Finally, proof there is no God.
Discussion
Wow, that's alot of posts.
Science v Religion, the age old battle. I don't begrudge people their faith. If they feel the need to believe in something bigger than themselves to get by, then that's fine.
However, on the odd occasion that I have been preached to by someone wanting to press their beliefes on me, I have enjoyed pointing out that if there were a all seeing, all hearing, all knowing God, regardless of which faith worshipped them, for all the stuff that's carried out in their name, they should be truly and royally pissed off.
Religion has a lot to answer for. But for the dark ages, we could be colonising the stars. We could have a cure for cancer, or even the common cold. We could all be persuing ways in which to make lives better, instead of f
king each other other, molesting teenagers, or blowing each other up, or arguing over worthless dusty spits of land. There has been more death and destruction for the sake of so call faith than for any other reason. Something that seems to get glossed over by many faiths... So turning a blind eye to anything science can come up with to answer the puzzle of life's creation is something that comes very easy to them.
For my money, and religion could do,
Science v Religion, the age old battle. I don't begrudge people their faith. If they feel the need to believe in something bigger than themselves to get by, then that's fine.
However, on the odd occasion that I have been preached to by someone wanting to press their beliefes on me, I have enjoyed pointing out that if there were a all seeing, all hearing, all knowing God, regardless of which faith worshipped them, for all the stuff that's carried out in their name, they should be truly and royally pissed off.
Religion has a lot to answer for. But for the dark ages, we could be colonising the stars. We could have a cure for cancer, or even the common cold. We could all be persuing ways in which to make lives better, instead of f
king each other other, molesting teenagers, or blowing each other up, or arguing over worthless dusty spits of land. There has been more death and destruction for the sake of so call faith than for any other reason. Something that seems to get glossed over by many faiths... So turning a blind eye to anything science can come up with to answer the puzzle of life's creation is something that comes very easy to them.For my money, and religion could do,
turbobloke said:
In all honesty I cannot, not least because it isn't, as set out many times now.
I could understand you pointing out that science doesn't answer "why" questions if it was for the purpose of highlighting a fundamental difference between science and religion. But in the context you have presented, whereby you admit that neither religion nor science can answer such questions - it appears to serve no purpose.It'd be a bit like discussing the difference between two books - and somebody throwing into the discussion the fact that the cover of one of the books was blue - when both books had blue covers.
The fact that the book has a blue cover doesn't advance the discussion at all and cannot be used as a point of comparison between the two books - hence why I believe it constitutes a red herring (i.e. something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue).
You obviously disagree so I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.
Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 5th March 12:22
Einion Yrth said:
Did he indeed? Fair enough, but I think it has been adopted by certain groups for the wrong reason but I would still take issue with it as given.T0nup said:
Religion has a lot to answer for. But for the dark ages, we could be colonising the stars. We could have a cure for cancer, or even the common cold. We could all be persuing ways in which to make lives better, instead of f
king each other other, molesting teenagers, or blowing each other up, or arguing over worthless dusty spits of land. There has been more death and destruction for the sake of so call faith than for any other reason. Conversely theres a good argument to be made for organised religions producing the conditions under which modern science developed, even if it didn't like the results, and in fact dragging us out of the dark ages.
mcdjl said:
Do you really think people wouldn't find a reason to do those things without religion? Sure its a handy excuse/protection club for some aspects but given that child abusers seem to be from every religion and none I do wonder.
Conversely theres a good argument to be made for organised religions producing the conditions under which modern science developed, even if it didn't like the results, and in fact dragging us out of the dark ages.
I would disagree that religions have anything positive to do with setting the conditions for our emergence from the dark ages.Conversely theres a good argument to be made for organised religions producing the conditions under which modern science developed, even if it didn't like the results, and in fact dragging us out of the dark ages.
The western catholic church (WCC) dedicated itself for hundreds of years to limiting the knowledge available to the general public and further, to limit those areas which could be investigated.
The Islamic church allowed such research to go on, at least from while, and it led the western world in scientific endeavours. Then they got all fundamental and ended up following, but from way behind.
What ended the dark ages or, rather, started the renaissance is arguable of course: the printing press - once there was a way to disseminate information, attempts to stop it were doomed; economic growth, that's of the continent of Europe; an increasing dominance of one political force, bringing it down from inside.
Most likely it was a combination of all three plus some others. I've read the suggestion that it was the black death and other plagues. However, I've not read anywhere that wasn't a religious source suggesting the renaissance had anything to do with the then dominant WCC, other than its control slipping due to inner corruption, but as that suggestion came from another church I think we need to treat it with caution.
The WCC did not even educate its own staff. Vicars were often illiterate and instruction was little more than learning by rote and tithe collecting.
There are arguments that the WCC 'invented' universities. Even a cursory examination of the claims show this to be wide of the mark, and in any case, it was via the control of schools that the WCC restricted. Can't have the masses having ideas, can we.
The battle with science, as depicted by Gallileo being impounded, was the death throws of the WCC's dominance of the continent and the repression of the masses. With the Guttenberg bible, people who could read suddenly became aware of the rubbish they'd been sold. And at a massive price.
Much is was made by the WCC into the latter half of the 20thC of Henry VIII's move away from Rome yet he was a catholic, and probably more so than much in the church's hierarchy. Under Henry England and Wales might well have become as backward as the rest of Europe but instead, greed overcame the desire to improve the lot of the people - he'd have made pope with barely a ripple - and so we were lucky enough to throw off the yoke.
Most secular academics, at least up until around 10 years ago when I was still reading about the history of the times, do not attribute the renaissance to anything positive down by the WCC. It was instrumental in its evolution, of that there is no doubt, but only in a negative way. It was the WCC we were running away from.
I was once taken to London to see a Guttenberg bible and the woman lecturing us was a bit of a bible basher, explaining that it enabled the church to reach more of its flock. When we returned to college, our lecturer, a Bauhaus German, suggested that through that one book, much of the population stopped being sheep. It was this little spat that started me on the history of religion, harder to come by in those days as only the bigger libraries would dare to have anything seen as the seed of the devil. The one near Grays Inn was the nearest to my work and they carried a selection. Lawyers seeing, no doubt, reasons to doubt gods when they were around. A just and vengeful god would have put them up against the wall years before.
Derek Smith said:
I would disagree that religions have anything positive to do with setting the conditions for our emergence from the dark ages.
The western catholic church (WCC) dedicated itself for hundreds of years to limiting the knowledge available to the general public and further, to limit those areas which could be investigated.
The Islamic church allowed such research to go on, at least from while, and it led the western world in scientific endeavours. Then they got all fundamental and ended up following, but from way behind.
What ended the dark ages or, rather, started the renaissance is arguable of course: the printing press - once there was a way to disseminate information, attempts to stop it were doomed; economic growth, that's of the continent of Europe; an increasing dominance of one political force, bringing it down from inside.
Most likely it was a combination of all three plus some others. I've read the suggestion that it was the black death and other plagues. However, I've not read anywhere that wasn't a religious source suggesting the renaissance had anything to do with the then dominant WCC, other than its control slipping due to inner corruption, but as that suggestion came from another church I think we need to treat it with caution.
The WCC did not even educate its own staff. Vicars were often illiterate and instruction was little more than learning by rote and tithe collecting.
There are arguments that the WCC 'invented' universities. Even a cursory examination of the claims show this to be wide of the mark, and in any case, it was via the control of schools that the WCC restricted. Can't have the masses having ideas, can we.
The battle with science, as depicted by Gallileo being impounded, was the death throws of the WCC's dominance of the continent and the repression of the masses. With the Guttenberg bible, people who could read suddenly became aware of the rubbish they'd been sold. And at a massive price.
Much is was made by the WCC into the latter half of the 20thC of Henry VIII's move away from Rome yet he was a catholic, and probably more so than much in the church's hierarchy. Under Henry England and Wales might well have become as backward as the rest of Europe but instead, greed overcame the desire to improve the lot of the people - he'd have made pope with barely a ripple - and so we were lucky enough to throw off the yoke.
Most secular academics, at least up until around 10 years ago when I was still reading about the history of the times, do not attribute the renaissance to anything positive down by the WCC. It was instrumental in its evolution, of that there is no doubt, but only in a negative way. It was the WCC we were running away from.
I was once taken to London to see a Guttenberg bible and the woman lecturing us was a bit of a bible basher, explaining that it enabled the church to reach more of its flock. When we returned to college, our lecturer, a Bauhaus German, suggested that through that one book, much of the population stopped being sheep. It was this little spat that started me on the history of religion, harder to come by in those days as only the bigger libraries would dare to have anything seen as the seed of the devil. The one near Grays Inn was the nearest to my work and they carried a selection. Lawyers seeing, no doubt, reasons to doubt gods when they were around. A just and vengeful god would have put them up against the wall years before.
I'm aware that the Islamic world was well ahead of the Christian one, hence saying religions. You are right, the vast majority of the population were uneducated. In a time where you needed far more people to grow food and physically work for a living how would there be any other way?The western catholic church (WCC) dedicated itself for hundreds of years to limiting the knowledge available to the general public and further, to limit those areas which could be investigated.
The Islamic church allowed such research to go on, at least from while, and it led the western world in scientific endeavours. Then they got all fundamental and ended up following, but from way behind.
What ended the dark ages or, rather, started the renaissance is arguable of course: the printing press - once there was a way to disseminate information, attempts to stop it were doomed; economic growth, that's of the continent of Europe; an increasing dominance of one political force, bringing it down from inside.
Most likely it was a combination of all three plus some others. I've read the suggestion that it was the black death and other plagues. However, I've not read anywhere that wasn't a religious source suggesting the renaissance had anything to do with the then dominant WCC, other than its control slipping due to inner corruption, but as that suggestion came from another church I think we need to treat it with caution.
The WCC did not even educate its own staff. Vicars were often illiterate and instruction was little more than learning by rote and tithe collecting.
There are arguments that the WCC 'invented' universities. Even a cursory examination of the claims show this to be wide of the mark, and in any case, it was via the control of schools that the WCC restricted. Can't have the masses having ideas, can we.
The battle with science, as depicted by Gallileo being impounded, was the death throws of the WCC's dominance of the continent and the repression of the masses. With the Guttenberg bible, people who could read suddenly became aware of the rubbish they'd been sold. And at a massive price.
Much is was made by the WCC into the latter half of the 20thC of Henry VIII's move away from Rome yet he was a catholic, and probably more so than much in the church's hierarchy. Under Henry England and Wales might well have become as backward as the rest of Europe but instead, greed overcame the desire to improve the lot of the people - he'd have made pope with barely a ripple - and so we were lucky enough to throw off the yoke.
Most secular academics, at least up until around 10 years ago when I was still reading about the history of the times, do not attribute the renaissance to anything positive down by the WCC. It was instrumental in its evolution, of that there is no doubt, but only in a negative way. It was the WCC we were running away from.
I was once taken to London to see a Guttenberg bible and the woman lecturing us was a bit of a bible basher, explaining that it enabled the church to reach more of its flock. When we returned to college, our lecturer, a Bauhaus German, suggested that through that one book, much of the population stopped being sheep. It was this little spat that started me on the history of religion, harder to come by in those days as only the bigger libraries would dare to have anything seen as the seed of the devil. The one near Grays Inn was the nearest to my work and they carried a selection. Lawyers seeing, no doubt, reasons to doubt gods when they were around. A just and vengeful god would have put them up against the wall years before.
To say that religion had nothing to do with allowing us to emerge from the dark ages is wrong. You are right to say that very often ideas generated by monks and others was suppressed where it clashed with the religions orthodoxy, and this led to the Islamic world falling back. However to say that there was no religious contribution to science is patently wrong. At the risk of opening myself to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholi...
you mention the printing press. Clearly making bibles and learning to polish mirrors to sell in churches didn't fund it in anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg#Pr... (more generally though it sounds like gutenburg would be someone the church wouldn't approve of if he didn't make it money). As a result did the church see something in allowing the printing press that it thought could help- spread the word- yes it did, and allowed it. However as you say ultimately it may have backfired.
While Henry VIII started out Catholic, he set himself up as Anglican. He had no more real interest in educating the masses etc than the pope did, he just wanted the power/money for himself. So yes he threw off the yoke, but not in the way you would appear to suggest.
mcdjl said:
While Henry VIII started out Catholic, he set himself up as Anglican. He had no more real interest in educating the masses etc than the pope did, he just wanted the power/money for himself. So yes he threw off the yoke, but not in the way you would appear to suggest.
Thanks for the reply. However, Henry was not, at any time a protestant. The term anglican is purely a locality and not anything to do with creed. Don't forget that Henry was defender of the faith when the WCC wanted to control England.
It is often suggested that the reason Henry moved from the WCC was because of problems of belief but it is quite clear that it was because at that time the pope was controlled by politicians. The refusal of a divorce was a political move, not religious.
During Henry's rein the order of service and such remained catholic in nature. Protestantism had only just started in Europe, and even then it was in Germany. Like Jesus, the original intent was to modify the current religion and not to start a new one.
Henry's lad was the first protestant king, then we had Mary who was the other way, and then Liz who was a bit bi, Stewarts, Cromwell, back to Stewart. A lot of fuss about nothing in fact. But whatever the form of service, it was always the anglican church, regardless of it being catholic, as under Henry, or protestant under his little me.
There are a number of catholic churches outside of the one with its CEO in the Vatican.
vanordinaire said:
The only thing that differentiates science and (any)religion is the belief that 'God' is a being.
Instead, if you looked at god as a concept from which the laws of 'nature' or 'science' originate, then most of the religious texts would make sense to scientists and the science would make sense to religious people. On this basis neither would have any reason to try to disprove the other.
Your stem cell research displeases the concept from which the laws of 'nature' originate, cease and desist! Likewise, your in vitro fertilisation research, your gay marriage laws and your offensive cartoons of the concept's prophet. I am praying to the concept from which the laws of 'nature' originate that it will bring down arbitrary magical punishments upon you, possibly an elemental transformation into a pillar of sodium chloride, always popular, and also that it will personally intercede in the selection of tomorrow's lottery numbers. Amen.Instead, if you looked at god as a concept from which the laws of 'nature' or 'science' originate, then most of the religious texts would make sense to scientists and the science would make sense to religious people. On this basis neither would have any reason to try to disprove the other.
Derek Smith said:
Thanks for the reply.
However, Henry was not, at any time a protestant. The term anglican is purely a locality and not anything to do with creed. Don't forget that Henry was defender of the faith when the WCC wanted to control England.
It is often suggested that the reason Henry moved from the WCC was because of problems of belief but it is quite clear that it was because at that time the pope was controlled by politicians. The refusal of a divorce was a political move, not religious.
During Henry's rein the order of service and such remained catholic in nature. Protestantism had only just started in Europe, and even then it was in Germany. Like Jesus, the original intent was to modify the current religion and not to start a new one.
Henry's lad was the first protestant king, then we had Mary who was the other way, and then Liz who was a bit bi, Stewarts, Cromwell, back to Stewart. A lot of fuss about nothing in fact. But whatever the form of service, it was always the anglican church, regardless of it being catholic, as under Henry, or protestant under his little me.
There are a number of catholic churches outside of the one with its CEO in the Vatican.
Being pedantic, only the Catholic church has its CEO in the Vatican, or maybe the even more pedantically the Roman Catholic one. The rest are Christian (eg Anglicans, Lutherians, Sally Army etc) churches, and in fact technically the Catholic churhc is a Christian church. A Christian follows Christ, a Catholic accepts the authority of the Pope as Christs representative on earth. However, Henry was not, at any time a protestant. The term anglican is purely a locality and not anything to do with creed. Don't forget that Henry was defender of the faith when the WCC wanted to control England.
It is often suggested that the reason Henry moved from the WCC was because of problems of belief but it is quite clear that it was because at that time the pope was controlled by politicians. The refusal of a divorce was a political move, not religious.
During Henry's rein the order of service and such remained catholic in nature. Protestantism had only just started in Europe, and even then it was in Germany. Like Jesus, the original intent was to modify the current religion and not to start a new one.
Henry's lad was the first protestant king, then we had Mary who was the other way, and then Liz who was a bit bi, Stewarts, Cromwell, back to Stewart. A lot of fuss about nothing in fact. But whatever the form of service, it was always the anglican church, regardless of it being catholic, as under Henry, or protestant under his little me.
There are a number of catholic churches outside of the one with its CEO in the Vatican.
mcdjl said:
Being pedantic, only the Catholic church has its CEO in the Vatican, or maybe the even more pedantically the Roman Catholic one. The rest are Christian (eg Anglicans, Lutherians, Sally Army etc) churches, and in fact technically the Catholic churhc is a Christian church. A Christian follows Christ, a Catholic accepts the authority of the Pope as Christs representative on earth.
The catholic church split in the 1000s, mutually, with one pope in the west and one in the east - the roman catholic and the eastern orthodox, or more easily the eastern and western catholic churches. Once it splits then the term catholic really means the beliefs and method of worship. Some catholics do not acknowledge the pope as their boss because the pope gave them away. Mind you, a later pope organised a jihad against the ECC, that'd piss anyone off.With Henry running the church in exactly the same manner as before, 'cept ignoring the pope, it remained catholic. There are other catholic churches which nominally follow the pope but in fact have their own bosses, which was the norm in the old days in any case. The various popes often had to fight to keep control.
If there was only one catholic church it would not need to be modified by roman.
Derek Smith said:
mcdjl said:
Being pedantic, only the Catholic church has its CEO in the Vatican, or maybe the even more pedantically the Roman Catholic one. The rest are Christian (eg Anglicans, Lutherians, Sally Army etc) churches, and in fact technically the Catholic churhc is a Christian church. A Christian follows Christ, a Catholic accepts the authority of the Pope as Christs representative on earth.
The catholic church split in the 1000s, mutually, with one pope in the west and one in the east - the roman catholic and the eastern orthodox, or more easily the eastern and western catholic churches. Once it splits then the term catholic really means the beliefs and method of worship. Some catholics do not acknowledge the pope as their boss because the pope gave them away. Mind you, a later pope organised a jihad against the ECC, that'd piss anyone off.With Henry running the church in exactly the same manner as before, 'cept ignoring the pope, it remained catholic. There are other catholic churches which nominally follow the pope but in fact have their own bosses, which was the norm in the old days in any case. The various popes often had to fight to keep control.
If there was only one catholic church it would not need to be modified by roman.
Neither of which has anything to do with the existence of gods
) repeat his 'knowledge' on the various sects time and time again to absolutely no effect.otolith said:
vanordinaire said:
The only thing that differentiates science and (any)religion is the belief that 'God' is a being.
Instead, if you looked at god as a concept from which the laws of 'nature' or 'science' originate, then most of the religious texts would make sense to scientists and the science would make sense to religious people. On this basis neither would have any reason to try to disprove the other.
Your stem cell research displeases the concept from which the laws of 'nature' originate, cease and desist! Likewise, your in vitro fertilisation research, your gay marriage laws and your offensive cartoons of the concept's prophet. I am praying to the concept from which the laws of 'nature' originate that it will bring down arbitrary magical punishments upon you, possibly an elemental transformation into a pillar of sodium chloride, always popular, and also that it will personally intercede in the selection of tomorrow's lottery numbers. Amen.Instead, if you looked at god as a concept from which the laws of 'nature' or 'science' originate, then most of the religious texts would make sense to scientists and the science would make sense to religious people. On this basis neither would have any reason to try to disprove the other.
vanordinaire said:
You are both getting and missing my point at the same time. If the religious people realised that god is not a being then they wouldn't be thinking along the lines of what offends 'god' or not and wouldn't be trying to pray to 'him'. They wouldn't be thinking that the laws of god/nature were something that we had an option to break or not.
I think the point is that it's only a personal god which takes an interest in human affairs that appeals to them. The idea that the last thing their deity did was type "run", hit enter, and go for a pint doesn't give them what it is that religion does for them.mcdjl said:
You're right in your history. The eastern Catholic Church became what we now know as the eastern orthodox churches. However, you're also the only person I know of to use the terminology that way. In my experience while your terms may be historically technically correct, they would be misunderstood by most people, to the point that if you spoke to some Anglicans (for example) they would completely reject the suggestion that they were catholic and you'd have to explain the above to them. User my terminology and the same wouldn't be the case.
Neither of which has anything to do with the existence of gods
Ah! I see you have cleverly worked out the reason why I refer to it as the western catholic church.Neither of which has anything to do with the existence of gods
As I said, I studied the histories of various churches, and this led on to all sorts of diversions. When I came across something I did not understand, I would approach various religious people and ask for an explanation and even with some in the employ, like a particularly ignorant verger, they were bemused. I quickly discovered that the people to ask for clarification were those without belief in any religion.
In the early 70s I was working in a firm where the more we did (keystrokes were counted) the more we got paid, so no one talked to anyone except on the way to the train. We lost our biggest contract - it eventually closed the firm - and we had periods of no work at all, often an hour or two a day. I had nothing in common with the bloke I worked with as I knew nothing about him. I'd been working with him for a bit less than a year when I made him a cup of tea during down times and had to ask him if he took sugar. So when I opened one of my church history books to read - the first book I'd ever taken to work - he asked me what it was and I found him a mine of information.
He told me about other books to read, what ones he found difficult to understand and during the few weeks before we went our separate ways to different jobs, we spent hours talking to one-another and stayed friends until his death a few years later.
I, rather stupidly, asked him what religion he was, and he said something like: How can you be religious once you know their histories?
He had more knowledge of religions than any religious person I've ever known apart from a family member who is a divinity graduate from a very famous Scottish university. My colleague and I had a bet. If I could find any reference to Jesus saying he was the son of god, he'd make the teas, and vice versa. Then after the first week, it was a reference in the gospels to Mary, mog, being a virgin.
His Missus was a devout catholic, that's western catholic, and there was a certain tension about him not believing. We had a couple of meals together as couples and we were not allowed to talk of religion.
Despite his wishes, he was given a full church burial. (He wasn't alive at the time, he told me that he wanted to have a secular service. Had it all arranged.)
My grandmother was taken to a nun-run workhouse in Co Cork when she was 6 or so. She was ill-treated but the main scars were mental. It wasn't until after she died that my father discovered she was not married to his father. One of the elder daughters knew and said that she was ashamed of it because it was against the wishes of a god.
I looked up the history of marriage when I was told - I was in my late teens - and then realised that much of what was said in the marriage services was lies as such. All marriage was - before the Hardwicke Act - was a way to gather money, a tax in fact. Couples would live together, i.e. be married, and then some vicar would come round and demand money to 'bless' the union. They were still married whether or not this bloke did it, just the same as being dead if some vicar didn't read the last rites.
Rant over. But guilt is rather odd, isn't it. Marriage wasn't invented by the church or a god, but I bet guilt was.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I do find it fascinating how you can pick and chose from a book like that. The book effectively defines the religion and the God. If it doesn't, what else does?
When that religion and its God tolerates rape how on earth do you tolerate the rest?
It (hopefully) is the case that no believers in such a bible actually think or supports the tolerance of rape; but how on earth do you reconcile entries such as this with the rest of the book.
///ajd said:
It (hopefully) is the case that no believers in such a bible actually think or supports the tolerance of rape; but how on earth do you reconcile entries such as this with the rest of the book.
And how do you insist that the book is the Word of God and that some section or other of it must be treated with authority when you have already decided that some other parts can be safely ignored? Why claim that you should be allowed an exemption from laws against prejudice against homosexuals because your religion demands it when you have already chosen to ignore some other demands?A rambling, simpletons view. Aided by a glass of Chablis.
I'm neither a scientist or a religionist.
I normally try & avoid religious debates, it's very easy to cause offence & I have no desire to do that. They usually lead to circular arguments about proof and faith or musings of little substance....read on
Anything that seems like a statement from me should have IMHO after it, I just can't be bothered to type it in every time OK?
Science, and our lives, broadly, contain "knowns" and "unknowns"
And of course lots of "unknown unknowns" (thanks Don)
Some branches of science try and use the "knowns" to further (our) knowledge of the "unknowns"
Some "unknowns" then become "knowns"
We "develop" as human beings as a result of this gained knowledge.
This development may be seen as a good thing, or perhaps not, or maybe just a change and not a development at all.
Scientists are, I suspect, (I'm not one,) curious people who enjoy or are fulfilled by solving problems, searching for solutions and gaining knowledge.
Those attributes aren't of course exclusive to scientists, they can equally apply to people with religion, or anyone else.
There are of course branches of science that concentrate on the destruction of our fellow man.
That attribute is also not exclusive to scientists but can equally apply to people with religion, or anyone else. (not you, good reader, you have no desire to cause any harm to anyone or anything)
That in itself may be seen as good destruction or bad destruction. That would depend on whose side you're on during the destruction.
History then, generally dictates which side was indeed the "good destructor"
Unless religion is involved.
The religious will generally, not change their belief (side) unless it furthers their own agenda, or keeps them alive.
Although I have a friend who has been a fervent follower of Catholicism, Anglicanism, Seventh Day Adventist, been a Jehovah's Witness, and is currently a Buddhist. There was another flavour which I can't recall which she gave up because they were "a bit loopy"
It's quite OK to lie to a heretic.
It's quite OK to lie to an infidel.
It's quite OK to lie to an unbeliever.
The religious are always right within their beliefs, I can't recall many religious people proclaiming "well, actually, my religion is wrong but I still believe in it as it is"
A scientist wouldn't get far repeating a failed experiment over and over unless trying to learn from the failings.
Which religion are we supposed to follow in this country, I've clean forgotten, haven't we grown out of that now or doesn't it really matter any more.
How many scientists are involved in a search for a god, I've no idea. It would be interesting to know where their "known" start point might be.
Or perhaps they would start from an "unknown" with no known "knowns" or perhaps just start from here:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
Or perhaps here:
اقْرَأْ بِاسْمِ رَبِّكَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ
Of course, from my (limited) understanding, those who follow a (an organised) religion are using a book or it's "teachings" as a start point in their search for a god or enlightenment or salvation or lizards, if indeed they are searching for anything.
Perhaps some have already found god, if that's so I wish they would tell the rest of those who are still looking, where it is. It would save a lot of time and misery.
"Look, there it is, over there!! I saw it first!!
Think of the κῦδος.
Is there a religion that doesn't start with some form of written teaching, preaching dogma or flogma?
What or who is the author of these writings.
Are they written by human hand, or "the hand of god." Are these writings just made up, or did a god tell a human what to write.
Why would it do that? Surely much easier to just appear, tell the assembled throng about your plans, do a few miracles, disappear into the ether and pop back every now and then to reaffirm your authenticity, lap up the adoration and make sure we were all doing OK.
Perhaps chuck in another couple of miracles just to appease the non believers. (I've just seen the floor in this, I've given the god some human aspirations, not the miracles of course, humans can't perform miracles, only god can do miracles, anyway, would a god be happy being adored, would it even need to be adored, or worshipped)...as you were
Have parts of any religious book ever been discarded, why have they been discarded, would any religious people care to tell me?
Which parts of any religious book could be preached or taught by an atheist scientist cunningly disguised as the head honcho of that particular brand of religion and still be believed and followed by the religious and the scientist.
Which teachings of the book would only be followed by the religious, with the scientist dismissing those teachings as not worth following. Why would that divide come about?
Obviously which ever side of the fence you are sitting, science or religion, or perhaps balanced precariously somewhere else, you are only able to answer for yourself so the whole premiss is very general.
As an aside, I listened to this earlier, I found it interesting.
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0544243
Promises, Promises: A History of Debt The Theology of Debt
David Graeber considers how the world's religious texts include the language of debt.
Anyway, enough already, I'm losing the will to type, you're losing the will to live.
I'm neither a scientist or a religionist.
I normally try & avoid religious debates, it's very easy to cause offence & I have no desire to do that. They usually lead to circular arguments about proof and faith or musings of little substance....read on
Anything that seems like a statement from me should have IMHO after it, I just can't be bothered to type it in every time OK?
Science, and our lives, broadly, contain "knowns" and "unknowns"
And of course lots of "unknown unknowns" (thanks Don
)Some branches of science try and use the "knowns" to further (our) knowledge of the "unknowns"
Some "unknowns" then become "knowns"
We "develop" as human beings as a result of this gained knowledge.
This development may be seen as a good thing, or perhaps not, or maybe just a change and not a development at all.
Scientists are, I suspect, (I'm not one,) curious people who enjoy or are fulfilled by solving problems, searching for solutions and gaining knowledge.
Those attributes aren't of course exclusive to scientists, they can equally apply to people with religion, or anyone else.
There are of course branches of science that concentrate on the destruction of our fellow man.
That attribute is also not exclusive to scientists but can equally apply to people with religion, or anyone else. (not you, good reader, you have no desire to cause any harm to anyone or anything)
That in itself may be seen as good destruction or bad destruction. That would depend on whose side you're on during the destruction.
History then, generally dictates which side was indeed the "good destructor"
Unless religion is involved.
The religious will generally, not change their belief (side) unless it furthers their own agenda, or keeps them alive.
Although I have a friend who has been a fervent follower of Catholicism, Anglicanism, Seventh Day Adventist, been a Jehovah's Witness, and is currently a Buddhist. There was another flavour which I can't recall which she gave up because they were "a bit loopy"
It's quite OK to lie to a heretic.
It's quite OK to lie to an infidel.
It's quite OK to lie to an unbeliever.
The religious are always right within their beliefs, I can't recall many religious people proclaiming "well, actually, my religion is wrong but I still believe in it as it is"
A scientist wouldn't get far repeating a failed experiment over and over unless trying to learn from the failings.
Which religion are we supposed to follow in this country, I've clean forgotten, haven't we grown out of that now or doesn't it really matter any more.
How many scientists are involved in a search for a god, I've no idea. It would be interesting to know where their "known" start point might be.
Or perhaps they would start from an "unknown" with no known "knowns" or perhaps just start from here:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
Or perhaps here:
اقْرَأْ بِاسْمِ رَبِّكَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ
Of course, from my (limited) understanding, those who follow a (an organised) religion are using a book or it's "teachings" as a start point in their search for a god or enlightenment or salvation or lizards, if indeed they are searching for anything.
Perhaps some have already found god, if that's so I wish they would tell the rest of those who are still looking, where it is. It would save a lot of time and misery.
"Look, there it is, over there!! I saw it first!!
Think of the κῦδος.
Is there a religion that doesn't start with some form of written teaching, preaching dogma or flogma?
What or who is the author of these writings.
Are they written by human hand, or "the hand of god." Are these writings just made up, or did a god tell a human what to write.
Why would it do that? Surely much easier to just appear, tell the assembled throng about your plans, do a few miracles, disappear into the ether and pop back every now and then to reaffirm your authenticity, lap up the adoration and make sure we were all doing OK.
Perhaps chuck in another couple of miracles just to appease the non believers. (I've just seen the floor in this, I've given the god some human aspirations, not the miracles of course, humans can't perform miracles, only god can do miracles, anyway, would a god be happy being adored, would it even need to be adored, or worshipped)...as you were
Have parts of any religious book ever been discarded, why have they been discarded, would any religious people care to tell me?
Which parts of any religious book could be preached or taught by an atheist scientist cunningly disguised as the head honcho of that particular brand of religion and still be believed and followed by the religious and the scientist.
Which teachings of the book would only be followed by the religious, with the scientist dismissing those teachings as not worth following. Why would that divide come about?
Obviously which ever side of the fence you are sitting, science or religion, or perhaps balanced precariously somewhere else, you are only able to answer for yourself so the whole premiss is very general.
As an aside, I listened to this earlier, I found it interesting.
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0544243
Promises, Promises: A History of Debt The Theology of Debt
David Graeber considers how the world's religious texts include the language of debt.
Anyway, enough already, I'm losing the will to type, you're losing the will to live.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff