Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Maria wrote: ""We do not go along with anything we disagree with. Like being in a political party, you don't have to agree with every policy." Sorry, cs, but yes you do, IF as you say it's the "only true relig..."
Well I did not know that, so what happens now?
Travis wrote: 'I believe in the law of gravity, except...' ........that the law of gravity is not written in stone, as you should know.
Just because you throw a stone in the air it does not mean it will always fall to the ground. Although it almost always will, gravity could change.
cs wrote: "Travis wrote: 'I believe in the law of gravity, except...' ........that the law of gravity is not written in stone, as you should know.
Just because you throw a stone in the air it does not mean..."
Seriously? you want to nitpick the law of gravity?
Can you give me an example of when this 'floating stone theory' of yours has occurred?
Yes, I'd be interested in when that has happened as well, cs. Here on earth that is, not in outer space.We could wake up in the morning tomorrow and the sky could be green, not blue. Hardly likely.
cs wrote: "But as I have said previously, and what some atheists way of thinking does not allow them to comprehend is that you can still have god without religion."You see, you really need to steer away from the arrogance and insulting tone if you want to have a pleasant discussion.
Religion means "a strong belief in something", therefore believing there is a god is a religion.
Now if I am not mistaken what you seem to be trying to get at is the idea that you do not need to belong to an "organised religion" to believe in a god. However, even a religion of one is still a religion.
Only if your worldview includes the idea that believing in something is wrong because what you know tomorrow may disprove what you know today. Examples of this ideology are the true pursuit of science and certain branches of esoteric magick that require the practitioner to consciously change their beliefs in an attempt to effect the world (though a belief that this will work could still be termed religious in a strictest sense).
Even if you believe in your own personal interpretation of "god" by your own argument it would be very hard to formulate such an interpretation without the influence of Jesus and his predecessors.
If you have a way of believing in god that does not include "belief", please could you illustrate?
cs wrote: "We don't have to go to church and we don't read the bible every day, like Gary seems to. We do not go along with anything we disagree with. Like being in a political party, you don't have to agree with every policy. ."
Actually I thought the whole point was you do have to accept the whole policy? After all you say;
cs wrote: "My religion says that it is the only true religion so there would be little point with any of the others."
So if you only follow a certain percentage of a religion, surely that means you believe in a different version of that religion than others who accept a higher percentage? This of course is not unprecedented, catholics believe in different scripture to protestants, Mormons believe in an extra set of books to the scripture, Jehovah's Witnesses believe in different interpretations of the scripture and all believe in different emphasis.
In the end if you are picking and choosing which "policies" of your faith you choose to follow and disregard others, does this not mean that your own morality is being used to judge scripture, rather than scripture instilling morality in you?
cs wrote: "Just because you throw a stone in the air it does not mean it will always fall to the ground. Although it almost always will, gravity could change..."I don't know how a statement like that can be taken seriously...I assume that you are using definitions that are non standard and...well...I am amused and bewildered.
Is this some Zen thing like the goose in the bottle?
Could you please expand on this statement that seems to disregard all of physics, mechanics...and common sense.
I know there are a lot of disagreements between the two but I think both are very important. I think we need both in this world to help balance each other out if that makes sense. We need those scientific answers to things and some people need the spiritual answers to those that science cannot answer.
You start by sayingGary wrote:You see, you really need to steer away from the arrogance and insulting tone if you want to have a pleasant discussion."
That is not arrogance; since some have said as much to me on this forum.
and you finish by saying....
So if you only follow a certain percentage of a religion, surely that means you believe in a different version of that religion than others who accept a higher percentage? This of course is not unprecedented, catholics believe in different scripture to protestants, Mormons believe in an extra set of books to the scripture, Jehovah's Witnesses believe in different interpretations of the scripture and all believe in different emphasis.
In the end if you are picking and choosing which "policies" of your faith you choose to follow and disregard others, does this not mean that your own morality is being used to judge scripture, rather than scripture instilling morality in you?
Is that not arrogance to assume that every one of the same religion has to follow it 100% the same way. If a person disagrees with some aspects of their religion that does not mean they believe in a different version of that religion at all.
"Is that not arrogance to assume that every one of the same religion has to follow it 100% the same way. If a person disagrees with some aspects of their religion that does not mean they believe in a different version of that religion at all." Then they cannot call themselves a member of that particular religion. They can truthfully say they believe SOME of what a particular religion teaches, but unless you go with the whole tamale, you can't say you are a member. Sorry.
Shannon wrote: "Haven't we gone down this road before, Gary? I could swear we have. I think you asked me about which parts of the Bible I believe and whether or not I believe due to the fact that they fit my morals, etc.... I answered then. ;)Quite possibly. I was more asking in the context of the evidence of alleged testimony. It wasn't really to ask if you read or believed the Qu'ran, but what the difference between your assessment of James as a superior account of miraculous revelation compared to a book which is alleged to be written closer to the miraculous events. But I am happy to accept your point.
Shannon wrote: "But, from what I know of the religions I am familiar with, I'm largely in agreement with Gary. Though, I'd likely reverse the order. American Indian beliefs first ... then, Buddhism. "
To be honest I like the Celtic/Native American more, but chose Buddhism as a conscious choice for a world without technology. I could switch either way.
As long as it isn't an Abrahamic religion I'm fine! :-)
Shannon wrote: "Would it be best if we were all "Switzerland" ... allowing people to think what they will, believe what they will, choose as they wish? A risk ... but what is the true risk ...?"
This is one of the things I feel that religion obscures. It has been shown that many social animals have concepts of altruism. It has been shown that even isolated human societies have sets of core values and ethics that are nearly universal.
I think that we may still be in our infancy as a species in our comprehension of morality. When it comes down to it there are a bunch of obvious guidelines that most people would recognise as morality but actually come down to the idea that we all want to be free to live, to love and to be happy. It is such a simple concept but complex in execution. We want to live so therefore killing is wrong, we want to have our luxuries and necessities so stealing from each other is wrong. Society functions best when we all put in what we want others to put in.
The problems arise when we get ideas like "divine justice", where it doesn't matter if that person is poor or suffering, because when he dies god will balance the books. It may sound silly but the concept has been a fundamental part of religion from Elysium to Heaven. Gods and religions become important enough to kill for, to die for, and the perversion of purpose is complete.
The irony is that some of this seems to be exactly what Jesus preached. However it wasn't enough for Jesus to be a revolutionary humanitarian for his time, instead he has been deified and his words of tolerance and altruism drowned in the rhetoric of sin, damnation and obedience.
cs wrote: "If a person disagrees with some aspects of their religion that does not mean they believe in a different version of that religion at all..."Tell that to Martin Luther...
In some religions you can still be excommunicated for thoughts like that.
I suppose the whole thing depends on which aspects you disagree with.
If it is a major point of doctrine, eg around the need for a confessor or issues of communion, then someone may be a heretic or end up excommunicated etc (better than being burned at the stake I suppose).
If it's over something minor then I don't think the hierarchy/synod/etc will be too bent out of shape.
These small differences within a religion can be used as the justification for slaughter.
Shannon wrote: "Writing something decades later .... Well, I honor oral traditions. Yes, some are wacky. But here's the thing, some aren't wacky and some have a mix of the fantastical and things that might actually have happened. How about the Trojan War and Homer, which, I believe, started through the oral tradition. Right?"
Sorry for snipping that well written and interesting piece down, but I don't want to requote the lot and lose the point.
I personally am very fond of the oral tradition too. I love the Celtic tales, the classics and the Norse. I would probably appreciate the Native American ones too.
I agree that the power of such stories is great. In them we can see morality and ethics played out for us. The reason why Jesus was alleged to speak in parables.
It has been said that the Celts resented the Romans writing down their stories and that the bards would refuse to allow them to be written, which is why there are so few now. Which is a shame.
However, is it not true that what they feared in a way came to pass? We can find morality and guidance in history books or in completely fictitious stories. Would it matter if the story of the bible was true if people heard "turn the other cheek" and "do unto others" and thought "yeah, that sounds good"?
The problem is that it all got written down, allegories and parables became "facts" and "gospel truth" and people started viewing it all as books of laws rather than a books of ideas or stories.
Maria wrote: ""Is that not arrogance to assume that every one of the same religion has to follow it 100% the same way. If a person disagrees with some aspects of their religion that does not mean they believe in a different version of that religion at all." Then they cannot call themselves a member of that particular religion. They can truthfully say they believe SOME of what a particular religion teaches, but unless you go with the whole tamale, you can't say you are a member. Sorry. "
There are some things about my religion that I do not agree with but I can still call myself a Christian because I believe in Salvation, The Trinity, The Bible, there are small aspects I don't agree with and that is partly what makes me human. We have free will to believe in various different things and there are things within my own faith I do not agree with, but I am still a Christian woman nonetheless. For example, I can't believe a woman should stay with her husband if he beats/rapes her, I believe there are reasons for a divorce does that make me not a Christian?
Old-Barbarossa wrote: "cs wrote: "If a person disagrees with some aspects of their religion that does not mean they believe in a different version of that religion at all..."Tell that to Martin Luther...
In some religi..."
Well I can only respond if you give me an example of something that would be considered minor and something major.
Maria wrote: ""Is that not arrogance to assume that every one of the same religion has to follow it 100% the same way. If a person disagrees with some aspects of their religion that does not mean they believe in..."But I do.
cs wrote: "Do you see how hard it is to sometime, answer a direct question, which I am being asked to do all the time."The point is I did answer. I not only answered but I gave my reasoning for the answer.
People are accusing you of not answering because when you do you tend to miss direct questions and reply to other parts of the comment. When you answer direct questions at all you tend to repeat an opinion without any reasoning or rationale and then accuse people of being to stupid to understand.
So for example can you answer the following, both an answer (I am not restricting you to "yes" or "no") and a reason that you have that opinion.
Do you believe without religion we would have a less moral society?
How can you "believe" in god and not have a religion?
If you believe in god, and he is the one true faith, (if you don't mind) which god do you believe in?
Thank you.
Travis wrote: "cs wrote: "Travis wrote: 'I believe in the law of gravity, except...' ........that the law of gravity is not written in stone, as you should know.
Just because you throw a stone in the air it do..."
The stone will only fall as long as gravity lets it, if gravity alters in some way the stone will react accordingly. Gravity is keeping every thing in the universe in place, but nothing says it will do this forever. Something I read in a Philosophy book some years ago. Sometime in the future someone will toss a stone it the air and it will not return.
cs wrote: " Sometime in the future someone will toss a stone it the air and it will not return."I wonder if this will happen before or after they float away into space...
"I can still call myself a Christian because I believe in Salvation, The Trinity, The Bible, there are small aspects I don't agree with and that is partly what makes me human." Hi Jenn - no I don't think that makes you non-Christian - my point was that it might make you, for instance, a non-Baptist, or non-Catholic, or non-whatever. "Christian" is a broad, general term - there are lots of organized religious groups that call themselves Christians - and my point was that if you call yourself by one of their names, i.e if you say, "I am a Catholic" then you have to believe ALL of what that particular organized named religion teaches. If not, then you should just say, "I do not claim to be a MEMBER of any particular named group, and I believe bits and pieces of several. It's the semantics I take issue with, not the right to believe what you want. That is everyone's right.
Maria wrote: "They substituted a cross (pagan phallic symbol for the god Tao)for the actual stake that Jesus died on,A highly efficient move as it also is related to the symbols of the Egyptian Ankh and the World Tree Yggdrassil.
Of course early Christianity didn't use it. Some apologists will tell you that the "fish" symbol was an early Christian symbol (now on many bumper stickers) because it equated to his name in Greek and also his disciples were "fishers of men", and it was also a secret symbol that two Christians could sweep in the sand during the period of Roman persecution.
However the fish is recorded as a pagan fertility symbol too, representing an age old symbol for female genitalia (stand the fish on its tail to see).
Maria wrote: "they allow worship of a triune deity (taken from the Druids)"
The Celts were very fond of "threes" but if you also examine the Roman pantheon that Constantinus and his antecedents supplanted the Gods were arranged in three aspects of each "Godhead" and the various minor deities/spirits/demigods/geniuses were replaced by "Saints" who became the 'Patron saint of' instead of the 'god or spirit of'.
I think the strangest one of the lot is "heaven" though. Its a common modern Christian belief and yet it is entirely pagan in origin. (Whether the Elysian fields or Valhalla)
According to the biblical teachings, when you die you are "laid to rest" to "rest in peace" until the day of Judgement when the dead will be resurrected and the faithful will go into "paradise" (heavily implied to be on earth as perhaps a "new eden").
Only Jesus and Enoch get to go to heaven!
cs wrote: "........that the law of gravity is not written in stone, as you should know.Just because you throw a stone in the air it does not mean it will always fall to the ground. Although it almost always will, gravity could change."
Actually we don't know the true law of gravity yet as our best description of gravity (General Relativity) does not work with our best description of damn near everything else (Quantum Physics).
The excitement at the LHC is that we soon may know a key to this intriguing puzzle.
Until we do know the "law" of gravity is a good model which gives us predictable and consistent results. There is no sense "believing" it though.
Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "Do you see how hard it is to sometime, answer a direct question, which I am being asked to do all the time."The point is I did answer. I not only answered but I gave my reasoning for ..."
Do you believe without religion we would have a less moral society?
No, but I think we would have. Here in the UK your government puts the rich before the poorer, the less well off, the sick and the old. Various religious leaders are speaking up against the governments policies as a result. I could give a lot of examples, but that is the gist of it.
How can you "believe" in god and not have a religion?
Shannon answered this better than I could.
If you believe in god, and he is the one true faith, (if you don't mind) which god do you believe in?
I believe there is only one God, but lots of religions.
The point is I did answer
That was an answer of sorts, but not an answer to my question. You were hedging your bets. Sitting on the fence. The question needed a yes or no.
"According to the biblical teachings, when you die you are "laid to rest" to "rest in peace" until the day of Judgement when the dead will be resurrected and the faithful will go into "paradise" (heavily implied to be on earth as perhaps a "new eden")."I agree Gary - the "Lord's Prayer" says it best:
"Thy kingdom come, thy will be done ON EARTH as it is in heaven. Not in heaven but ON EARTH. So, yes, heaven is a weird concept and not one taught by the early Christians. Also I believe it is in Isaiah (correct me if I'm wrong), maybe Psalms - where it says that when a person dies, "in that day his thoughts perish". So how could someone be in a place like heaven and be aware, if they have no thoughts?
In Ezekiel it also says that the "soul that is sinning, it itself will die". So there goes the belief that the soul leaves the body at death and lives on somewhere else.
How about Psalms 37:29 - The righteous will possess the earth and they will reside FOREVER UPON IT. The meek shall inherit heaven? No, they shall inherit THE EARTH. And so on, ad infinitem.
As I've said before, so-called Christians tend to gloss over these things because they would be truly depressed if they thought that when they die, they actually do go back to dust.
Travis wrote: "Seriously? you want to nitpick the law of gravity?Can you give me an example of when this 'floating stone theory' of yours has occurred? "
To be fair to cs, a floating stone is perhaps "possible" but so ridiculously unlikely that it may as well be discounted.
But as I noted above, the law of gravity will not "change" but our understanding of it will.
cs wrote: "No, but I think we would have."Erm, No but yes? You seem to contradict yourself within a sentence.
cs wrote: "Here in the UK your government puts the rich before the poorer, the less well off, the sick and the old. Various religious leaders are speaking up against the governments policies as a result. I could give a lot of examples, but that is the gist of it."
At the same point hasn't Gove just spent thousands of pounds sending a Bible to schools across the country in a period of austerity?
I agree that sometimes religious people do nice things, so do secular people. However, they also do bad things and then defend it as being 'what god wants'. From the Crusades to homophobia. I would say that it is highly likely that for every "good work" you could cite I could cite a bad one.
Do you have any other rationale to back your claim other than sometimes religious people do good things?
cs wrote: "Shannon answered this better than I could."
Fair enough. I think it comes down to a terminology issue. When you (or Shannon) say "Religion" you are talking about a specific subset of religion i.e. one that has Churches, meetings, priests etc. However this is a sliding scale anyway. Some religions don't have Churches, meetings or even gods.
When atheists were talking about religion they were talking about the dictionary definition i.e. "a system of beliefs". It is not that they do not understand how you can have a god without religion you were not applying the term in the same way.
cs wrote: "I believe there is only one God, but lots of religions."
That still does not answer "which" god. What are his aspects and his ideology? What about religions that do not have gods or those that have many?
cs wrote: "That was an answer of sorts, but not an answer to my question. You were hedging your bets. Sitting on the fence. The question needed a yes or no."
No. You were restricting my potential answers to only two. I do not agree with invading anyone without a damn good reason explained on a case by case basis.
I do not think invading Israel is a good idea at this time, I do not think that invading Iran is. So it is not sitting on the fence, it is not choosing the options you gave because I do not agree with either.
I do however deplore certain things that both do in the name of religion.
Gary wrote: No. You were restricting my potential answers to only two. I do not agree with invading anyone without a damn good reason explained on a case by case basis.I do not think invading Israel is a good idea at this time, I do not think that invading Iran is. So it is not sitting on the fence, it is not choosing the options you gave because I do not agree with either.
.."
By doing nothing you would be letting something happen. So you have answered the question anyway. Iran would attack Israel.
Erm, No but yes? You seem to contradict yourself within a sentence.
You asked if I believe, no I don't believe but I think so. There is more certainty with the word believe.
At the same point hasn't Gove just spent thousands of pounds sending a Bible to schools across the country in a period of austerity?
That proves my point, not spending money on the poor etc.
cs wrote: "Shannon wrote: So, is your point of taking part in this thread to make a stand for God? To try to get people to believe? .."
No that's the last thing I would want to do.
Yes, you've frustrated me..."
cs ...
You called me out for being offended and asked me to list it as a fault. Now, you're saying I wasn't offended ... and/or ... asking me why I was offended.
I'm not going to continue this with you. I've answered your questions honestly and made myself clear.
No that's the last thing I would want to do.
Yes, you've frustrated me..."
cs ...
You called me out for being offended and asked me to list it as a fault. Now, you're saying I wasn't offended ... and/or ... asking me why I was offended.
I'm not going to continue this with you. I've answered your questions honestly and made myself clear.
Shannon wrote: You called me out for being offended . No not for being offended, you have every right to be offended. For playing at being offended, when you were not really offended, for effect. It happens all the time.
.......... and I will also not continue either.
cs ...
I've got this thing about truth. So ....
Actually, you called me out for being offended. Period. It wasn't until sometime later ... after I admitted to being frustrated and offended in order to express my fault, per your suggestion ... since I was discussing the faults of others ... that you then said I was "playing at being offended" ....
Anyone, including you, can go back and read the posts.
The truth is the truth.
I've got this thing about truth. So ....
Actually, you called me out for being offended. Period. It wasn't until sometime later ... after I admitted to being frustrated and offended in order to express my fault, per your suggestion ... since I was discussing the faults of others ... that you then said I was "playing at being offended" ....
Anyone, including you, can go back and read the posts.
The truth is the truth.
cs wrote: "By doing nothing you would be letting something happen. So you have answered the question anyway. Iran would attack Israel.Doing nothing? Not invading someone is not "doing nothing", there are other options than warfare you realise? Iran has hated Israel for decades, they haven't attacked it for a long time (possibly due to Israel having nuclear weapons).
You have presented a false dichotomy and failed to give enough background for the hypothetical situation. Why do I suddenly need to order an invasion of Iran to save Israel???
cs wrote: "You asked if I believe, no I don't believe but I think so. There is more certainty with the word believe."
Sorry, you are quite right there. I get what you mean now.
In fact the difference between thinking an idea and believing an idea is a lot of what my point was so I should have picked up on that.
cs wrote: "That proves my point, not spending money on the poor etc. "
No instead money was spent by someone promoting a particular religion, instead of being spent on the poor or even just spending it on schooling. Can you imagine the outrage if he sent a Qu'ran to every school? Or the satanic bible?
You only need to look at the wealth of the various Churches in the past compared to the poverty of the people. The opulent cathedrals and the spacious grounds. Even now Churches and "recognised" religions enjoy tax exemptions and charitable status no matter the amount of charity they actually do.
Maria wrote: ""I can still call myself a Christian because I believe in Salvation, The Trinity, The Bible, there are small aspects I don't agree with and that is partly what makes me human." Hi Jenn - no I don..."
I don't know, IIRC there is a statistic saying that about half of the Catholics in US today disagree with the Pope on issues like abortion or same-sex marriage.
Maria wrote: "Then they cannot call themselves a member of that particular religion. They can truthfully say they believe SOME of what a particular religion teaches, but unless you go with the whole tamale, you can't say you are a member. Sorry. " And this is how religious wars start... with division
Shanna wrote: "And this is how religious wars start... with division
"
If people see it as such and see it as a bad thing, yes.
If only we could work to see difference, in all things, in a positive light. If not that, perhaps we could at least not see difference as a threat to our own ... beliefs or lack thereof, femininity or masculinity, culture, etc.... If only would could change our perceptions ... be more accepting ...
"
If people see it as such and see it as a bad thing, yes.
If only we could work to see difference, in all things, in a positive light. If not that, perhaps we could at least not see difference as a threat to our own ... beliefs or lack thereof, femininity or masculinity, culture, etc.... If only would could change our perceptions ... be more accepting ...
To further clarify, I'm talking about difference that doesn't threaten the life and liberty of others ....
Okay, so cs, your only example of the floating rock is that it may happen sometime in the future?Is that the future where the earth is ruled by 'damned dirty apes' or the one where we toil in the mines for our Dalek masters?
If you have no anti-gravity story, feel free to find a scientific principle/theory/ law that people can choose not to follow.
as to the religion thing: there is religion the belief, and religion the organized by people construct.
You can have which ever you want, as both revolve around the same concept, an imaginary friend.
With the belief, you can have your own, individual one ( like Calvin and Hobbs) with the organized construct, you have to believe in the same friend as the rest of the (fill in the name of a religion here) and you get a handbook, which you then get to say 'I believe in this, with all my heart and soul, except..."
Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "And this is how religious wars start... with division "
If people see it as such and see it as a bad thing, yes.
If only we could work to see difference, in all things, in a pos..."
Agreed, the problem is though, especially when it come to unsubstantiated feelings that can't be externally verified, when someone thinks they are right. It's especially odd to me when essentially the same thing is believed by both but it's the details that are the problem.
Travis wrote: "Okay, so cs, your only example of the floating rock is that it may happen sometime in the future?Is that the future where the earth is ruled by 'damned dirty apes' or the one where we toil in the ..."
You seem to have missed the sarcasm in my reply, I was sending one back to you for the t shirt remark.
Gary wrote: Why do I suddenly need to order an invasion of Iran to save Israel???Because it was in the news for quiet sometime earlier this year when the US suggested that Iran could be very near to having WMD.
What a crazy conversation - a world without science? Science is the analysis of reality using the tools of measurement, experiment and rational mental constructions. A world without science would be a world in which we were not capable of that (and therefore not capable of having literature or even cookery)and therefore we would either have no curiosity about the world or be entirely lacking the tools to construct meaningful concepts. Or alternatively it would require a world of irrational chaos - and how could life form in such a world? A world without religion? That would be a world without a sense of magic, poetry, love and even meaning. Lots of animals get by quite well without all those things - but they haven't painted pictures or written novels.
Jonathan wrote: "A world without religion? That would be a world without a sense of magic, poetry, love and even meaning. Lots of animals get by quite well without all those things - but they haven't painted pictures or written novels"Religion is not the source of these things. Religion may have inspired great artworks, but is it the source? If it were then wouldn't every religious person be a great artist.
cs wrote: "Because it was in the news for quiet sometime earlier this year when the US suggested that Iran could be very near to having WMD."Yeah because that worked out so well when that rumour started circulating about Iraq. Result one costly war, thousands of lives wasted on the allied side alone, increased resentment across the Muslim world against the Western "Crusaders" and chances are that the Iraqi democracy will either vote in Sha'ria law and Islamic rule or another Islamic movement will overthrow the weak Iraqi regime.
If Iran does develop WMDs it has Israel to content with, not to mention a lot of the surrounding Arab powers who really do not want a nuclear exchange on their doorstep. All an invasion of either side would do is make it more likely that the invaded side will retaliate with the WMD if they have them, or embroil the west in another long pointless war which will only serve to destabilise the region, increase recruitment to terrorism and further cripple the western economies with billions more spent on military operations.
The only victors of the Iraq war were military contractors and the rebuilding contractors who lined their pockets with fat government contracts that are now being paid for by austerity measures on the poor.
Jonathan wrote: "A world without religion? That would be a world without a sense of magic, poetry, love and even meaning. Lots of animals get by quite well without all those things - but they haven't painted pictures or written novels."Actually to be pedantic animals have painted pictures (a chimpanzee and an elephant at least) :-D
But your assumption that painting pictures, being in love and novels wouldn't exist without religion is a big one.
In fact without religion we would certainly have a few more novels that haven't been burnt for blasphemous content, a few more pictures that haven't been banned or destroyed for 'obscene content' and perhaps more people would be free to love each other without unnecessary guilt or persecution for choosing the partner of the wrong race, faith or gender.
religion is a sub group of the mother group science ...what say??.....both are required in the right mix :)
Anjali wrote: "religion is a sub group of the mother group science ...what say??.....both are required in the right mix :)"Not at all. Religion thinks it has the answers and looks for evidence to fit, Science looks to evidence to find the answers.
cs wrote: "Travis wrote: "Okay, so cs, your only example of the floating rock is that it may happen sometime in the future?Is that the future where the earth is ruled by 'damned dirty apes' or the one where ..."
So, basically we can add this to the list of questions you won't be answering.
Think I'm done with you.
@ ShannaThe Vedic/hindu scriptures state that this is the smallest Universe and there are trillions of other Universes. Within each Universe there are numerous Planets with living beings. Just think how insignificant this tiny Planet is in God’s creation. And how insignificant are a group of people who have existed for a few hundred or few thousand years out of the trillions of years that humans have existed on this Planet.
“It should be understood that all species of life, o son of Kunti, are made possible by birth in this material nature, and that I am the seed giving father” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 14.4)
I don't have a good understanding of the hindu religion. It maybe that I don't understand the fine points of your statement or how it equates religion to science. Will you explain for me?
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...
No that's the last thing I would want to do.
Yes, you've frustrated me and offended me.
If you think that I have offended you, then you must think I did it intentionally and for a reason I don't understand; and maybe you will explain. If you don't think it was intentional then it seems odd that you would be offended by something that was not meant to offend. Unless, as I have said, you were playing at being offended.
However, as I've said more than once, I believe everyone has a voice and should be able, if they wish, to express their views.
I am not sure if this sentence is connect to the previous one, or did it just happen to follow on.
To me it reads as though I have offended you, but you think I have a right to my views in offending you.
Because I know the word 'discovered' is not the terminology best used when discussing America with Native Americans I either thought.....
1. I will replace it with something I think might be less descriptive.
2. I will think of a word that will replace 'discovered' and offend even more. Assuming that I though 'discovered' was offensive in the first place and not just a word that was a bad description of what happened.
You thought 2.