Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Cerebus wrote: "That's fair enough, and a sentiment I agree with..."We live in a society of labels I understand. So religion (or none at all) is complicated, and personal, and luckily we don't all have to agree. I kind of like it that way, spice it up, debate and learn from each other. I won't judge.
Ashley wrote: "We live in a society of labels I understand. "I think discussions like this thread are great for getting past the labels.....
Cerebus wrote: "Ashley wrote: "We live in a society of labels I understand. "I think discussions like this thread are great for getting past the labels....."
Yes I like what you wrote about how "those of faith do not have a monopoly on being good," that's a very true statement. Morals shouldn't be only aligned with those of faith. Just like all religions shouldn't be seen as good.
Ashley wrote: "Just like all religions shouldn't be seen as good. "Can I ask you to clarify that statement? Do you mean that religions shouldn't automatically be seen as good, or that some religions are bad? (or that religions are a mix of good and bad?)
Cerebus wrote: "Ashley wrote: "Just like all religions shouldn't be seen as good. "Can I ask you to clarify that statement? Do you mean that religions shouldn't automatically be seen as good, or that some religio..."
I'd say they are a mix of both good and bad. There are extremists in religions that believe in killing others if they don't believe the same way as they do. The Crusades, The Spanish Inquistion. Not to mention countless wars over religion, or killing a specific group of people for their beliefs (the Holocaust, Salem Witch Trials). There is good and bad in everything that's all I meant.
Ashley wrote: "There is good and bad in everything that's all I meant. "Yup, I'd agree with that (except when it comes to Pink Floyd of course, then it's all good :D )
Cerebus wrote: "Yup, I'd agree with that (except when it comes to Pink Floyd of course, then it's all good :D )"I've only been exposed to a little bit of Pink Floyd, but I do enjoy Comfortably Numb, quite a bit actually. So I can't debate it, except to say that that's probably the same way I feel about Sublime.
Ashley wrote: "I've only been exposed to a little bit of Pink Floyd..."It's a good time to be a Floyd fan actually, they're rereleasing all of their albums, some with 6 & 7 disc versions, loads of unreleased stuff etc. Come to think of it, it's also an expensive time to be a Floyd fan! :)
Ashley wrote: "..that's probably the same way I feel about Sublime. "
Not familiar with Sublime? A band?
I would like to live in a world without bad writing. Dan Brown seems to write the same book over and over with no character development. His formula gets old fast. When someone dies, who care. Treasure hunts with beautiful woman but no passion, just fast pace. When it come to the question of religion and science, science and logic are always needed. Religion starts wars, divides nations and leaves people in the dark ages. Faith and prayer alone will not cure disease, or stop famine. We can not live without science.
Cerebus wrote: "Manona1992 wrote: "i totally agree with you religion and science are allies not enemies and every thing science discover is a proof that good exist"As Travis has also requested, can you please le..."
Try reading God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? by John C. Lennox. He goes into great scientific detail proving that the Universe would have never come together as it did and life could not have come to existence without a Creator.
Try reading God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? by John C. Lennox. He goes into great scientific detail proving that the Universe would have never come together as it did and life could not have come to existence without a Creator"If Lennox's book provided (credible) proof of the existence of a Creator, then there would be no more need for religion, because then the existence of God, or Allah or, [insert name of deity here] would be a scientific fact, and not a matter of faith. Religious faith or belief can only exist in the absence of proof.
everyone---i would like to know how we got on this subject and why is is going on so long? haven't we beat up the subject long enough? i am atheist and will always be-those of you who have a religious belief --so be it.we can't change anyone's idea--only they can do that.
Destructo wrote: "Try reading God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? by John C. Lennox. He goes into great scientific detail proving that the Universe would have never come together as it did and life could not h..."Just responding to the comment that there was nothing scientific saying there is a God. Let's face it, Science can not prove nor disprove that their is a God. Just think it is foolish that people believe that it has or can do it.
Cerebus wrote: "Ashley wrote: "I've only been exposed to a little bit of Pink Floyd..."It's a good time to be a Floyd fan actually, they're rereleasing all of their albums, some with 6 & 7 disc versions, loads of..."
Yes its a band.
anyone--we don't have to prove there is a GOD--people who believe have that responsibility--science is only interested in finding the facts about a certain subject-example--why do we suffer from Malaria? what causes it? how do we eradicate it? how do we treat it--Leprosy was a disease to be feared--the victums were driven from their homes and forced to beg for a living--actually leprosy is difficult to contract but people didn't know that.we didn't know about germs at one point in our history--nor did we know about viruses as the cause of some diseases. science seeks the answer to thoses questions-they do have to prove the solution to other scientists- Banting and Best worked to discover insulin which has saved thousands of diabetics-they tried it on several patients and found it worked--they proved it!tell me anyone who has proved the existance of GOD!!
Jason wrote: "Just responding to the comment that there was nothing scientific saying there is a God. Let's face it, Science can not prove nor disprove that their is a God. Just think it is foolish that people believe that it has or can do it. "I don't think there are many from the scientific side of the discussion who would claim that science has or will prove there is no god. It has certainly never proved that there is one either...
It's the age old problem though, where does the burden of proof lie? If I claim there's an elephant in your fridge, is it up to me to prove it's there, or for you to prove it's not there? You open the fridge and don't see it, but I claim it's hiding behind the butter.....you move the butter and I claim it's become invisible. We can go on for ever if I refuse to accept what you're showing me and refuse to accept the sheer unlikelihood of an elephant managing to fit in a fridge....after all, all I need is my faith that it is there.
What science does do is give rational explanations (rational, repeatable, testable) for things that were previously explained by a deity because people didn't know any better. And every time science does that, those of faith either ignore the evidence, or move on to the next thing that is as yet unexplained....until we come up with evidence for that bit.....
At the end of the day the burden of proof lies with those making the claim....as an atheist I do not claim that god does not exist, I claim that I see no reason to believe in one as there is no evidence for one. You, as a believer, claim that there is a god, but are unable to provide evidence, and in fact rely on the fact that there is no evidence in order to say that you have 'faith'.
Let me ask you, do you believe the bible is the literal truth when it comes to your faith?
Cerebus wrote: "Jason wrote: "Just responding to the comment that there was nothing scientific saying there is a God. Let's face it, Science can not prove nor disprove that their is a God. Just think it is foolish..."Yes I do. Let me explain. I was once an Agnostic - believed in a higher power but against organized religion. Long story short, I decided to look into what I was arguing against - Christianity – cause I wanted to make my case stronger than things I just heard. I am going to keep general here because I rather you look into these things yourself instead of me writing a huge reply. The things I came across was 1-Archeology has constantly proved – never once disproved – events and cities that are spoken about in the Bible. 2-There is a scientific term for it but right now the name escapes me, but it is a comparison from the oldest known copy of a manuscript to what we have today and when it comes to the Bible it shows it is 99.5% the same. 3-When you look into the historical (not biblical) events of the Apostles and how they all died horrible deaths when all they had to do is say that they never saw Christ rise from the dead it makes you think why would they go through all that for a lie. 4- Historically, Paul hated and killed Christians. Bible says he had an encounter with Jesus and became the biggest Christian writing most of the New Testament. History books said “Something happened on the road to Damascus” and that is it. I ask you what makes an angry man with no self control (historically speaking) suddenly become a peaceful man and willing to turn the other check and take beating and die in just 1 weeks time. I ask you to look into this and please don't come back at me with a response that hasn't been thoroughly looked into.
Nadir wrote: "Actually, this is a question on the reading group guides. I like the topic so I bring it up here.I'm an atheist myself so I'd rather live in a world without religion. But, I'm not implying that r..."
Nadir, your comment suggests that you believe that atheism and religion are somehow related, opposites perhaps, which I don't believe. Atheism is about spiritual belief and religion has nothing to do with spirituality. Religion in a strict sense is an invention of man, blamed on God, in which man seeks to control not only other men's actions, but thoughts, philosophies, theories and most importantly purses. The great Eastern Guru Ghandi shared with us that "God has no religion."
As to the actual preference, my instant response is that I'd prefer to live in a world without religion, no matter what the other option might be. If we consider almost everything evil that mankind has done, it has been in the name of some religious doctrine. Just as a couple or three simple examples, the Crusades, the Inquisition, Hitler's Nazi Germany, and the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
Science on the other hand has created the fields of curative medicine as well as preventative medicine, the ability for man to communicate easily, to travel and understand, to feed the masses, to begin to embrace fears, all of which result from ignorance.
Religion encourages ignorance. It is through ignorance that these "leaders of the flocks" can manipulate and control. If there is any doubt, look at the US today with it's ultra right wing Republican politicians the likes of Michele Bachman, Ron Paul, and so many more who are not just ignorant themselves, but prey on the ignorant masses who are instructed by some pastor in a pulpit on how to vote so these zealots can have even greater control over others.
whitebeard--i also am an atheists--i don't agree that atheism is a spiritual belief.there is nothing spiritual about it.we are practical fact believing people. you are right about the "leaders of the Flock" they are the con artists and the " flock" are the victums.those of us that have never been indoctrinated think other things rather than the possibility that we may sin if we dance or sing or show an ankle or marry outside of our clan. a good way to control people is to make them fear what comes after death--no one knows --no one has ever come back from the "dead" or from "heaven" in fact WHERE IS HEAVEN? how do they know there is one? give all your money to the Leaders and you will be assured of a beautiful life after youo die--that is if you adhere to the rules of the ANNOINTED ONES.
cerebrus--as i said before it is not up to science to prove the is or isn't a God-the burden of proof is up to the religion that states there is a God.
I wonder if choosing between science and religion is the right choice? Ask me to choose between a world without science and a world without God and my answer is give me a world with God every time! Of course it's a moot point because all the science we celebrate was given by God (I realize aetheists will argue that); and (again assuming the argument by aetheists) God is among us and all the scientific wonders that he's made available.
I believe he makes himselve available to everyone. Some choose to ignore him, and sadly, some just can't seem to "see" him. The bible tells us he's made himself apparent in all the wonders he has created in this world.
Regardless of what you believe, my prayer is that we live in a society that loves and cares for each other, and that we try to live lives of integrity.
I would rather live without religion--religion has killed a multitude of people throughout history and it is based on something that is unproven. That said Science has also destroyed a multitude. I think the question should be, Is man capable of evolving beyond his primitive warlike tendencies or are we destined to self destruct based on our current belief systems?
Bunnie wrote: "whitebeard--i also am an atheists--i don't agree that atheism is a spiritual belief.there is nothing spiritual about it.we are practical fact believing people. you are right about the "leaders of t..."You missed my point Bunnie. I didn't suggest that athiesm is spiritual. I meant to suggest that is it NOT the opposite of religion. Otherwise, I think you're correct. I am quick to say that I am not athiestic, but have a very strong belief in an all powerful, all knowing existence. I don't see that as any conflict with science, since any all knowledgeable existence is fully aware and cabable of creating all the scientific pheonomena that we study and discover. More than just a big bang created all this. There is a great deal of intelligence in this design.
Cornelia wrote: "I would rather live without religion--religion has killed a multitude of people throughout history and it is based on something that is unproven. That said Science has also destroyed a multitude. I..."Cornelia, do you associate science and man's craziness? I believe it is man's fear that causes war and aggression. By answering questions,science often discerns knowledge that refutes fear or at least teaches those who pay attention to find answers to their fears. Many people like to blame science for the present state of the environment when the truth is that it is greed that is the root of that problem. And greed is a fear of not having enough or control of enough. Science also gave us solar power, nuclear power and will provide for more, as soon as the power hungry and greedy politicians can see a way of using it to re-elect themselves or to make a profit.
Jason wrote: "Destructo wrote: "Try reading God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? by John C. Lennox. He goes into great scientific detail proving that the Universe would have never come together as it did an..."I never said that there was anything scientific proving that there is a God. In fact, my point was precisely the opposite: That Lennox was a bit of a tool for trying to find a scientific basis for his religious beliefs.
Jason, if you believe the literal truth, how do you reconcile the two contradictory creation stories in Genesis?How do you explain the lack of geological evidence for a worldwide flood?
How do you explain how Noah managed to get all of those animals onto an ark?
How old do you believe the universe is?
Do you accept Genesis, Chapter 19, Verse 8.
("8. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.") as a legitimate response?
Genesis, Chapter 19, Verses 30-38, is also fine?
Jason wrote: "1-Archeology has constantly proved – never once disproved – events and cities that are spoken about in the Bible."
I find it hard to believe 'never once disproved' but am willing to accept it as fact for the purpose of this discussion. That in itself does not prove the existence of god, merely that the people who wrote the bible wrote about existing places. Greek mythology also refers to places that have been proved to have existed by archaeology, do you also believe in Zeus? Similarly with Babylonian myths, do you also believe in Ea?
Jason wrote: "2-There is a scientific term for it but right now the name escapes me, but it is a comparison from the oldest known copy of a manuscript to what we have today and when it comes to the Bible it shows it is 99.5% the same."
If you can provide peer-reviewed references for this I would be interested in reading them. As with 1 though, proving that a documents written up to as recently as 1600 years ago (I assume you've read up on the research on the authorship of the bible showing the different authors and when they were alive?) doesn't prove the existence of god. THere are Egyptian writings older than 2000 years old which are unchanged, do you also believe in Ra?
Jason wrote: "3-When you look into the historical (not biblical) events of the Apostles and how they all died horrible deaths when all they had to do is say that they never saw Christ rise from the dead it makes you think why would they go through all that for a lie. "
To this day people still go through some horrendous things in the name of their religions, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaipusam, will you now consider Hiduism? Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_A..., will you now consider Islam? Does the willingness of non-believers to undergo horrendous deaths at the hands of the Christian Inquisition convince you there is no god? Does the willingness of Muslims to undergo a horrendous death convice you that Allah is god and Jesus one of his prophets?
Willingness to undergo suffering is not a proof of god, it is proof of man's ability to convince themselves of many different things.
Jason wrote: "4- Historically, Paul hated and killed Christians. Bible says he had an encounter with Jesus and became the biggest Christian writing most of the New Testament. History books said “Something happened on the road to Damascus” and that is it. I ask you what makes an angry man with no self control (historically speaking) suddenly become a peaceful man and willing to turn the other check and take beating and die in just 1 weeks time"
Sorry, but once again someone changing their mind about something is not proof of the existence of god. There are other possible explanations. An attack of conscience? A whack on the head causing brain trauma? The Flying Spagetti Monster told him to? Maybe he heard voices and rather than attribute them to his dog, he attributed them to god. All of those are no less likely than "god told him", but are less appealing to you because they don't fit with your beliefs, but at the end of they day that is all they are....beliefs.
It's the god of the gaps concept again....in the abscence of evidence those of faith chose to say 'god did it'. I choose to say, 'there's not enough evidence to explain it'.
Jason wrote: "I ask you to look into this and please don't come back at me with a response that hasn't been thoroughly looked into."
I have looked into it. I used to believe, I don't anymore, and a lot of that is down to the same kind of process you went through. If you want me to accept that science supports the existence of your particular god, I would love to read the peer-reviewed science that you feel does this.
Another question I would ask you, which I have asked before in this thread, is why when people convert to religion because they heard god speaking to them do you believe it is god speaking to them, but when someone murders because they say god spoke to them and told them to you would (I assume) say that they are mentally ill? Why when someone says their toaster talks to them do you (again I'm assuming) not believe them? When someone converts to Islam because Allah spoke to them, do you accept that Allah exists?
When you decided to look into religions to bolster your agnosticism, did you research other religions? What was it about their holy texts and conversion stories etc. that didn't convince you where the Christian one did? Or is it an accident of birth that growing up in a Christian dominated country that led you to that religion. If everything in your life had been identical, but you had been born in India and had attempted to bolster your agnosticism, are you still certain you would have ended up at Christianity?
The idea that the bible mentions some actual places is no more proof of god or jesus, then Sherwood Forest being a real place proves there was a Robin Hood.Or the North pole proving there is a Santa.
Nothing in the bible was written contemparary to the events it chronicles.
In some cases the stories were written decades afterwards, and at a time when you life expectancy was thirty, a couple decades means it was most likely written by someone an entire generation ( or two) removed from the events.
Then we get into how so many people had a hand in retranslating it and 'fixing things' as they went all the way through history and you end up basing an entire world view on the, heavily edited, word of god.
I SAY BAH HUMBUG TO ALL OF IT--WE ALL WILL NEVER KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT WHY WE ARE HERE OR HOW-IT'S GOOD TO DISCUSS BUT THERE IS NO ONE TRUTH-MEANWHILE WE ARE WASTING TIME DISCUSSING SOMETING WHICH WE CAN NEVER RESOLVE--SO LETS GET BACK TO THE BOOKS!
Laura wrote: "Both are essential to living a full life. Science and religion are both searching for the truth.Sometimes they conflict and occasionally they support each other. In either situation, they spur each..."Both are totally inessential to living a full life. Faith may be required for personal fulfillment, but certainly not religion. And science is NOT a search for truth, it is an attempt to reduce uncertainty by gathering FACTUAL data/evidence and forming logical theory/strategy based upon said FACTS.
Jeff wrote: "Both are totally inessential to living a full life."Unless you're living in a cave and forgoing modern medicine and amenities (and judging by the fact that you're posting on an internet discussion I'm going to guess not), then I'm not sure how you can say science is inessential to your living a full life. Modern life as it is owes a huge amount to science.
Jeff wrote: "And science is NOT a search for truth, it is an attempt to reduce uncertainty by gathering FACTUAL data/evidence and forming logical theory/strategy based upon said FACTS."
Right, we're definitely getting into semantics here, but what is your definition of truth such that what you then describe is not a definition of a search for truth?
from a theoretical standpoint science, philosophy and religion all try to explain our existence. I think of science as really a religion for agnostics (show Me). Scientists believe that if they can find the lowest common denominator of all living things they will find God. I personaly can do without them all.
Jack wrote: "I think of science as really a religion for agnostics"Here we go again.....in what way is science a religion in any way? I've said it before, I'll say it again, religion relies on faith and ignoring evidence that contradicts that faith. Science is all about the evidence, and science changes as more knowledge is gathered....
Jack wrote: "Scientists believe that if they can find the lowest common denominator of all living things they will find God."
There may be some scientists who are looking for god, but it is a tiny minority. Science is not in any way an effort to "find God".....god doesn't come into it.
Jack wrote: "I personaly can do without them all."
How do you propose to be able to post on discussions like this if you can do without science? Religion is not responsible for the advances which have led to the internet, or the electricity which powers your computer. Do you shun all modern medicines? Walk everywhere? I can assure you that you can not "personaly...do without" science....
Cerebus wrote: "Jeff wrote: "Both are totally inessential to living a full life."Unless you're living in a cave and forgoing modern medicine and amenities (and judging by the fact that you're posting on an intern..."
TRUTH is subjective, people often say "tell me the truth" when what they are really asking for are the facts of whatever happened. Truth is subjective & based on our physical location in space/time in relation to other elements as well as being subject to our interpretation. Science is the search for FACT, philosophy is a search for TRUTH. Getting a bit into semantics i suppose, but to me a FACT would be that "David Tyree caught a football against his helmet" whereas a TRUTH might be "David Tyree's catch cost the Patriots a perfect season." FACT is a piece of evidence or an event, TRUTH would be the interpretation of said fact or event. It's all just linguistics.
jack--i was never under the impression that science was trying to find God in any way but rather trying to find answers to conditions such as diseases or the way the world works or the make up of our universe (chemistry)people study animals human behavior,chemistry, physics,why is that trying to find God?
The post asked for my opinion and I gave it. I would no more argue with someone who uts their faith in science as I would with someone who puts their faith in religion.All creation starts with thought. Theoretical physics...string thoery etc. is searching for God...they just won't admit it..Einstein did.
Jack wrote: "I would no more argue with someone who uts their faith in science as I would with someone who puts their faith in religion."Science is not about faith. Faith is belief without evidence. Science requires evidence, it does not require faith.
Jack wrote: "Theoretical physics...string thoery etc. is searching for God...they just won't admit it..Einstein did.
Physics is not about searching for god. Science is not about searching for god. If you want to search for god, it's probably best not to look, just rely on faith that he is there.
And once again Einstein gets pulled out of a hat....Einstein was not religious.
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." Albert Einstein
I believe in God(Spirit). I don't believe in religion. Religion is used to twist and manipulate and control. Uses fear and guilt. The bible is a novel. Science is valuable. There are questions though on how far can it push before it is just like religions.
Lynette wrote: "Science is valuable. There are questions though on how far can it push before it is just like religions. "What do you feel these questions are? What is it about the direction of science (if there is one) that makes you think it could become like a religion?
In the middle ages, society forced everyone to make a choice and the choice that was dictated was religion. Thankfully, we live in a time where we are not forced to choose between religion and science. We can believe in both and that they support each other.
Bdalton wrote: "We can believe in both and that they support each other. "How do you feel religion supports science, or vice versa?
I'd like to live in a world that believes in science, and doesnt have an unexplainable explination for everything, but still has the religious teachings in the bible about being a good person.
anyone--i have a piece from the funny paper written by Wiley Miller--it says "ok here's how it works...first you NEVER question anything i tell you--The invention of Religion--
Ashik wrote: "Every single tool, every single book, every single home is only possible through the application of science. Without science, man is nothing, Without religion we put millennia of discrimination, h..."That's a very childish view Ashik. The fact is homo sapiens lost God as well as true faith when we started using knowledge purely for our own advantage. You probably think our species wouldn't exist without tools of any kind, when it was precisely the use of the first tools that allowed us to evolve to become the weak creatures we are today. The biosphere of life on this planet is dying because of homo sapiens' behavior and application of "science" over the last 10,000 yrs. I agree that religion is a far more dangerous thing than science (which at least follows logic, how "god" works) because religion in general is self-righteous, telling people WHAT they should believe in instead of encouraging belief itself. This is spirituality, which if far more important than either science or religion. Most religious people just take the metaphor of the founder and misinterpret it to support their own delusions. Jesus was really trying to spread the message that WE are ALL the sons/daughters of god and therefore WE are a part of God ourselves.
Carol wrote: "I would like to live in a world without bad writing. Dan Brown seems to write the same book over and over with no character development. His formula gets old fast. When someone dies, who care. Trea..."Religion doesn't start wars, life is war. What we call war is merely the most extreme form of competition in the biosphere. Most people think the point of war is to annihilate your enemy, but the underlying cause of war is the competition for resources, whether it be food, water, territory, opportunities to procreate, etc. In the last 3000 years man has used some of the most absurd justifications for war, but regardless of the reason, war (or more generally the struggle to survive) is absolutely necessary to sustain life.
“Standing, as all living beings are, before this dilemma of the will to live, a person is constantly forced to preserve his own life and life in general only at the cost of other life. If he has been touched by the ethic of reverence for life, he injures and destroys life only under a necessity he cannot avoid, and never from thoughtlessness.” -Albert Schweitzer
jeff- religion doesn't start wars but the belief in religion does-that is the trouble--we all think our point of view is the only one and we will fight to the death to convince you that we are right and you are wrong even if we have to kill you to prove the point. yes the desire for anothers territory and resources is probably the main reason people fight and kill. we are interested in preserving OURSELVES-and our offspring.
I`d rather live in a world devoid of dan boring`s books.
Jeff wrote: "That's a very childish view Ashik."...and then....
Jeff wrote: "This is spirituality, which if far more important than either science or religion."
I'm sorry, but I find it interesting that you refer to someone else's opinion as childish, and then follow it up by telling us imaginary friends are more important than science.
Jeff said: "The biosphere of life on this planet is dying because of homo sapiens' behavior and application of "science" over the last 10,000 yrs."
Can I assume from this that you spurn the use of scientific advances over the last 10,000 years then? Oh wait, you're posting on an online discussion, so I assume that at least some of these advances which have "allowed us to evolve to become the weak creatures we are today." meet with your approval? Modern medicine? You drive a car? Watch TV? So how you decide which of these advances are acceptable? Or if none are, how do you reconcile your use of them with your belief that they have led to the "weak creature" you "are today."?
Bunnie wrote: "jeff- religion doesn't start wars but the belief in religion does-that is the trouble--we all think our point of view is the only one and we will fight to the death to convince you that we are righ..."Brilliant!
Cerebus wrote: "Jeff wrote: "That's a very childish view Ashik."...and then....
Jeff wrote: "This is spirituality, which if far more important than either science or religion."
I'm sorry, but I find it i..."
It has nothing to do with me, I had no control over the world I was born into; neither does anyone else. You seem to be quite angry Cerebus. I'm not saying civilization/applied science is evil, I'm just saying it's unsustainable. Civilization already crashed around 1000 AD, and it'll happen again. I think you misunderstood my last post. I'm not at all Christian, I was explaining how people misinterpret the message that the historical figure Jesus was spreading, and they turned it into an authoritarian religion to keep the masses placated. The Roman catholic church has been one of the most materialistically wealthy organizations over the last 2000 yrs, while it's founding prophet was about as poor as one can get. They use his message to con the masses.
Also, I was saying that spirituality is merely belief, regardless of what you believe in. Not sure what you're refering to with your comment about "imaginary friends being more important than science". You're either twisting my words or misunderstanding my communique. And No, you cannot assume that I spurn the use of scientific advances over the last 10,000 years, although I do spurn many of them.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
My reason for pushing on this is that statements like this, if unchallenged and combined with many peoples misunderstanding of what atheism is, is that it leads those of faith to view those of us without faith to be selfish and immoral people. I agree that for some people "goodness and kindness and faith are one in the same", but I am also trying to point out that that statement should not be read as "those without faith are without kindness and goodness". I am not suggesting that is what you mean, but it can be infered by others, and it is a misconception I have had to deal with when people realise I'm an atheist.
You make a fair point about the recipients of charity being affected positively even if the originator has baser motives, and I will agree with you on that. And it is something that applies equally to those without faith who do charitable deeds for selfish motives. The only points I was trying to make were that those of faith do not have a monopoly on being good, and that doing good purely because you have been told to does not strike me as being particularly religious.