly worship anything.
@Proto-Mind
-
“Except, that’s not what science means today, nor is the definition of science today the same as it was in the past. It’s nice to mention if you’re going to be discussing the etymology of the word, but that’s all it’s relevant for.”
-
Etymology has nothing to do with my main point. The concept of pure Science, not the word itself, IS the study of ‘things’ to find replicable patterns, whether it be Maths, Chemistry, Biology, Physics. Applied science is turning that knowledge into tools, structures, devices and technologies.
-
Figuring out which two rocks to hit together to create fire, then which kind of fuel to use and how to cook is a form of systematic evaluation and thus is covered by the concepts of both pure science and applied science.
-
“Yes, I know, but you’re using the Latin word, so we’re discussing that and I’m pointing out to you why you’re incorrect. As I said before, if you do that, I can call theology a science. Humans in the past weren’t thinking of the definition of the scientific method.”
-
Correction. I ‘used’ the Latin word from which science derives as an example, once.
-
It was not the basis for my entire point and focusing on it is narrowing down the argument to the point of stupidity and pointlessness.
-
“You should not generalize because you allow yourself to be open for folly. In this case, you’re incorrect. That is too restrictive of a definition of religion.”
-
When it comes to my own view I can do whatever the hell I like. Since I clearly said that those were my own views not facts, and that I was well aware that they were generalisations you telling me as such is pointless.
-
The only applicable response to my statement would have been in the generalised format: I agree/I do not agree. Explain.
-
Anything other than that is useless.
“Etymology has nothing to do with my main point.”
-
Using the etymology to begin your point did, however.
-
“The concept of pure Science, not the word itself, IS the study of ‘things’ to find replicable patterns, whether it be Maths, Chemistry, Biology, Physics. Applied science is turning that knowledge into tools, structures, devices and technologies.
-
Figuring out which two rocks to hit together to create fire, then which kind of fuel to use and how to cook is a form of systematic evaluation and thus is covered by the concepts of both pure science and applied science.”
-
That’s great.
-
“Correction. I ‘used’ the Latin word from which science derives as an example, once.”
-
You used it, nonetheless.
-
“It was not the basis for my entire point and focusing on it is narrowing down the argument to the point of stupidity and pointlessness.”
-
Then you should not have used it.
-
“When it comes to my own view I can do whatever the hell I like. Since I clearly said that those were my own views not facts, and that I was well aware that they were generalisations you telling me as such is pointless.”
-
When your opinion is wrong, you shouldn’t spout it.
-
“The only applicable response to my statement would have been in the generalised format: I agree/I do not agree. Explain.
-
Anything other than that is useless.”
-
It was contested. If you don’t like that, don’t say anything.
Wow. Necro.
-
“Now earlier I said Science requires our minds and a willingness to believe; I’ll explian this now… That said, why can’t it be a god doing those things? I’ll remind you now that our understanding of the universe is incomplete, and there are anomolies that don’t follow conventional reasoning.
”
-
Science doesn’t contradict the existence of “a” god, nor does it attempt to do so. What it does attempt to do, however, is make the existence of a god ( as it was originally intended for ) unnecessary. Science is merely a way to organize and represent our knowledge of observed phenomenon so that we can make accurate predictions about its characteristics without having to observe them directly. If a hurricane were to occur, someone who is deeply rooted in their faith may say that God did it. A scientist, on the otherhand, may tell you that a hurricane is created when a large amount of warm, moist area rises rapidly and condenses in the upper atmosphere and as winds flow into the resulting low-pressure area.
-
The person claiming that God caused the storm cannot deny the observed relationship between the phenomenon and the factors that scientists attribute its cause to. For the person to claim otherwise would imply that these relationships are merely circumstantial and it requires a leap of faith to say definitively that the universe is how you percieve it to be. The scientist, however, doesn’t have to perform a “leap of faith” because he merely attempts to explain what he sees in such a way that it is consistent with sum knowledge… the scientist is not interested in whether or not his model is literally true, but that it’s empirically true and it can be used to accurately make predictions. Any attempt to explain how the universe actually is requires subjectivity because there will always be ideas outside of our capability to disprove. However, the question of whether or not some mathematical model or representation is consistent what what we percieve is an objective one and such a question is easily testable.
-
Science only deals with falsifiable claims and everything else is left to the realm of imagination. For example, the person claiming that God caused the storm may say go as far as to say that God IS the matter, the energy, and the “rules” guiding the interaction between them meaning God is what caused the storm. Maybe God IS actually the substance that makes up the universe, but “science” doesn’t “care”. To science, all you’d be doing is assigning a different name to the forces they’ve already identified in the current model. In the case of you’re example, “science” doesn’t care if you call it “gravity” or “God” or consider it natural or divine; all it “cares” about, persay, is that F = GMm/r^2 accurately describes the effect, regardless of whatever it happens to be.
-
Let’s take it a step further. Maybe God is actively sustaining the existence of these forces and without him/it, there would be nothing. But once again, as long as such an idea cannot be tested, science does not concern itself with it. It would merely be an unnecessary element that makes the agreed upon model more complicated than it has to be. And if someone does in fact discover evidence of a force or concept that does just that, it still wouldn’t matter. “Science” would still only be concerned with the question of whether or not it can be mathematically or logically disproven and whether or not it’s consistent with the accepted model. You could call it “God”. You could call it the “Existential Force”. You could call it the “Flying Spaghetti Monster”. At the end of the day, it would be just an arbitrary name that the majority agreed upon. The question of whether or not God exists would still depend entirely on what you define “God” as and whether or not you’re willing to take that “leap of faith” and assume that he/it exists.
-
When all is said is said and done, science isn’t a belief system. It’s a tool. “Science” does not definitively state that anything exists as we currently accept it as it is impossible to prove anything with the scientific method; it is only possible show that an idea is very likely to be true or disprove it with conflicting evidence. In short, I understand where you’re coming from, but I have to disagree with the implication that the existence of Gods would in any way conflict with our scientific model. What you referred to as “Gods” are just ” natural forces”. If we can measure their effects, they’d merely be given a name and implemented into our model. If we cannot, they might as well not even exist. People like me ( and you I’m assuming ) who have no belief system go with what we observe or what we can observe. Other’s, for some reason, are motivated to do otherwise. Science, however, is not intended to stop them.
-
-
Aaaaand…. this post took way to long to write… might not touch this again since it’s somewhat off topic.
@EnigmaJ
Excellent post actually. Science is the tool through which we can make our dreams reality.
“That’s odd.. I could have sworn math was science.. I guess I was wrong. Yes. These people used magic gifted to them by their god to build things like the pyramids are almost nothing compared to the Mir Space Station anyways.”
-
Thanks for twisting my words again. Did I or did I not say influence?
-
“There has never been a proven miracle. So my work is kind of done for me. I don’t have to disprove something that hasn’t happened or is in fact not a miracle, but simply claimed to be.”
-
OK, for starters the Shroud of Turin. Fibers of the imprint are so thin that no brush or tool could have drawn it. There’s 3 dimensional information in the image which allowed a 3d model of Jesus to be constructed. The only way for the image to have been etched into the fibers, is from a slivers of light giving the etched effect. Much like the way a desktop scanner works.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOt3W1QnT5U&feature=channel&list=UL
-
“If you’re insinuating that because of motivation certain buildings were built with manpower and resources that would have been better spent elsewhere, then yes, you’re right. So Science is why they were able to make such incredible structures, religion is why resources were squandered on them instead of bettering humanity to begin with. Another point for science.”
-
So your saying the great architectural achievements of the ancient world were wastes of time? Not only is it ridiculous, its opinion so you can’t designate the “point” for science.
-
“World Flood never happened. The Bible is wrong. The God as depicted in that book can’t exist because there was never a God which completely flooded the planet. Done.”
-
Did you miss when we talked about the Mediterranean flooding? Bible is wrong. Okay prove it. God didn’t do something depicted in a book. That somehow denies his existence. This logic is completely flawed.
-
“There are no parallels, they were essentially the same thing, in the same way alchemy was science. It’s a failed dead end, just like belief in Gods, but it was science, just as attempting to understand and figure out how and why the world exists is Science.. the conclusions they came to are simply wrong, is all.”
-
Do you realize how fallacious this is? Ok, say a religion believed the earth is flat. We know that’s wrong, so you say its failed science and goes in the religious column. Then we have the father of genetics, who was a FRIAR and he was successful in his research. Ok, successful science lets put it in the science column. Bottom line. Religion isn’t failed science. Defition: “The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.”. Being “failed science” is totally your point of view and can’t be talked about as if its fact in the context of a debate. (Even though this isn’t exactly a debate)
-
“Next time a holy book or god teaches people how to build an atomic weapon I might be more open to the idea that using learned science to figure out how to do something, and then applying said science to do it somehow doesn’t count as science.”
-
Completely twisted my words again. The latter part only applies to my example if you think of religion as failed science which, most people don’t.
-
“We know the Garden of Eden isn’t real because of our understanding of the god damned planet.”
-
Bullshit. We know it was completely plausible for it to exist and is actually most likely in the middle east. Here just for your amusement: www.toptenz.net/10-possible-locations-for-the-garden-of-eden.php
-
“There’s no way that story could be true, it’d mean the planet isn’t even 100,000 years old. It’d mean everything we understand about it is false and we should take the word of some story because people feel in their hearts that its true.”
-
Oh, and why is that?
-
“It’s not my fault that you’re wrong and don’t like that I’m giving your side zero respect at all. ”
-
Do you have any reading comprehension? Of course its your fault because YOU control how much respect you deliver. I’m wrong? I think I’m the one here with bible quotes and you’re the one with nothing.
-
“Now, as for why YHWH isn’t omnipotent? Well, he was sure as fuck surprised when he came back and Eve had been nomnoming on some apple goodness.”
-
Because he gave humans something called free will?
-
” If you’re Omnipotent, you are by default Omniscient as well, which he clearly is not.”
-
And why not? He wanted to see if humans with their free will would disobey him. Its even quoted in the bible that he limits his own powers.
-
“His plans have fallen through more than once. He didn’t see the Tower of Babel coming, he sure as hell didn’t foresee that he’d have to kill off virtually every living thing on the planet with a ginormous flood. ”
-
What don’t you understand about free will?
-
I’m really starting to get sick of this “debate”…
“Because he gave humans something called free will?”
-
That contradicts his omniscience.
Then stop. I only had one thing to say and I said it. I am personally getting tired of reading this stuff. I think I will leave now Goodbye and a pleasant time to all reading this in your near future.
An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty.
He asks one of his new students to stand and …..
Prof: So, you believe in God?
Student: Absolutely, sir.
Prof: Is God good?
Student: Sure.
Prof: Is God all-powerful?
Student: Yes.
Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn’t. How is this God good then? Hmm?
(Student is silent.)
Prof: You can’t answer, can you? Let’s start again, young fellow! Is God good?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Is Satan good?
Student: No.
Prof: Where does Satan come from?
Student: From… God…
Prof: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it? And God did make everything. Correct?
Student: Yes.
Prof: So who created evil?
(Student does not answer.)
Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they?
Student: Yes, sir.
Prof: So, who created them?
(Student has no answer.)
Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son… Have you ever seen God?
Student: No, sir.
Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
Student: No, sir.
Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student: No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.
Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student: Yes.
Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.
Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.
Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Prof: Yes.
Student: And is there such a thing as cold?
Prof: Yes.
Student: No sir. There isn’t.
(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold.
Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)
Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness?
Student: You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light…. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?
Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?
Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?
Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.
To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it.
Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)
Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?
(The class is in uproar.)
Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain?
(The class breaks out into laughter.)
Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir.
With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)
Prof: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son.
Student: That is it sir… The link between man & god is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive
This is a true story, and the student was none other than Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, the current President of India.
====
IF YOU’RE A MAN, YOU DON’T CRY ABOUT IT. YOU TAKE LIFE: THE UPS AND DOWNS. IF YOU’RE A REAL MAN, YOU NEVER GO DOWN. YOU JUST STAY UP.
THAT’S WHY I’M THE WORLD CHAMPION.
THAT’S WHY THIS SPORTS COAT COST $800! AND THAT COST $200! AND I DON’T KNOW WHAT THAT COST, I’D BE ASHAMED TO WEAR IT. THAT’S WHY I’M WEARING LIZARD SHOES. AND A ROLEX WATCH. AND I GOT A LIMOUSINE SITTING OUT THERE A MILE LONG WITH 25 WOMEN JUST DYING FOR ME TO GO “woo.”
BECAUSE I’M THE WORLD CHAMPION, SUCKER.
Jesus chuck, is that supposed to be a signature or something? Because it is really freaking annoying. I’d suggest you stop using it.
@Gluttonous-Behemoth
-
Thanks.
-
@chuck
-
You may want to read the expanded upon version of that…
-
www.bowness.demon.co.uk/brain.htm
I thought it was funny, reading that huge story about the student and the professor….just to follow up with reading that signature lol.
My opinion is that either both exists, neither exists, or they’re two names for the same thing, or two slightly different concepts. I’m completely ashamed I can’t write one of those long posts. Though, for anyone to properly write an essay or critique on this, it very well might be longer than this whole thread combined.
@enigmaJ
I’ve never read that one
===
“Jesus chuck, is that supposed to be a signature or something? Because it is really freaking annoying. I’d suggest you stop using it.”
===
Ok, I’ll stop using it
=
- IF YOU’RE A MAN, YOU DON’T CRY ABOUT IT. YOU TAKE LIFE: THE UPS AND DOWNS. IF YOU’RE A REAL MAN, YOU NEVER GO DOWN. YOU JUST STAY UP.
THAT’S WHY I’M THE WORLD CHAMPION.
THAT’S WHY THIS SPORTS COAT COST $800! AND THAT COST $200! AND I DON’T KNOW WHAT THAT COST, I’D BE ASHAMED TO WEAR IT. THAT’S WHY I’M WEARING LIZARD SHOES. AND A ROLEX WATCH. AND I GOT A LIMOUSINE SITTING OUT THERE A MILE LONG WITH 25 WOMEN JUST DYING FOR ME TO GO “woo.”
BECAUSE I’M THE WORLD CHAMPION, SUCKER.
“That contradicts his omniscience.”
-
No it doesn’t.
www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi038.asp
You misunderstand I am saying God shouldn’t be surprised ever if has omniscience.
Wow, I go to sleep and the match explodes.
-
“Care to back this up? This is mostly a point of view. Saying that religion is not responsible for any achievement in humanity is a flat out lie. Its the motivation for many human organizations, constructions, and research.”
It is not a point of view at all. It mainly stems from the fudnamental difference between science and religion; one is an institution/system of belief, the other is a process/tool.
Hell, in the last hundredish years, with the use of the modern definition of science, we’ve made more technological advances than in the rest of human history combined. Why do you suppose that is?
Also, I never said religion is responsible for nothing; I just said its accomplishments pale in comparison to science. I mean, name one thing religion is responsible for that even approaches the impressiveness, meaning, and importance of the moon landings.
@Zazax: One thing? The moon landings. Without religion, we wouldn’t have had, well, any civilization or achievement since the beginning of human history, pretty much. None of the achievements that the great minds of ancient times did would have been done, most likely. For a fact, WWII was caused by religion. That started the Manhattan Project, which caused the bombings of Japan. The bombings caused the Cold War. That caused the Space Race, which led to the competition for the moon landings, which (duh) led to the moon landings.
“You misunderstand I am saying God shouldn’t be surprised ever if has omniscience.”
-
He wasn’t really surprised. That was just Sauro’s wording.
You know God, Yahweh, Allah, etc. are unfathomable by humans, right? That means you can’t understand them, making any debate about an Omni-whatever pointless (except to DReager, who’ll say it doesn’t exist. Where is he, anyway? Not that I care.)
“He wasn’t really surprised. That was just Sauro’s wording.”
-
So he wasn’t angry about Adam and Eve eating the apple or how sinful humanity was before deciding to flood it? One would think that a being with infinite power could find infinitely more humane ways of handling the problems he supposedly knows before makes them.
“You know God, Yahweh, Allah, etc. are unfathomable by humans, right?”
-
It’s called a unfalsifiable hypothesis.
“Without religion, we wouldn’t have had, well, any civilization or achievement since the beginning of human history, pretty much.”
So, seeing as you’re making this claim, you do of course have proof that religion had anything to do with the moon landings, then? And I don’t mean ‘this scientist was religious!’, I mean actual evidence that religion played any part in it whatsoever. One of the scientists may have been dyslexic, but that doesn’t mean we can thank dyslexia for the moon landings.
-
“None of the achievements that the great minds of ancient times did would have been done, most likely. ”
And why not? Do you think the presence or absense of religion makes any difference to things like natural inquisitiveness or intelligence?
I would in fact argue that it has the opposite effect, since ‘God did it’ is an acceptable answer to the myseries of the universe as far as religion is concerned.
-
“For a fact, WWII was caused by religion.”
No, WW2 was caused by Hitler being a massive dick. The only religious part of WW2 was the Holocaust, which didn’t really figure into WW2 until near the end, and even then wasn’t caused by religion (religion was its target, but not its cause. He also went after gypsies, the disabled, slavs, etc).
-
“That started the Manhattan Project, which caused the bombings of Japan. The bombings caused the Cold War. That caused the Space Race, which led to the competition for the moon landings, which (duh) led to the moon landings.”
This is a series of association fallacies the likes of which I’ve never seen before.
“Without religion, we wouldn’t have had, well, any civilization or achievement since the beginning of human history, pretty much.”
-
And how can you know that for a fact?
Firstly religion has been around much longer. But science has had more achievements I gues you could say? But religion has had far more impact. Religion has in cases united humans to a massive extent. Crusades, world war 2, etc… Religion has inspired many scientific adavancments and studies. Such as the rain, the stars etc…
-
Yes I believe in God and Jesus Christ.
-
Also I was reading somewhere that the flood never happened or something of that sorts? Please explain?
-
I have watched many shows and read many story’s of how so many have tried to disprove gods existence or the things that have happened in the bible. All have failed.
-
To whomever said the garden of Eden is fake umm might want to rethink your process of though. How can you disprove it? You can’t. So stop claiming its fake, your claim is already invalid. You do realize there’s parts of Africa I believe, the Amazon, and the ocean we’ve never seen touched or heard of? Athe garden of Eden states how the fort humans came to be. I see no flaw in this. The gift of free will is what allowed Adam and Eve to sin and fall to evil.
As for the omniscience thing, there’s a darker side to it as well.
-
God created all of us individually, yes? And he is omniscient? That means that he knows exactly what all of us will do before we do it, regardless of free will. He also makes us knowing what we will do before he’s done making us.
And then when we do something in the real world that goes against his ideals (which he knew we would do, and made us so we would do it anyways) he punishes us with an eternity of torture in Hell.
That is to say, he punishes us for doing exactly what he made us to do, and that he knew we would do before he made us.
-
Doesn’t exactly strike me as ‘all-loving’.
@zazzax if it cause something or was the target of something then religion had an impact on something. Did it not?
-
if I was to shoot at a car and missed and it hit someone that person wasn’t the cause of me shooting but they were still
Impacted by it no? ( sorry may be a bad comparison but it’s all I can think of right now )
“Firstly religion has been around much longer. ”
No it hasn’t. ‘Science’ as a concept (that is, discovering how the universe works and applying this knowledge) has existed since before modern humans existed, when the first human ancestor figured out fire and how to make tools. After that when it started taking on a more recognizable form (around 3500 BC in ancient mesopotamia) there was no ‘religion’ in the modern sense; it was closer to spiritualism.
“I mean, name one thing religion is responsible for that even approaches the impressiveness, meaning, and importance of the moon landings.”
-
It was a tradition among the Catholic friars that whenever a church was established, a school would be founded not long after, thus many schools were also places of worship in the olden days.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University
-
Here is a quote from Einsten, courtesy of WIkipedia:
“I’m not an atheist. I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza’s pantheism, but admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things.”
-
The contributions of Religion to humanity is very subtle, but nonetheless important.
Religious groups have played a crucial part in the education of the masses.
Here is a list of all the schools that have been founded by the Jesuits. And thats only with the Jesuits.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_institutions
Another list by the Augustinians.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Augustinian_schools
Another by the Marist Brothers.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marist_Brothers_schools
Another by the Dominicans
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dominican_schools
Harvard University started as an educational center for various clergies.
-
Without these religious groups, the spread of knowledge created by science would have been wasted and its discoveries sitting on the shelves of some obscure library
@zazzax wait your talking about free will and God knowing everything and having a set path or us right?
“No it hasn’t. ‘Science’ as a concept (that is, discovering how the universe works and applying this knowledge) has existed since before modern humans existed, when the first human ancestor figured out fire and how to make tools. After that when it started taking on a more recognizable form (around 3500 BC in ancient mesopotamia) there was no ‘religion’ in the modern sense; it was closer to spiritualism.”
-
This is correct.
“if it cause something or was the target of something then religion had an impact on something. Did it not?”
As far as being a target is concerned, no, it did not. If someone mugs you, you didn’t cause the mugging.
As for ‘causing something’, how exactly did religion ’cause’ scientific discovery? You don’t think these people would have done this even in the complete absense of religion? In fact, it probably would have been easier during points in history when the Church wouldn’t, you know, torture and execute you for trying to advance the sum of human knowledge, or society, or whatsver. It’s happening again (and has been for some time) in the Middle East as well.
Religion doesn’t ’cause’ science. It (at least in the past and certain places of the world) tries very, very hard to stamp it out. Does you trying to exterminate an infestation of bugs in your home make you the cause of the infestation?
@ Zazax
So…you are saying in effect that the Cold War. Even though the nuclear arms race was built with a scientific discovery at its heart that science had no impact on that part of history? Rethink your evaluation.
After all, a scientific discovery was it’s target.
Oh and by the way if you weren’t forgetting the Catholic Church has been very active within the scientific community as a source of discovery and innovation until only recently. In fact the Vatican still has a section of it devoted to the pursuit of scientific research and in 1952 a priest won the nobel prize.
I personally can’t figure out whether I believe in a God or not. I mean, there’s no evidence for it, but my own personal fear of a lack of afterlife keeps me away from out-and-out atheism. I know that that is not evidence, but it’s something I can’t get over.
-
There’s also a biological perspective on my conundrum. Having looked at at least basic biology, I have come to understand that life is simply nothing more than a bunch of very specific chemical reactions. However, there is a… force, a drive to life on even the cellular level that I don’t find explainable as simply chemical reactions. At the very least, it appears that way to me.
-
A middle ground to this is the religion Deism. Some of the Founding Fathers followed this religion, and it follows the belief that there is a God that created the Universe, but we don’t know how, when, why, or anything else. Sometimes it is said that the God has a plan for the Universe, but in general he has left it to its own devices. If I were to have any religion, it would be Deism.
Please I am not trying to pick sides but do give credit where credit is due. You have to honestly and fairly research and understand both sides before you say yea or nay to something.
“Where is he, anyway? Not that I care.”
-
Admin warned him once and he left for good.
-
“God created all of us individually, yes? And he is omniscient? That means that he knows exactly what all of us will do before we do it, regardless of free will. He also makes us knowing what we will do before he’s done making us.”
-
That’s where you go astray. He doesn’t force us to do it. I already posted the link explaining this.
“So…you are saying in effect that the Cold War. Even though the nuclear arms race was built with a scientific discovery at its heart that science had no impact on that part of history? Rethink your evaluation.”
Wait, what? Where did I say that?
“That’s where you go astray. He doesn’t force us to do it.”
But he’s omniscient. He knows in advance that if he makes us x way, we’ll do y. Us having free will doesn’t matter; he knows what we’ll choose to do already (which sort of makes it not free will, in a way), and makes us that way anyways. And then when we do exactly what he knew we would do in advance (and were effectively powerless to stop), he sends us to Hell for eternity.
@ aelfinn
I believe on the premises of a wise gambler. For if you believe and live a good life what do you lose? The time of your life drinking, smoking, fornicating? I don’t do much of that anyway. But if it turns out to be true you just hit the jackpot.
On the other hand if you live a life of indulgence and sin in the eyes of any possible omnipotent overlord and it turns out there is nothing. Boom big whoop. But if it exists. You are truly and wholly boned.
With respect to the history of science, go here. As for the history of religion, go here
It didn’t go through, it seems.
-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science
-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_religions
You said that if religion was a target it had no impact on history. Zazax you are completely ignoring the fact that just by existing it altered the course of history.
“But he’s omniscient. He knows in advance that if he makes us x way, we’ll do y. Us having free will doesn’t matter; he knows what we’ll choose to do already (which sort of makes it not free will, in a way), and makes us that way anyways. And then when we do exactly what he knew we would do in advance (and were effectively powerless to stop), he sends us to Hell for eternity.”
-
No that’s not exactly how it works.
Problem:
1. A being with free will, given two options A and B, can freely choose between A and B.
2. God is omniscient (all-knowing).
3. God knows I will choose A.
4. God cannot be wrong, since an omniscient being cannot have false knowledge.
5. From 3 and 4, I will choose A and cannot choose B.
6. From 1 and 5, omniscience and free will cannot co-exist.
Solution:
Premises 1 and 2 in the outline above are the main premises to the argument and are not disputed. The Christian worldview argues that every human being is a free moral agent and is capable of making choices simply by exercising their will, not under compulsion or because of instinct. Also, it is a long held doctrine of Christianity that God is all-knowing. The Bible says that God knows “the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10).” For omniscience to be truly knowledgeable it must be correct knowledge, so premise number 4 is also granted.
However, point number 5 is where the logic falters. Those who argue in this manner make the mistake of thinking that because God possesses knowledge about a specific matter, then he has influenced it. That does not follow at all. Just because God can foresee which choice you will make, it does not mean you couldn’t still freely choose the other option.
Let me give you an example. I have a five year old son. If I were to leave a chocolate chip cookie on the table about a hour before dinner time and my son was to walk by and see it, I know that he would pick up the cookie and eat it. I did not force him to make that decision. In fact, I don’t even have to be in the room at all. I think I know my son well enough, though, to tell you that if I come back into the kitchen the cookie will be gone. His act was made completely free of my influence, but I knew what his actions would be.
In examining the argument, the assumption is made in premise 3 that because God knows I will choose A somehow denies me the choice of B. That is the premise that Christianity rejects. Omniscience and free will are not incompatible and it is a non-sequitor to claim otherwise.
www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi038.asp#ixzz20H4e29wI
That snippet you posted isn’t really a rebuttal to what Zazax is saying.
-
Zazax is questioning the idea that an “all-loving” mother would purposely leave out the chocolate bar for her son even though she knows that her son WILL take the chocolate bar and that she will ground him for all eternity for doing so.
“You said that if religion was a target it had no impact on history. Zazax you are completely ignoring the fact that just by existing it altered the course of history.”
I said nothing of the sort. deathmetal claimed that WW2 was caused by religion. I said that the only religious part of WW2 was the Holocaust, and the Holocaust was not *caused* by religion, it was merely targeting one (among a number of other things). I have never said religion had no impact on history, and have in fact said the exact opposite in post 347.
-
“No that’s not exactly how it works.”
That whole thing is entirely unnecessary. I merely offhandedly mentioned the dichotomy, it wasn’t a focus of the argument.
I was never arguing that free will doesn’t exist (which is a whole other can of worms, especially from a science point of view), I was arguing that God, as defined by christianity, is kind of an asshole.
Well, as I have said many times before I am not infallible. I apologize for misinterpreting you zazax and have made a fool of myself as I often do. But in my opinion if somebody all powerful is an asshole doesn’t that make it that much more of a priority to get on their good side?
“I personally can’t figure out whether I believe in a God or not. I mean, there’s no evidence for it”
-
Depends on what you call evidence, there are many apologetic evidences. Some being the Kalam Cosmological argument, teleological argument, and argument from morality. I can explain more if you want, but they all show that God is the logical and best explanation for many things we see. So while they are not evidence in the sense of physical stuff, they are philosophical and scientific arguments that strongly indicates that God exists.
-
“Doesn’t exactly strike me as ‘all-loving’.”
-
Without free will, can we love? The only way humans would be guaranteed to not disobey is to remove that option and thus remove free will, then we would just be organic robots.
“However, point number 5 is where the logic falters. Those who argue in this manner make the mistake of thinking that because God possesses knowledge about a specific matter, then he has influenced it. That does not follow at all. Just because God can foresee which choice you will make, it does not mean you couldn’t still freely choose the other option.
Let me give you an example. I have a five year old son. If I were to leave a chocolate chip cookie on the table about a hour before dinner time and my son was to walk by and see it, I know that he would pick up the cookie and eat it. I did not force him to make that decision. In fact, I don’t even have to be in the room at all. I think I know my son well enough, though, to tell you that if I come back into the kitchen the cookie will be gone. His act was made completely free of my influence, but I knew what his actions would be.”
-
This argument fails because of a few reasons. First of all, you aren’t omniscient. You cannot guarantee that your son will eat the cookie. It’s very probable that he will, but there’s no guarantee that he will do so. God on the other hand, is supposedly omniscient, and knows exactly what we are going to do.
-
Secondly, you didn’t create your son with every attribute of his in your control. God supposedly created all of us the way he wanted to, and exactly how he wanted to. If he knows exactly what we’re going to do, and he creates us with this in mind, then it’s extremely cruel for him to send people to hell, because during the creation process, he knew that these people would damn themselves, and yet he still created them in a way that would cause them damnation.
-
Thirdly, if he creates us with this in mind, then we do NOT have free will. God creates us supposedly knowing exactly what we’re going to do, but gives us these attributes anyway. Thus, we’re only acting based on how God knew we were going to act when he created us. If we only act based on how God created us, then we don’t have free will.
-
When you think about it, omnipotence and omniscience are contradictory. If God knows everything, and how he’s going to do everything, does he have the omnipotence to change his mind? Can his omnipotence defy his omniscience in such a way that he doesn’t know what’s coming?
-
If we go even further, even omnipotence has contradictions. Think about it: can God make a cock so big that he can’t fit it in his own ass? If he can’t make the cock, then he’s not omnipotent by definition. However, if he CAN make the cock, then he can’t fit it in his own ass, and is thus not omnipotent.
“I have come to understand that life is simply nothing more than a bunch of very specific chemical reactions. However, there is a… force, a drive to life on even the cellular level that I don’t find explainable as simply chemical reactions. At the very least, it appears that way to me.”
-
had something similar with why gravity or inertia even exist in the first place
“Well, as I have said many times before I am not infallible. I apologize for misinterpreting you zazax”
Hey, no problem man. No harm done.
-
“But in my opinion if somebody all powerful is an asshole doesn’t that make it that much more of a priority to get on their good side?”
I believe this is the same sort of thing as Pascal’s Wager.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
To anyone who doesn’t know/want to read the link, Pascal’s Wager is basically saying that you should believe in God, because the consequences for not doing so (i.e. going to Hell for all eternity) are far, far worse than the alternative (i.e. cessation of conciousness upon death). It’s all sorts of fun. The link has a fairly comprehensive discussion of why this is a fallacy (under ‘Criticism’, obviously).
@TBC
That’s certainly an… interesting take on the Omnipotence Paradox.
“@TBC
That’s certainly an… interesting take on the Omnipotence Paradox.”
-
uhhh do you mean me?
if yes … what are you talking about?
my last post was refered to aelfinn …
@zazax
oh just realised you ment crusader …
God knows everything, he just doesn’t want to share it with you.
@hermit…
well he/she simply is a selfish asshole then, no?
You know, the whole “eternal damnation” thing even on its own is kind of a put off. I don’t think anyone who has ever lived deserves such a fate.
-
If I were to accept Christianity as my faith, I would like to think that hell does not exist or that those damned would only suffer temporarily. Or maybe, they’d be sent back to earth to spend another lifetime separated from God.
@Turtle Commando:
“But in my opinion if somebody all powerful is an asshole doesn’t that make it that much more of a priority to get on their good side?”
-
Now that just leaves the question of which deity you’re going to assume exists, which sect or denomination you’re going to assume accurately describes the conditions for getting on said deity’s good side, and whether or not the God will care that you’re “belief” is base entirely on the threat of punishment.
-
Just saying.
@ TBSC
Our feeble mortal minds cannot hope to contain all the knowledge that He possesses.
You are a fool and a hypocrite if you think otherwise.
-
Make no mistake, God can give us the power to do anything and evertyhing, but He also knows what we will do with that power, so He won’t.
“Make no mistake, God can give us the power to do anything and evertyhing, but He also knows what we will do with that power, so He won’t.”
-
Which leads to question of why he willfully makes us ignorant. It’s eerily similar to how serfs were treated in medieval times.
Oh and your statement contradicts itself. If God has the power to anything, then why not use that power to make it so we aren’t corrupted by it?
Discussing the nature of God is meaningless.
*shrugs* I’m bored.
Well, time for some Mario Crossover 2.0.
@ TheSorrow
He wants us to learn. He wants us to evolve.
Also the reason why he didn’t simply populate this place with Angels.
-
“Discussing the nature of God is meaningless.”
.
Agree
“He wants us to learn. He wants us to evolve.
Also the reason why he didn’t simply populate this place with Angels.”
-
You said his logic was unfathomable.
“That’s certainly an… interesting take on the Omnipotence Paradox.”
-
One of my friends in real life came up with it. I thought it was hilarious, so I use it whenever I can. The original version is, “can God create a rock so big that he can’t move it?”
-
I always thought that Pascal’s Wager was pretty dumb. I mean even Homer Simpson had an answer to it: “suppose we’ve chosen the wrong god. every time we go to church we’re just making him madder and madder!”
In my opinion nothing lost in believing and nothing gained by not. So I will always stick to my guns and stay on the path I have set for myself.
In a totally unrelated note what if ghosts exist proving the existance of a soul but they say god/ a higher power doesn’t exist? That would be f-ing wierd. I don’t know what a world like that would do to my brain.
“In my opinion nothing lost in believing and nothing gained by not. So I will always stick to my guns and stay on the path I have set for myself. ”
Fair enough. To each his own.
-
“In a totally unrelated note what if ghosts exist proving the existance of a soul but they say god/ a higher power doesn’t exist? That would be f-ing wierd. I don’t know what a world like that would do to my brain.”
I think this depends entirely on how you define ‘soul’. If you define it as a sort of ghostly apparition that inhabit a piece of meat for 80-odd years, then moves on to the afterlife, then it might be weird (although still not impossible). If you simply define it as your ‘conciousness’, well, science has yet to discover what exactly conciousness is. There are some wild theories (theories, not Theories) out there that posit that conciousness is a part of reality itself, which would mean it’s entirely possible for it to persist after death, even independant of a deity.
It’s all weird and kind of interesting, even if it’s all very, very theoretical.