|
|
|
|
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/19/2009 11:13:31 PM |
But having faith can help a lot with that. It's a lot easier to not worry about things, if you think that someone all-knowing, and all-powerful, loves you, and has got your back.
That's the most honest assessment of the purpose and value of religion TO THE INDIVIDUAL BELIEVER that I have ever seen. (Ignoring the power-base/control aspect of organized religion for the sake of not muddying the waters at this moment.)
It's also the biggest cop-out ever. The more difficult, more realistic, approach is to think that your actual best is the best you can do, and that with the help of your friends and family (whom you also help in return), by actually DOING YOUR BEST, you will be okay in the end.
Of course, it does require you to grow up to a certain extent and stop leaning on a real or figurative mommy or daddy to fix things for you. Knowing someone "has got your back" should arise from knowing they know that YOU have got THEIR back (and all the multiple-regression extensions of that knowing you know they know you know, etc...). Interjecting a magical sky fairy into the equation, particularly an all-powerful one, is simply abrogating your responsibility to form the kinds of relationships with others that lead to mutual-back-having.
An all-powerful, all-knowing god really doesn't NEED you to have their back. That kind of uni-directional protection is EASY. Delusional, but EASY. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/19/2009 11:50:41 PM | Hey desert
I think that you are presenting the worst case scenario of the "believer". If you were to know people of real faith, and I don't mean the ones that just go to church once a week, and every once in a while send money to a televangelist, but ones who actually LIVE out their faith, you would be amazed at how much they do "have each others backs". The ones that really live out their faiths not only have fellow "believers" "backs", but even will help those that they don't know at all.
You are right when you say that the most value a religion has is to the individual believer, but it is because of that belief that they watch out for others. Yes, some of them really are their brothers keepers; even if the brother is a stranger.
You said that all you have to do is do your best and you will be okay in the end......... And you call "believers" pie in the sky optimists who lean on a magical sky fairy..... To say that everything will be okay as long as you do your best is even more nonsense than what some of the believers say, because there is no gaurantee, nor any amount of help at times can help certain situations. There are times when everything goes to $hit and thats all she wrote. That is reality. If you think that with friends and family help, you will always be okay in the end, you are more delusional than those who lean on a sky pilot; At least they believe in something, you believe in nothing...................
Paul K | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/20/2009 1:45:04 AM | Paul K,
Read in context, then try again. (Hint: read what I quoted from Scorpio first.)
Also, yes... sometimes you lose no matter what. That is life. So? "At least they believe in something" is crap. So is "you believe in nothing." Their belief does them no good in the "no win." And I believe in my friends and family and my own training, skills, and abilities. Again, no use in the "no win," (but a HELL of a lot of use in the "very narrow margin of win"), and you are just trying to make yourself feel superior by claiming I believe in nothing. I just don't believe in fictional sky fairies, Valkyries, or gods who will bail me out of the "no win."
Seriously: Thinking some sky fairy is going to bail you out is going to make being blown to bits by an IED in the Iraqi desert all better how, exactly? Better and more realistic to know that you and your partners/unit have trained hard and are doing the best you can to prevent falling prey to such a device, and to know that if the worst does happen, and any of you make it through in a functional state, you'll help the others. Train to succeed, survive, and never give up, rather than get yourself into a bad spot and start praying for a deus ex machina. It just works better. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/20/2009 5:55:16 AM | >>>>>>>>>>Assuming that causality and awareness is nesessary for existence is just a guess, and since there are things that are generally considered to exist that have never talked about their own awareness of existence, the human existential argument doesnt work for everything. Also, just because things exist after we create them, does not mean creation is the only precondition to existence, or that one is even necessary at all. What if there were 5 things that have infinite existence? Are they all 5 omnipotent god concepts? And what if those 5 things really don't have complete control or influence over everything else? From what I have seen of nature, it is very nebulous, and nothing is really created... they are just refashioned into different shapes. A tree in detroit, has no idea about acorns falling in austin texas. And none of this shares any significant connection to the weather paterns on jupiter... so absolute influence of original creating force doesn't seem likely either.<<<<<<<<<
That has nothing to do with my post, please dont plagerize philosophers if you dont understand their context or intent. Awareness is not the point, being is the point. I can not BE mistaken, if i dont BE. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/20/2009 8:25:27 AM |
Thinking some sky fairy is going to bail you out ..... Train to succeed, survive, and never give up, rather than get yourself into a bad spot and start praying
why does it have to be one or the other? is it not possible to do both? it's nice to know that god may have your 6, but it's also nice to know your buddy with an M60 does as well. but IMHO god and your team member (or your family/friends/etc:) cover your back side in different ways.
I just don't believe in fictional sky fairies, Valkyries, or gods
that's fine, it's your life ... live it the way you see fit. why so much hate for those whom live their life different than yours? | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/20/2009 2:20:07 PM | RE Msg: 395 by desertrhino:
But having faith can help a lot with that. It's a lot easier to not worry about things, if you think that someone all-knowing, and all-powerful, loves you, and has got your back. That's the most honest assessment of the purpose and value of religion TO THE INDIVIDUAL BELIEVER that I have ever seen.
Equating the two, would be like me saying that having a car can help you get girls, and you saying that the purpose and value of cars, is to help you get girls, and nothing else.
(Ignoring the power-base/control aspect of organized religion for the sake of not muddying the waters at this moment.) Yes. I have having to explain the obvious to people.
It's also the biggest cop-out ever. The more difficult, more realistic, approach is to think that your actual best is the best you can do, and that with the help of your friends and family (whom you also help in return), by actually DOING YOUR BEST, you will be okay in the end. I'd laugh, if this wasn't so tragic. The number of times I've been in situations when I did my best, and I wasn't OK in the end, and that my friends and family weren't there when I needed them, is just ridiculous. Life isn't this way at all, not unless you're living in some American middle-class sanitised world which is separated off from the harshness of real life.
Of course, it does require you to grow up to a certain extent and stop leaning on a real or figurative mommy or daddy to fix things for you. Knowing someone "has got your back" should arise from knowing they know that YOU have got THEIR back (and all the multiple-regression extensions of that knowing you know they know you know, etc...). They don't. I cannot tell you the number of people whose back I had, but weren't there for me when I needed them. I've met people who help others, who pointed out that helping others is a thankless task. The whole concept of "you got my back, I got yours", is not only selfish, for it implies that you'll only help people who will help you, it is really very, very unreliable. Seriously, if you think that your partner is always going to have your back, you're gonna get shot one day.
Interjecting a magical sky fairy into the equation, particularly an all-powerful one, is simply abrogating your responsibility to form the kinds of relationships with others that lead to mutual-back-having. On the contrary. It's the people who I helped without ANY expectation of getting anything back, and went out of my way to do so, because it was something that I'd learned from religion and from G-d, who turned out to be there for me in my hour of need. But the people I had the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" philosophy with, that turned out to screw me royally. Frankly, when people have that kind of attitude, I now know to RUN, because they are the most untrustworthy people I know.
An all-powerful, all-knowing god really doesn't NEED you to have their back. I wrote that G-d has my back. I never suggested that I have G-d's back. It's the difference between helping someone only because of self-interest, that you expect they will return the favour, and helping someone simply because they are in need, and you can.
That kind of uni-directional protection is EASY. Delusional, but EASY. Not easy at all. It's real easy to imagine that your partner is there for you, because he said he would, even when he's not. It's really hard to imagine that when you're alone, and facing a gang of drug-dealers who'd probably shoot you dead without a second thought, that an invisible Being is there for you, when He's never called out a voice to you that he would, and that you don't need to worry, and can just walk away calmly without panicking. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/20/2009 3:47:19 PM | Op,
If by science, we mean that which can be proven, then no. But if by science, as is often the case in here, we also mean theories such as the big bang and evolution of species, then yes. It's impossible to imagine anything that requires more faith than to believe that NOTHING somehow exploded and became the universe. Praise be. | |
|
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/20/2009 4:22:54 PM |
If by science, we mean that which can be proven, then no. But if by science, as is often the case in here, we also mean theories such as the big bang and evolution of species, then yes. It's impossible to imagine anything that requires more faith than to believe that NOTHING somehow exploded and became the universe. Praise be.
But invisible sky man who magically makes us appear makes perfect sense. Hallelujah! | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/20/2009 4:35:43 PM | | Stargazer - I tried explaining skin color to a class mate of mine in my logic class (ironic I know) and how we all came from dark skin color and he swears.. up and down.. that black people are cursed to look that way and that evolution doesnt happen. He was also convinced that Jesus was white and was very offended when I told him Jesus wasn't white, he was middle eastern. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/20/2009 4:37:24 PM | It's impossible to imagine
No it isn't...
It's impossible for YOU to imagine. And that is the crux of the science/religion debate.
It is easier for some people to capitulate to a belief which is essentially along the lines of myth and magic than to accept an improbable that someday may be demonstrated to be true.
The 'I can't imagine it, therefore it can't be true' argument is a fallacy based on argument from personal belief/conviction/incredulity.
Some people CAN imagine that it is possible. And some of those same people CAN also imagine that God is possible. Whether they need to be exclusive or not won't be an issue until the information needed to support either viewpoint becomes available. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/20/2009 10:24:53 PM | | Amen to the last post. Science and the belief in God cannot and will not ever be divorced in intelligent minds. I cannot address or heal the fearful and proud. But there are strong individuals who hold both domains easily and without guilt in their minds and hearts. Without question science can rest aside a belief in God. Material existence does not suffice as an answer to the crucial question. Why do I exist? Why everything? Never. Science is only ever about the material. | |
|
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/20/2009 10:57:49 PM | | No you did not. And not credulous minds. I said intelligent. Credulous minds are often not that intelligent after all. They are just credulous. Intelligence is something so different. Please do not be glum about the possibility that you and I do not KNOW everything. It is only part of this fabulous game. lol. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/20/2009 11:04:45 PM | | Also...what is Science leading us to??? More whistles and bells? Now that is just plain not right. The Irish had it right. Everybody has the right to roast in the pot on Sunday, shoes on your feet and a night out at the pub. Science is great in the medical realm but just another co-hort of the Industrial revolution. Now Scientists are so busy warning us all about Global warming. AAAAAH!!!! | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/20/2009 11:38:35 PM | ^Science has been great in the medical realm. It's also been great in the high-technology realm , the courtroom , the pantry , the engineering and architectural spheres , communications , biological , police , manufacturing , transportation , navigation , materials , chemical , and a million other "realms".
Religion , on the other hand , has done very little for any of these "realms" and while I'm willing to concede it had some value when we had no other options , it's proven to be far more of a burden than otherwise today. | |
|
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/21/2009 12:16:07 AM | Frankly what does religion deny? None of the above. What do the many who believe in Science deny? Anything that has the scent of religion. Why? What is the problem??
A whole lot of ignorance on the part of both parties. I have no problem with the progress in knowledge that has improved on all spheres, but I do have a problem with the inequities that are always present. Why has Science not addressed significant and relevant and powerful economic realities? Science is only about material progress and never about (what) in the end is really important. It is better to die early than to die old and deprived. Never mind the technology, biology, police....etc. and etc. Why is life on this earth only getting harder rather than simpler with all of the scientific advances? In year 2009!!! And please no obtuse explanations. By the way. Yay Life. It is a gift. | |
|
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/21/2009 12:36:25 AM | | So why are you crystal clear? Just because? Or you feel that your intelligence somehow eclipses my obtuseness. And I can't understand your point of view. Huh??? Like I implied take the shard or plank out of your eye before you slap anybody down. And at this point I am examining my own point of view and I will not give ground to being guilty of anything that you are not also guilty of. Peace. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/21/2009 1:11:13 AM | ^^ i am not guilty of anything.. i come from an academic family and i am working towards being academically profound myself. Whilst i aknowledge faith and religion, they are not something i chose to follow. To me they are not logical and lack reasoning and is open up to interpretation. where as science is deterministic by nature and explains a lot more than religion does and atleast attempts to explain occurances rather then just saying it is an "act of god".
Now, i'm not saying religion is wrong.. it works great for those who wish to follow that path. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/21/2009 1:39:10 AM |
Science and the belief in God cannot and will not ever be divorced in intelligent minds.
Many of us have no problem separating the two, and it certainly hasn't hurt our intelligence any. As a general statement therefore, you're wrong.
I cannot address or heal the fearful and proud. But there are strong individuals who hold both domains easily and without guilt in their minds and hearts. Without question science can rest aside a belief in God.
I would not disagree with this, although I would conclude that the combination is more likely to be problematic than when either is divested of the other.
Material existence does not suffice as an answer to the crucial question. Why do I exist? Why everything?
To many, this is NOT a "crucial" question. I don't ask the question, I am not interested it, I think it's pointless and has no answer. It's meaningless to me, and I'm not alone in that view.
You're right that it can't be empirically answered, even if there IS an answer. That just gives us one more reason not to care. No clear answer, why waste time contemplating it?
And not credulous minds. I said intelligent. Credulous minds are often not that intelligent after all.
Bingo! So he was right!
Please do not be glum about the possibility that you and I do not KNOW everything
Who's glum? We're not bothered by not knowing everything. We're so comfortable with the idea, that we don't bother fabricating intangible explanations just to ease our minds of unanswerable questions. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/21/2009 3:03:13 AM |
Frankly what does religion deny? None of the above.
Religion ? Which one ?
The Christians deny the possibility that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old. In doing so they deny all the evidence that says it's billions of years old. In doing that they deny the scientific method. That's fine but don't say that they don't deny science...they deny it all the time but only when it suits them. They're more than happy to believe in science when their central heating comes on or their computers boot up.
Remember , it's not scientists telling people what to believe . Science only tells us what has been observed and what there is evidence for. Science doesn't actually tellanybody anything about what they can or cannot believe. If you want to believe in fairies you can go right ahead ; All science says is that if there are any fairies , there's no evidence for them which begs the question of why anybody would believe in them in the first place.
What do the many who believe in Science deny? Anything that has the scent of religion.
Totally wrong.
Science doesn't deny religion per se. It simply says that if anything in those tomes is remotely true or correct in some way , there's scant evidence saying so. If evidence ever surfaces that indicates there was some great flood that encompassed the entire world and virtually all life on it was extinguished well then we'll just have to rethink absolutely everything up to this point. Until that happens , there's no proof it ever happened. Sorry , that's not science's fault , it's just what everything that might serve as evidence says.
Believe in this great flood if you want to...I mean really , go right ahead. What science says is that if it ever happened , great pains were also taken to make sure that nobody could ever prove it happened. On the other hand , we also have historical records from other places that forget that they were wiped out. Strange , don't you think ?
The evidence all points in one direction : No world-wide flood. So why do people believe in it ? Because they were told to. That's it.
Don't blame science for that. Science never set out to prove there was no great flood. If anything , science set out to see if there ever was one. There wasn't. Big floods , yes. World-encompassing floods ? Nope.
Why has Science not addressed significant and relevant and powerful economic realities?
I'm sorry but that's a pretty tall order. Mostly it's a tall order because I don't even understand what you mean.
Science is only about material progress and never about (what) in the end is really important.
So better roads on which fast and reliable vehicles transport increased crop yields as well as vaccines aren't your idea of progress for things that are "really important" ? What do you mean by things that are really important then ? Religion never cured anything. Religion never provided irragation. Religion didn't facilitate the achievement of world-wide communication (it impeded it if anything) Come to think of it , what exactly has religion done that was "in the end really important" ? Other than dividing us into believers and non-believers and then being told that all non-believers should die for not believing , what exactly was so important that religion did that actually served manking nearly as well as the advances science has made ? Religion has fought science the entire way. It took centuries just to get the church to admit that the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system. This is what religion provides that is so "really important" ? Can you wonder why some people hate religion. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/21/2009 3:30:11 AM |
The Christians deny the possibility that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old.
Um...no. This statement only applies to a small subset of Christians referred to commonly as literalists or creationists. The most "basic" sect of Christianity is arguably Catholicism. This sect represents hundreds of millions of people worldwide, and the Catholic Church itself denies both literalism and young-earth creationism. Extremely faulty generalization.
Totally wrong.
Science doesn't deny religion per se.
In the context of the previous statement, you can probably expect opponents to call you on this. Their reasoning will also be faulty, but I can hardly blame them if they argue that you "deny religion" on behalf of "science" in your opening statements, since your blanket tarring of Christianity is no less incorrect.
what exactly was so important that religion did that actually served manking nearly as well as the advances science has made ?
And no, Gregor Mendel doesn't count. What he achieved was through science, not doctrine. No example of a pious scientist will support the position of religion, because their achievements came from the scientific method, regardless of their religion. I'm not sure Cortez counts either, since I'm not aware of anything in Catholic doctrine which advocates or advises on plunder, conquest, or spreading of smallpox or syphilis. There's been some history of humanitarian work, but historically, much of that has come at the point of a gun, accompanied by sexual abuse, epidemics, and effective imprisonment, disenfranchisement, oppression, and servitude. The missionary's work has been to convert first and be humanitarian later, if ever. Things may have improved, but the track record doesn't do a great job of establishing religion as any kind of pinnacle of progress. | |
|
| |
|
| Page 15 of 20
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
|
Home
login 
