Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
yes, religion does emphasise the importance of science, religion is a position of ignorance, and as such shows us how important science is to the world, as science reveals things as they really are, not how we would like them to be.
Shani wrote: "No amount of reasoning will make me change my choice. It is what it is.
:)
"
And this is basically saying "it doesn't matter whats real or true, I'm going to believe what I want anyway". But thats your right and prerogative, but thanks for letting us know that rational discussion with you is pointless.
Religion is not ignorant. Perhaps it is you who is ignorant.
Nothing is ignorant unless you make it out to be.
Nothing is ignorant unless you make it out to be.
Shani wrote: "Religion is not ignorant. Perhaps it is you who is ignorant. Nothing is ignorant unless you make it out to be."
religion is ignorance. I said ignorance, not ignorant. This isn't the same as saying that religious people are stupid, but religion is ignorance because it teaches us not to question the world, and just accept the religious explanation, the whole "god did it" pseudo-explanation. Religion is a position of ignorance.
As for your second sentence, that might as well say you only don't know something if someone points out that you don't know it. Ignorance is not something you designate, it just is.
Ignorance is an objective state, not subjective
Shani wrote: "Religion is not ignorant. Perhaps it is you who is ignorant. Nothing is ignorant unless you make it out to be."
"Religion" used to teach that disease was deliberately caused by demons or evil spirits, or that it was punishment from god for wickedness.
People were ignorant in general of the germ theory of disease and the benefits of hygiene.
People didn't suffer from this because someone came along and told them they were in ignorance of these facts, they suffered from this because they died.
Ignorance is also a virtue for many religions particularly the Christian ones. Unquestioning Faith, (faith defined as belief without or in spite of evidence), is a virtue.
Shani wrote: "No amount of reasoning will make me change my choice."Even if that reasoning came direct from your god or gods? Or perhaps your church?
It is this kind of blind abasement to authority that makes the credulous a weapon in the hands of the unscrupulous.
Shanna wrote: "Ignorance is also a virtue for many religions particularly the Christian ones. Unquestioning Faith, (faith defined as belief without or in spite of evidence), is a virtue."Yes it is, and that should be a warning sign.
Read 1984. Faith is only a virtue because our culture has defined it as a virtue, primarily because our culture has had unquestioning obedience to god (and therefore the divinely appointed pope/church/king) touted as a virtue.
Faith is the biggest problem with religion as it makes a virtue out of suspending your own ethical intuitions and reason.
Shanna wrote: "Agreed, but these things (nature, cosmos and our bodies) are not science in and of themselves they are studied with science (astronomy, Physics and science are)"Also agreed. After all "science" is just the seeking of knowledge.
Therefore if god/gods exist then religion should be a science, testing which hypothetical gods exist and what their nature, limitations (if any) and responses are.
After all seeking fundamental truths about what really exists is a pretty good definition of the goal of science.
(This has been addressed in the past by many Church philosophers, but they tend to start with big assumptions)
Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "It started round about post3632, as a comment and like most debates expanded."None of which explains the relevance of your opinion on the pace of science. Your opinion on the matter doe..."
....which you were happy to go down.
cs wrote: "....which you were happy to go down. "So it was a deliberate trolling? Explains a lot.
Shanna wrote: "Or perhaps cs, if newness is the qualifier, are new religions better than older ones Islam better than christianity. Oooohh I guess that makes scientology the best religion, as the biggest latecome..."You may have noticed that I did not include religion in the list to keep the atheists on track. I did not want them to go off on a tangent. But you managed it anyway.
Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "I'm sure you could add more to the list above. But not many, if any, major, advances in the last 50 years that do not stem from something previous to 1960.We seem to be in an age of re..."
one of the biggest advances in recent times is the internet that is doing what we could already do, but better.
Ironically here a fair amount of these technologies are being held back by the fear and assumptions of uninformed, ill-educated people. Some of whom even use the expression "playing god" out of pious outrage without seeing the hypocrisy of them literally "playing god" by attempting to be his mouthpiece.
...you mean like euthanasia? or head transplants?
Shanna wrote: "Your welcome to your opinion, you just expressed it through the very medium you would dispose of, that's all.The wilderness doesn't love you back, and it only through the various sciences the vas..."
Your welcome to your opinion, you just expressed it through the very medium you would dispose of, that's all.
...butting in here, religion or science was the question, somethings are not always possible; we have a world of science and religion so we go with the flow.
I would like to breath clean air, but thanks to science I can't.
Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "....which you were happy to go down. "So it was a deliberate trolling? Explains a lot."
No you reached the dead end, others did not.
cs wrote: "..you mean like euthanasia? or head transplants?"I think this is the funniest thing I've read all day, and as I'm ill as hell atm, I needed a good laugh. Ladies and gentlemen, I think cs has just confirmed he's either a troll or an ill-educated, ignorant idiot. Or quite possibly both. Feel free to carry out experiments to discover, which, if any, he is.
cs wrote: "....which you were happy to go down. "Bull. I asked you to explain the relevance, we haven't gone anywhere. I haven't argued with you on the pace of science, I have asked you again and again to explain the relevance, and you have refused to do so. As others have pointed out you are deliberately trolling, that's neither new nor a surprise, but all you are achieving is a demonstration of your reluctance to answer questions.
You mention euthanasia in another post, another of these trigger words for the religious. Yes I am in favour of euthanasia, because like same-sex marriage, it is a matter of personal choice, human rights and dignity. I will tell you now though that your inevitable religious twistings of the concept to include straw men like it opening the door to people killing off the old or disabled will be met with the contempt you have shown you deserve.
That's right, cs - pick a lane and stay in it. And answer the questions people put to you in a clear, consice manner.
cs is just waiting for the most flavoursome billy-goat to cross the bridge.Has to pass the time somehow.
This isn't quite as much fun as the Whirlwind troll from many posts ago though...
Maria wrote: "That's right, cs - pick a lane and stay in it. And answer the questions people put to you in a clear, consice manner."'pick a lane and stay in it' pretty much sums up religion really.....
Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "....which you were happy to go down. "Bull. I asked you to explain the relevance, we haven't gone anywhere. I haven't argued with you on the pace of science, I have asked you again and ..."
Science is ever changing and learning. Can we say the same about today's religions? In my opinion, no - we can not
It was that comment from Jill that I was responding to. But I guess neither you or Maria bothered to read back to see where it started.
Ironically here a fair amount of these technologies are being held back by the fear and assumptions of uninformed, ill-educated people. Some of whom even use the expression "playing god" out of pious outrage without seeing the hypocrisy of them literally "playing god" by attempting to be his mouthpiece.
This was from Gary who got a religious dig in without elaborating. So he left it open to Interpretation...but I guess it was the dig that was important not the meaning.
you mean like euthanasia? or head transplants
....and for the record, incase anyone though I was trolling, although no human is known to have undergone a head transplant, yet, amimals have.
Meanwhile, I just have to say ...
He's still alive!! Sigh .... Phew ....
If you're wondering who I'm talking about, ask Travis. ;)
Ha, ha, ha!!
He's still alive!! Sigh .... Phew ....
If you're wondering who I'm talking about, ask Travis. ;)
Ha, ha, ha!!
Shannon wrote: "Meanwhile, I just have to say ...He's still alive!! Sigh .... Phew ....
If you're wondering who I'm talking about, ask Travis. ;)
Ha, ha, ha!!"
I'd worry about you, Shannon, but my wife acts the same way about Gerard Butler.
Girls...whatta you gonna do.
cs wrote: "You may have noticed that I did not include religion in the list to keep the atheists on track. I did not want them to go off on a tangent. But you managed it anyway. "You didn't include religion on the list because you were criticizing science for not coming up with anything new like head transplants or euthanasia (though euthanasia is not new, just controversial).
Don't try to misdirect me...
"Keep the atheists on track", seriously YOU are making THIS point...
Travis wrote: "my wife acts the same way about Gerard Butler"
OH! I wish you hadn't mentioned Butler. I also rather like him. This could take me off into a whole other direction! ;)
OH! I wish you hadn't mentioned Butler. I also rather like him. This could take me off into a whole other direction! ;)
cs wrote: "It was that comment from Jill that I was responding to. But I guess neither you or Maria bothered to read back to see where it started."Oh ffs, of course I read it, and there is nothing in what was said about the pace of change, you introduced that straw man, and have failed since then to explain its relevance. And your hypocrisy shines through yet again when you accuse some of us who have been involved in this thread a lot longer than you of not reading back! I read the posts, including the one you point to, as they come through, and when you began your trolling on pace, went back to confirm my suspicions, and again found nothing. Now that you are pointing to specific posts, the irrelevance of your point and the construction of your straw man are more obvious than ever.
cs wrote: "...you mean like euthanasia? or head transplants? ."False equivalence, euthanasia is not a new technology or science and since it is simply killing people in the belief that you are doing them good, that has been a particularly religious practice, from the crusades to the Conquistadors who used to baptise pagan babies and then dash their heads on rocks to make sure they died as Christians.
As for 'head transplants' well I doubt the technology is ready for something so severe, but it could be imagined in the future that extrapolating the new technology for organ and tissue replication that a person could have an entirely "blank" body structure regrown and then their brain transferred to it.
Why would that be a bad thing? Imagine if the most hideous wounds can be eventually healed completely.
Without the ability to create such a tissue structure, you are back to decapitation - which is quite popular amongst certain religious extremists.
So neither are science (or more accurately people) playing god. Not nearly as much as someone who claims to know what god is and wants.
Gary wrote: "euthanasia is not a new technology or science and since it is simply killing people in the belief that you are doing them good"I'd disagree with that definition of euthanasia, at the very least in the context to which it would most commonly be applied these days. It is a decision that is made by the person who will be the one who ends up dead, not by someone else. I would include in this someone who is in a persistent vegatative state, as confirmed by medical practitioners, who has previously left instructions that they would not want to be kept alive in those circumstances. It also requires the involvement of medical professionals, so could not be used by the depressed etc (in the abscence of a terminal illness).
cs wrote: "I would like to breath clean air, but thanks to science I can't."Wrong. Thanks to people. Science is the seeking of knowledge, it does not mean you have to use it in a particular way.
At the same time given child mortality rates and adult survival rates without any shelter or medical intervention, it is likely because of science that you are breathing at all.
Meanwhile one of the biggest opponents to the EPA in the US is evangelist backed republicans, many of whom believe that the world was given to man by god and since the second coming is soon, they don't need to really worry about long term environmental damage.
cs wrote: "This was from Gary who got a religious dig in without elaborating. So he left it open to Interpretation...but I guess it was the dig that was important not the meaning..":-D Amusing. My "religious dig" without 'meaning or elaboration' you then promptly followed by doing exactly what I meant.
Read carefully,
Some theists claim that science is "playing god".
Being a theist who claims to know the nature of god is "playing god" in the role of prophet or messiah.
That is hypocrisy.
cs wrote: "Shanna wrote: "You may have noticed that I did not include religion in the list to keep the atheists on track."Ok cs lets get back on track. Please prove how morality is the product of a religious society, as you have claimed, citing reasons and precise numbers, as you have demanded of others. Baring in mind of course you have also (in the same paragraph) admitted to having no control group to test against.
Gary wrote: "As for 'head transplants' well I doubt the technology is ready for something so severe, but it could be imagined in the future that extrapolating the new technology for organ and tissue replication that a person could have an entirely "blank" body structure regrown and then their brain transferred to it."cs is correct, the procedure has been carried out on dogs, monkeys and rats, however, he seems to imply that it would only be done "because we can" in a frankenstein-esque attempt at playing god, rather than for actual ethical use, like saving the lives of those in terrible accidents, or those whose body is riddled with cancer, or giving quadriplegics a new body. It is however, something that very much plays second fiddle to stem cell research, and the operations that were carried out were not done recently (thus, considering cs's insistence of things being "new", the whole procedure should probably not have been brought up),and it has pretty much been abandoned for the foreseeable.
Hazel wrote: "cs is correct, the procedure has been carried out on dogs, monkeys and rats, however, he seems to imply that it would only be done "because we can" in a frankenstein-esque attempt at playing god, rather than for actual ethical use, like saving the lives of those in terrible accidents, or those whose body is riddled with cancer, or giving quadriplegics a new body. It is however, something that very much plays second fiddle to stem cell research, and the operations that were carried out were not done recently (thus, considering cs's insistence of things being "new", the whole procedure should probably not have been brought up),and it has pretty much been abandoned for the foreseeable."Okay, saw this on Hazel's update feed and had to pop in to ask a question. There's medical research that's been done recently that indicates that memory is stored in places in the body other than just exclusively in the brain. If it's true that touch or smell or other sensory aspects of the body hold memory, what effects do you think this would cause? If someone were "brought back" as literally a "floating head" on a new body, do you think they'd be the same person?
Sara wrote: "Okay, saw this on Hazel's update feed and had to pop in to ask a question. There's medical research that's been done recently that indicates that memory is stored in places in the body other than just exclusively in the brain. "Not aware of the research myself (and a bit off-topic), but it is already known that processing of senses does start within the sensory body and the relationship is complicit with the brain, so it seems possible.
However, what we see as the "same person" (even ourselves) is a bit of an illusion. From good moods to being drunk, there are many physical changes that alter who we are from moment to moment, so this experience would just be one of many that effect what we refer to as a 'person'. Indeed many people who have had strokes or brain damage have had far more drastic changes of persona, which is all good evidence that does not support the concept of an immaterial soul that transcends flesh.
Gary wrote: "However, what we see as the "same person" (even ourselves) is a bit of an illusion. From good moods to being drunk, there are many physical changes that alter who we are from moment to moment, so this experience would just be one of many that effect what we refer to as a 'person'. Indeed many people who have had strokes or brain damage have had far more drastic changes of persona, which is all good evidence that does not support the concept of an immaterial soul that transcends flesh. Another ridiculously good point.
But I think that memory is a part of this ever-transforming identity. The loss of memory in a stroke victim, head injury victim, etc., I think does create a "new person," as it were--a person that has transformed more dramatically than the person who lives on a day-to-day basis. Someone who wouldn't be recognizable by personality from the person before the incident. Emotional trauma can create this sort of effect, too.
So then we get to that sticky, "who am I?" question that is even more befuddling than it ever was before. Postmodernism (Post-postmodernism?) and science have made this whole idea of identity an incredible mess.
message 3589:
by
aPriL does feral sometimes
(last edited May 11, 2012 09:18AM)
(new)
-
rated it 2 stars
Sara wrote: "So then we get to that sticky, "who am I?" question that is even more befuddling than it ever was before. Postmodernism (Post-postmodernism?) and science have made this whole idea of identity an in..."It's not science that has made a mess of identity, it simply exposed the mountain of fallacies mankind built to explain identity. Once people thought the sun revolved around the earth. We are discovering how identity really works. Once it is understood everything we thought we knew about identity is is just as wrong as once we thought about cosmology it will change everything. It will be interesting what the arts and religion make of it (probably along the lines of how religion handled scientific facts). Psychologists already have been laughing at our general public ideas of identity for decades.
Sara wrote: "So then we get to that sticky, "who am I?" question that is even more befuddling than it ever was before. Postmodernism (Post-postmodernism?) and science have made this whole idea of identity an incredible mess."If someone opens a book and finds it in a language they cannot read, do you blame them for finding this out? Science has not "made" a mess, it has revealed the mess that was already there.
Like a lot of ideas though the "simple" version is only simple when you don't think of what it entails. Someone's identity is a lot more than just their conscious thoughts. Everything from hormone levels to the colour of the room they are in can alter how they act and who they are at that moment.
We just need to redefine what identity means, it is not a static "thing", it is a dynamic, ever changing process. Just as a tornado changes shape, force and is made up of different bodies of air from moment to moment, the process is still recognisable as an entity to itself.
Same goes for most religious answers to questions. They seem simple until you realise the further questions they raise. E.g. "God created the Universe", Which God? How did he create something without any time for the event to happen in? Why did he create it this way? Why did he create life with so many easily correctable defects? etc. etc.
In the end the answer "God created the Universe" tells you nothing in itself and just adds the whole nature of god to the questions.
Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "Shanna wrote: "You may have noticed that I did not include religion in the list to keep the atheists on track."Ok cs lets get back on track. Please prove how morality is the product o..."
how morality is the product of a religious society
My point was that everyone in a christian society has been raised with christian morals, it is not possible to say how society would have evolved if there was never a Jesus. Although you can surmise.
Shanna wrote: "cs wrote: "You may have noticed that I did not include religion in the list to keep the atheists on track. I did not want them to go off on a tangent. But you managed it anyway. "You didn't inclu..."
Shanna wrote: "cs wrote: "You may have noticed that I did not include religion in the list to keep the atheists on track. I did not want them to go off on a tangent. But you managed it anyway. "
You didn't inclu..."
head transplants or euthanasia & Keep the atheists on track are from two seperate posts.
Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "It was that comment from Jill that I was responding to. But I guess neither you or Maria bothered to read back to see where it started."Oh ffs, of course I read it, and there is nothing..."
Have I rattled your cage or is this just a double bluff because you did not see the original post?
Sara, if you consider the fact that every cell in your body dies approximately every 7 years (give or take), and is replaced by a brand new cell, then none of your current body is the same as the one you were born with, or the one you had 10 years ago, its been completely replaced (except for stem cells, which don't die, which is why they're so important for medical research), you could postulate that an entire replacement of a body is not really that different to the natural process of cell replacement anyway. Maybe not the easiest analogy, but something to consider.Another thing you have to consider is that we do not directly experience the world, including our own bodies, what we experience is actually the model our brains make of the world, as informed by our sensory perception, thus it could be extended to the idea that the perception of our bodies, and memories we link to certain sensory information etc is actually part of a model we hold in our brain, and not our physical bodies at all. As such, it could be postulated that the memories you speak of remain because its actually held in a model of your body, not your physical body.
We do not experience anything directly, our brain is completely secluded from the rest of the world, it can only receive information about the world via our sensory input, so instead we create models in our brains from the sensory input we receive. Whats even more interesting about this, is that if we truly believe something, such as "fairies do exist", then our model of the world as built by our brain will include this information, and the brain will insert the things we believe in, but aren't real, into our perception of the world.At least thats as best I can remember from when I read it, I think in Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time, but I may be misremembering which book I read it in.
Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "I would like to breath clean air, but thanks to science I can't."Wrong. Thanks to people. Science is the seeking of knowledge, it does not mean you have to use it in a particular way..."
Wrong. Thanks to people
Ok if I agree with you then this must also apply to religion.
cs wrote: "Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "Shanna wrote: "You may have noticed that I did not include religion in the list to keep the atheists on track."Ok cs lets get back on track. Please prove how morality is ..."
cs, the christian religion turned up about 2000 yrs ago, give or take, are you suggesting that people were immoral before then?
Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "This was from Gary who got a religious dig in without elaborating. So he left it open to Interpretation...but I guess it was the dig that was important not the meaning..":-D Amusing. ..."
Some theists claim that science is "playing god".
Being a theist who claims to know the nature of god is "playing god" in the role of prophet or messiah.
....... yes and some atheists play the guitar badly, but whats that got to do with me.
Jean wrote: "I think we definitely need both. As a religious girl, I have a strong faith in Deity and in His creations...science exists to prove His existence, for all things in this world and out point to Him..."so you think instead an invisible man in the sky created you and then wrote a book telling how to live ur life. i'm sorry but i fail to understand how some people in this world can be so naive to think that just because you can't understand it has to be created by some sort of supernatural deity.
Rory wrote: "Jean wrote: "I think we definitely need both. As a religious girl, I have a strong faith in Deity and in His creations...science exists to prove His existence, for all things in this world and out..."the cats questioning says it all, really:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r5Ynz...
cs wrote: "My point was that everyone in a christian society has been raised with christian morals, it is not possible to say how society would have evolved if there was never a Jesus. Although you can surmise. "
Is your point, though, that only Christians have morals and only Christian societies are based in morality? It seems, based on the above, that you mean that? If that's not what you mean, you might want to clarify.
Societies, regardless of where or when, develop rules. Mores. Morals. That's what people do and have always done. People did that WAY before Christianity. We might not agree with all of the rules and morals of each group. But, they've always existed in societies and always will.
In addition, people who live in Christian societies are not necessarily raised with Christian morals. You might have a child whose parents go to church on Sunday and cheat on one another on Monday, for example. Or, maybe the child sees his mom swear at her mother. Maybe the dad gets too much money back at the store, realizes it, but doesn't mention the mistake. Instead, he laughs it up! Woo hoo! Struck it rich.
Morality, in my mind, had nothing to do with religion, in general, or Christianity, specifically.
Finally, we can know how society could evolve if Jesus had not come into being. There are plenty of cultures on the planet that existed without knowing Jesus, never having heard his name or message. Did they lack morals? Ummm.... I doubt I'd agree with all of their rules and mores; however, that doesn't mean they didn't exist.
Is your point, though, that only Christians have morals and only Christian societies are based in morality? It seems, based on the above, that you mean that? If that's not what you mean, you might want to clarify.
Societies, regardless of where or when, develop rules. Mores. Morals. That's what people do and have always done. People did that WAY before Christianity. We might not agree with all of the rules and morals of each group. But, they've always existed in societies and always will.
In addition, people who live in Christian societies are not necessarily raised with Christian morals. You might have a child whose parents go to church on Sunday and cheat on one another on Monday, for example. Or, maybe the child sees his mom swear at her mother. Maybe the dad gets too much money back at the store, realizes it, but doesn't mention the mistake. Instead, he laughs it up! Woo hoo! Struck it rich.
Morality, in my mind, had nothing to do with religion, in general, or Christianity, specifically.
Finally, we can know how society could evolve if Jesus had not come into being. There are plenty of cultures on the planet that existed without knowing Jesus, never having heard his name or message. Did they lack morals? Ummm.... I doubt I'd agree with all of their rules and mores; however, that doesn't mean they didn't exist.
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...
It is what it is.
:)
Thankyou @Shanna and @Hazel for highlighting the contributions that Science has had on the world.
But, we are not able to make this choice, and we are blessed to be in a world with both Science and Religion.
And my religion truly emphasises the importance of science.