Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
and of course, religion is also something thats man made, and it too has evolved, developed and changed over many many centuries. We see few people worshipping the sun these days... even though the sun is actually demonstrably there.
Isabelle wrote: "I think all religions with evidence for it. So maybe like their holy book which provides evidence to their religions such as *The Bible* and *The Qu'ran*"Books aren't evidence. Books can be written about anything that can be imagined, this does not make it true. If the Bible or Qu'ran was evidence then God must make room for Sauron, Great Cthulhu, Superman and the Great Pumpkin.
If anything the books mentioned are indications that the beliefs based on them are internally inconsistent, conflicted and in many cases highly immoral, at least to my understanding of morality.
Isabelle wrote: "So we may never have complete evidence to say one is true or not. We just have to have faith in what we believe in. "Why?
If you go to court to be the Jury on a trial and you look at the guy and believe he is guilty. Then you are shown plenty of evidence that casts doubt on his guilt. Do you put faith in your original assumption and convict him because 'he looked dodgy' or is there a point when you can no longer claim he is guilty "beyond reasonable doubt"?
Having the courage of your convictions is certainty laudable, but considering that your currently held opinions are the absolute truth, and nothing can convince you otherwise, is surely the absolute height of hubris and folly.
The most unsupportable faith is faith in the idea that faith is a virtue unto itself.
Isabelle wrote: "Although if we had a world of religion,science could still exist because it is a man-made thing.Science is something that has evolved over many many centuries"
Uh... you do know that religion is man-made too right? Why do you feel that faith in a god is a must for us to be happy? A world without religion would eliminate a lot of hate crimes and war.
Gary wrote: "Isabelle wrote: "I think all religions with evidence for it. So maybe like their holy book which provides evidence to their religions such as *The Bible* and *The Qu'ran*"Books aren't evidence. ..."
Hey, wait, if the Christians can claim evidence with just one book, then Superman must be even realer. I've got dozen of his comics.
Plus, he has cooler super powers than Jesus.
but wait, that means that shub niggurath is real too!!!
Isabelle wrote: "Although if we had a world of religion,science could still exist because it is a man-made thing.Science is something that has evolved over many many centuries"
science is not man made. Gravity, electricity, biology and the sun have always been there. they are universal. The catholics and the muslims don't have different gravity.
Religion is a man made construct. Every belief has a different version.
Travis wrote: "Isabelle wrote: "Although if we had a world of religion,science could still exist because it is a man-made thing.Science is something that has evolved over many many centuries"
science is not ma..."
i'm gonna have to argue with you on that one, Travis. first of all, science is very different from matter, power, and energy, whom i agree with you, have always been there. science is all about knowing and descovering these things and also creating and inventing in benifet from them for humanity's sake.
religeon on the other hand is a controversial case depending on your belief. most religions are not originally from God, most of them ARE in fact a man made concept. BUT, there are religions that are originally devine but were missed with by humans. and so due to the changes that occur to them they are now considered technically a man made thing, but there still is a devinity and origin in them, like Christianity. and believe or not there's one religion which is tortally devine and original, hasn't changed despite many tries. and there's only one version to it. Islam. now knowing that i'm Muslim, you all are probaly gonna think i said that because i am Muslim. and that's not true. i say and believe in this beacause i know my humble share of Islam. not an expert but a good follower. Islam is all about illumination and knowledge before obeying or even praying for that matter. anyone who doubts in what i say, please just read Quraan, or an explanation of it. you're gonna try to fault it and you're not gonna be able to. i'm challenging you, this is impossible to argue with.
Yasmeen wrote: "Travis wrote: "Isabelle wrote: "Although if we had a world of religion,science could still exist because it is a man-made thing.Science is something that has evolved over many many centuries"
sc..."
No, all religion is man-made, there is no divine religion, sorry to burst your bubble.
Yasmeen wrote: "Travis wrote: "Isabelle wrote: "Although if we had a world of religion,science could still exist because it is a man-made thing.Science is something that has evolved over many many centuries"
sc..."
Science is man figuring out stuff that has always been there. Gravity is the example I always use.
Science is the stuff that is there, wether there are people around or not.
Religion is not. There is no divinity molecule. Without people, there is no religion.
While it's nice to hear Islam has stayed true to it's origins, those origins are man made.
Religion is myths, teaching stories, the percussors to laws and teaching tools.
They did not spring out of the big bang or emerge through the interaction of natural elements.
When man goes away, so does religion.
Drew wrote: "Yasmeen wrote: "Travis wrote: "Isabelle wrote: "Although if we had a world of religion,science could still exist because it is a man-made thing.Science is something that has evolved over many man..."
you haven't burst it so don't be sorry. just for the sake of argument, you can just follow my suggestion, you can look at it like just another book suggestion. and if you're ever able to fault Quraan correctly, i'm gonna burst that "bubble" myself.
sci·ence 1.The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment
2.A particular area of this
- veterinary science
- the agricultural sciences
3.A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject
4.Knowledge of any kind
So,the actual elements, phenomenons etc, like gravity are not the "science", they are the subject of scientific study and experiments.
Gravity, the sun, etc could sit out there for eons and not be "science" - the science part comes in when people notice, question, and study their components.
Travis wrote: "Yasmeen wrote: "Travis wrote: "Isabelle wrote: "Although if we had a world of religion,science could still exist because it is a man-made thing.Science is something that has evolved over many man..."
i agree with the last line you wrote- because religion was sent to instruct man, so why would it be if ther's no one to instruct?? the other stuff to me though are misguided. what if i told you i many very convincing scientific proofs that man could not have created Quraan 1433 Higri years ago, huh? what if i told you stuff that has been in Quraan for almost 14 centuries unchanged and that man couldn't have known at the time? scientific things. what would you say then??
Yasmeen - no one is attacking you. Disagreeing with you and even contradicting you, yes, but there is no need to get upset - forgive me if I'm "hearing" you incorrectly, but your posts seem to be getting more and more aggressive. As to what you say here, the Bible also alludes to some scientific facts that were not discovered by science until much later. Isaiah 40:21, 22 speaks of the "circle of the earth". I don't think people actually proved that the earth wasn't flat until way later.
Man made religion, because man made language and writing. No book was here before us, and even if there was, man interpreted it, leaving room for flaws because man is imperfect.
Yasmeen wrote: "Travis wrote: "Yasmeen wrote: "Travis wrote: "Isabelle wrote: "Although if we had a world of religion,science could still exist because it is a man-made thing.Science is something that has evolve..."
I would call you delusional, in fact, I do. Your religion is still just a man-made religion like all the rest. Man created religion to put fear into people so that they would follow their line of thinking. Truth is, you don't nor never have needed religion for people to realize that some things are just inherently wrong.
I am curious - I just thought of a question - the folks here who do not believe in an afterlife - do you believe in reincarnation? Not caused by any deity but maybe as a scientific phenomenon of people living multiple lives as different creatures?In my opinion, people who believe in a heavenly afterlife are just consoling themselves over friends and family who have died, or even themselves dying - by concocting this glorious image of a huge family reunion one day in heaven. It makes them feel less sad when a loved one dies to say "oh, now they are up there talking to (other dead loved one).
Ashley wrote: "Man made religion, because man made language and writing. No book was here before us, and even if there was, man interpreted it, leaving room for flaws because man is imperfect."Yes, because even if you believe that it is divinely inspired, errors could still be made in the transcribing and translating. Even a comma in the wrong place could totally change the context of a passage.
Maria wrote: "Yasmeen - no one is attacking you. Disagreeing with you and even contradicting you, yes, but there is no need to get upset - forgive me if I'm "hearing" you incorrectly, but your posts seem to be ..."the ancient greeks proved that the earth was round, and measured its circumference. The first known person to have measured the circumference of the world was Eratosthenes, and he died in 195BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosth...
Maria wrote: "I am curious - I just thought of a question - the folks here who do not believe in an afterlife - do you believe in reincarnation? Not caused by any deity but maybe as a scientific phenomenon of p..."No, I don't believe in reincarnation, I do think it is more possible than heavenly salvation but I still think it is highly unlikely.
I don't believe in reincarnation, because to reincarnate you need something to go on after you die in order for it to be reborn, and there's no empirical proof that that is the case. Theres no empirical proof for a soul of any sort, as such, when you die, you die.I do however love the physics that tells us that our bodies are made of atoms that have been recycled from things that have died. This doesn't involve any transfer of conciousness, just a recycling of the raw materials of life.
"the ancient greeks proved that the earth was round, and measured its circumference. The first known person to have measured the circumference of the world was Eratosthenes, and he died in 195BC."OK, I didn't know that. This may sound ignorant, but if that knowledge was out there, why did so many people in the 1400s think it was flat?
"Theres no empirical proof for a soul of any sort, as such, when you die, you die."Hazel, we agree!! Even the Bible says (even though it's content is questionable) "as dust you are, to dust you will return." (or something like that)
Maria wrote: ""the ancient greeks proved that the earth was round, and measured its circumference. The first known person to have measured the circumference of the world was Eratosthenes, and he died in 195BC."..."
they didn't, despite it being a commonly held misconception these days that they did. The idea that people used to think the earth was flat is actually a relatively recent idea. I recommend a very good book by Christine Garwood called Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea, which actually covers all of this stuff.
Yasmeen wrote: "Travis wrote: "Yasmeen wrote: "Travis wrote: "Isabelle wrote: "Although if we had a world of religion,science could still exist because it is a man-made thing.Science is something that has evolve..."
I would say you are using a man made construct, a book, the quraan to prove divinity exists seperate or despite man.
With science, I can prove gravity with a book as well. I drop it, gravity does it's thing. I can also prove it with a rock.
can you give me one example of divinity that would still exist without a man made thing propping it up?
Hazel wrote: "Maria wrote: ""the ancient greeks proved that the earth was round, and measured its circumference. The first known person to have measured the circumference of the world was Eratosthenes, and he di..."Interesting. I always assumed both ideas of the view of the earth existed, mostly due to communication and exchange of ideas being difficult back then.
Nice to know this threads teaches me more than the personal details of Sean Bean's life.
If you think about it rationally, the average person probably didn't really give it much thought at all.
Maria wrote: "As to what you say here, the Bible also alludes to some scientific facts that were not discovered by science until much later. Isaiah 40:21, 22 speaks of the "circle of the earth". I don't think people actually proved that the earth wasn't flat until way later. "6th Century BC
Also circle does not equal sphere. If it had said "oblate spheroid of the earth" it might have been marginally more convincing....
Maria wrote: "I am curious - I just thought of a question - the folks here who do not believe in an afterlife - do you believe in reincarnation? Not caused by any deity but maybe as a scientific phenomenon of p..."No. When you're dead, that's it. Game over.
Maria wrote: "OK, I didn't know that. This may sound ignorant, but if that knowledge was out there, why did so many people in the 1400s think it was flat? "Because when you have religion you don't need to ask questions, you accept what you are told.....
Yasmeen wrote: "what if i told you i many very convincing scientific proofs that man could not have created Quraan 1433 Higri years ago, huh? what if i told you stuff that has been in Quraan for almost 14 centuries unchanged and that man couldn't have known at the time? scientific things. what would you say then?? "Let's find out, give us some examples of these scientific entries that man could not have known at that time. Btw, it should be pointed out that for a long time the islamic world was the leader in scientific knowledge and discovery, but that is not because it was divinely inspired.
Jim Al-Khalili has done some really interesting tv documentaries on this subject....
Yasmeen wrote: "i agree with the last line you wrote- because religion was sent to instruct man, so why would it be if ther's no one to instruct??"Good question. Also if it's true that religion was sent to instruct man, then why did he not get the instructions at the start? Why wait all those tens of thousands (or really billions) of years to tell Abraham and then not even manage to get the "correct" version to man until 632?
Yasmeen wrote: "what if i told you i many very convincing scientific proofs that man could not have created Quraan 1433 Higri years ago, huh? what if i told you stuff that has been in Quraan for almost 14 centuries unchanged and that man couldn't have known at the time? scientific things. what would you say then?? "
I'd say really, like what. I don't remember seeing them when I read al-Qu'ran, though I must admit to only being able to read the English translation.
I do remember 13:2 which indicates the idea of an Earth centred universe, and also says "spread out the Earth" which sounds very much like a flat Earth too, even though the Ancient Greeks and others knew it was roughly spherical. 16:68 says that god told bees to eat fruit, rather than pollen and nectar which they actually eat. 18:86 talks about finding the muddy spring in the west that the sun sets in. 27:61 claims the Earth is fixed and 35:13 claims the sun and moon move to create night and day for the Earth as if the Earth is the centre of the universe.
That's just a small sampling of the ones I recall, I have deliberately left out the ones where a bit of creative hindsight could excuse the error. (For example on part claims that the sun and moon both move in orbits, which is technically true as the sun orbits the galactic centre of mass, and the moon orbits the centre of mass of the Earth moon system (which is within the Earth). However since elsewhere al-Qu'ran
claims the earth is fixed it would seem that it actually refers to orbits about the Earth.
Retro-interpretation of texts to sound like they are prescient are also easy where the text is vague. This is often done with Nostradamus when an event is suddenly linked to a verse after the fact. I did this recently myself with the Silmarillion, where the creation myth of the "angels" singing creation into existence can be thought of as an allegory for string theory.
If I have somehow missed these scientific revelations you refer to in al-Qu'ran (or the Bible) then I respectfully ask that you provide me the references so I may see.
Gary wrote: "Alexis wrote: "I only meant that i would be more keen to to live in a world with certain religions in comparison to others because some are more developed and cover more grounds. Also some promote ..."Though now that i think about it the fact that i am able to say that 'i would be more keen to live in a world...' and make that choice is probably because of science. I mean that the fact that i am not choosing religion is because science has shown to me that there are 'true' answers and that religion is often wrong. But i believe that if i lived in a world highly based on religion then i would believe religion to be right and science to be the wrong choice. I guess because i am exposed to both concepts i am being able to make (what i believe to be) an informed choice though maybe i am only choosing science because it is like my religion and has somewhat brainwashed me.
Note: This is kind-off unrelated to the question but how do we know that we have not been brainwashed since our birth to believe what we believe today- science or religion as the more comfortable choice.
Question: If people are saying that all religion is man-made then that makes no sense. Because then you're saying that the Qu'ran in the beginning was man-made when it wasn't. What human could possibly have come up with all of which is in the Qu'ran. It makes no sense.Religion can be turned man-made by people's interpetations and people learning the wrong way but at the very base religion is not man-made.
Although some religions can be man-made but I don't think it wise to say that religions such as Judaism, christianity and Islam could be man-made when you can see how far they date back and the ammount of connection they have with each other.
Alexis wrote: "This is kind-off unrelated to the question but how do we know that we have not been brainwashed since our birth to believe what we believe today- science or religion as the more comfortable choice. "I think it's quite relevant. We have been "brainwashed" since birth because children are pre-deposed to accept their parents and other authority figures opinions as hard fact, probably because most children that didn't probably made a mistake and died early on therefore not passing those genes on.
This is why commonly a person follows the religion of their parents/culture. However, our scientific knowledge is not the scientific knowledge of our parents, or their parents. Science is a methodology, its conclusions ever strive toward the truth, meaning our best knowledge of the truth changes. Hence brainwashing someone to "believe science" just leads to the kind of people who cannot do science because they cannot accept the changes in knowledge that seeking truth requires.
I cannot say that choosing science is the "comfortable" choice, losing religion would require a lot of responsibility, discipline and indeed courage. However I would say it is easily demonstrated that its the right choice if you respect life and liberty.
Don't you think the question is a paradox. Something that contradicts itself.Because think about it. Science and religion are like opposites.
Science is mostly fact
Religion is mostly faith
If there was no religion then there would be no science. If there was no science there would be no religion
Gary wrote: "Alexis wrote: "... the more comfortable choice..."i meant no offence to anyone but i find that i am more tipped onto the side of science.
Oh, and also i agree with Isabelle about how without religion there would be no science and vise-virsa.
Isabelle wrote: "Question: If people are saying that all religion is man-made then that makes no sense."That's a statement, not a question.
Isabelle wrote: "Because then you're saying that the Qu'ran in the beginning was man-made when it wasn't. What human could possibly have come up with all of which is in the Qu'ran. It makes no sense."
You claim it wasn't, others claim other books were made by something other than man, be it god, gods, spirits or aliens.
What exactly in the Qu'ran could a human have not come up with? Please illustrate any concept that hasn't been used in other religions or in fictional works.
Saying it doesn't make sense just means it doesn't make sense to you.
Isabelle wrote: "Religion can be turned man-made by people's interpetations and people learning the wrong way but at the very base religion is not man-made."
By religion here you mean 'Islam' yes? There are many religions older than Islam and many religions older than any of the Abrahamic religions.
Isabelle wrote: "Although some religions can be man-made but I don't think it wise to say that religions such as Judaism, christianity and Islam could be man-made when you can see how far they date back and the ammount of connection they have with each other. "
They have a lot of things in common because they were all built on each other, which is well known. That is about as mystical as all the books and movies of "Star Wars" being connected.
It is also good evidence that something is wrong. The Abrahamic religions are divided into Judaism, Islam and Christianity which have all been in violent conflict with each other. Each of those has been divided into protestant, Catholic, orthodox, Shi'a, Sunni, Sufi, some of which have come into violent conflict with members of their own faith.
All these religions are also not nearly as old or interconnected as the classical religions of Ancient Egypt, Etrusca, Persia etc.
I have to say, Isabelle, at least you have the courage of your convictions and have done what many religious people have shied away from doing here, saying that your way is right and others are wrong. However, as for what is "wise to say", well personally I will only be convinced by reason and independently verified evidence. Claiming to know what is wise, or claiming personal incredulity will not persuade many people, be they of a different religion or no religion.
Isabelle I'm guessing you are going with the everything has and equal and an oppostite thing, not sure if science is the opposite of religion. I think and it is only my thoughts no proof, there is no paradox, science is the study of fact and religion is the whimiscal directive of some humans to try and make sense of what can not be measured through fact.
Isabelle wrote: "Don't you think the question is a paradox. Something that contradicts itself.Because think about it. Science and religion are like opposites.
Science is mostly fact
Religion is mostly faith
If there was no religion then there would be no science. If there was no science there would be no religion
"
Isabelle, this misconception has been claimed many times and no convincing argument has supported it.
"Faith" is the maintenance in belief in some claim with, without, or in spite of, evidence.
Different religions make different claims as to what is the truth and then ask their followers to believe that it is true.
Science is a method of trying to imagine what the truth might be, then testing the idea and accepting it only as long as repeated tests confirm it. Even once accepted it requires no faith, but just trust in the idea for now. Unlike faith, trust can be proven unworthy with evidence and a new truth, or just a more accurate truth can be sought.
Religion and science are not equivalent. Science is a method of searching for the truth, religion is a method of controlling people by making claims to what is true.
Jettcatt wrote: "Isabelle I'm guessing you are going with the everything has and equal and an oppostite thing, not sure if science is the opposite of religion. I think and it is only my thoughts no proof, there is..."Well the whole concept of positive and negative is pretty philosophical. I mean if there was no such thing as pain in the world, it never existed then how could we have happiness if we don't know what sorrow/ pain is.
That's the way I see Science and Religion.
To me it has seemed that Science is very opposed to Religion. Ever heard those stories (factual) in history how people were shut down because they had their own theories of how the world worked and of which were not mentioned in the Religion. It's quite opposed in a sense that is.
Not sure if this makes sense.
But don't we have science so we can find out why things have happened and how they happen. Why we are what we are etc. Isn't that a part of science ?
And also there are times when science could be wrong too because of human error.
(I'm not very good at arguing)
Jettcatt wrote: "science is the study of fact and religion is the whimiscal directive of some humans to try and make sense of what can not be measured through fact. "And yet as much as when challenged with evidence religious and spiritual claimants try to claim that religion or spirituality lies "beyond" facts and science, they still actually try to use evidence and reason on facts they claim to be true.
Belief in god, gods or spirits are still attempts to apply "reasons" to the human experience. "God is the reason we are here", "the soul is the reason we can think and love". It is a form of intellectual evasiveness when religion is defended by the idea that it is immune to logical enquiry.
Science isn't labcoats, experiments or professors. Science is just a disciplined and methodical way of applying reason to the search for truths. If an idea doesn't use reason, or deliberately ignores reason, then the idea is - by definition - unreasonable.
Gary wrote: "Isabelle wrote: "Don't you think the question is a paradox. Something that contradicts itself.Because think about it. Science and religion are like opposites.
Science is mostly fact
Religion is ..."
The thing is if there was no religion then no-one would have any answer as to how did we end up being what we are now. How did the universe begin. What was before the universe ?
And I don't think a world could exist without Religion because we're all humans and we all ask questions.
Gary wrote: "Science is a method of searching for the truth, religion is a method of controlling people by making claims to what is true. "Look i understand your points concerning the idea that science and religion are not equivalent but i do not believe that all religions are a method of controlling people because most religions at their core are only trying to teach us morals and how to live life in a way that does not cause harm to anyone and thing. They at their basis are really just about peace and harmony. To say that ALL religions are controlling is similar to saying that all humans are evil. Some have good intentions.
Alexis wrote: "Gary wrote: "Science is a method of searching for the truth, religion is a method of controlling people by making claims to what is true. "Look i understand your points concerning the idea that sc..."
OK this is completely off the point but does anyone think there can be world peace.
Because I don't.
I just think that the idea of World Peace is very far off.
Drew wrote: "Isabelle wrote: "Although if we had a world of religion,science could still exist because it is a man-made thing.Science is something that has evolved over many many centuries"
Uh... you do know..."
Not really because we're humans so if there was no religion we would still be asking questions as to how we came to be here etc. because we're human.
Also think about this. (Similar to what Isabelle said earlier but i added stuff on)
If there were no religion than there would be no answers and then no-one would find faults and loopholes in the answers and then no one (scientists) would be inspired to attempt to find the real answers.
An example of this is about the time when people thought the world to be flat. Someone obviously proved them wrong, but you would have to think about what exactly drove them to risk falling of the edge of the world to prove their argument. Maybe they noticed the missing link in the idea that the world was flat.
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...
true, well it's an interesting discussion anyways