Science and Religion

[LoneZero]

hmm

Yeah the U.S. was no way founded on Christianity though many would like to believe that was true.

Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans as well, although they respected the rights of other religionists.

The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

The words "In God We Trust" were not consistently on all U.S. currency until 1956, also our Pledge of Allegiance had "Under God" added to it during the McCarthy Hysteria. Not because of Christianity but because of Communism. Thanks to that it superseding the motto "E Pluribus Unum" (From Many, One) adopted by the Union in 1782. Though I prefer "E Pluribus Unum" over "In God We Trust"

As for church with marriage I still don't understand how they get a say on who can marry or not, California's prop 8 was backed and paid for by religion. The government supplies those rights to marriage not the church.

This what confuses me the most, our constitution states we have the freedom to marry (which was proven in the trail one of the main reasons for the overturn) also because of the Majority can't use the constitution to take away rights against the minority. Which pretty much allows same-sex marriage and the constitution even protects those churches not to be force into having same-sex ceremonies in their church.

So if the chuch is not forced to marry anyone they don't want too, not forced to let anyone in they don't want too, why would they make a law turning anyone who is gay or lesbian into 2nd classes citizens taking rights away? Same-sex marriage doesn't affect church in anyway yet the fight the hardest to ban it, makes no sense at all. The whole "I believe marriage should be between man and woman," is Bullshit

 

[Mash]

To clarify, I never once said that the nation was founded on Christianity, so it would be awesome if people would stop putting words in my post. I even said in my second sentence that, "When a nation is categorized as 'Christian' it can probably be deduced that the vast majority of it's populace is Christian."

The word 'founded' is not in that sentence.

Also, the Christian church is the MAJORITY. The rest of us are the MINORITY. Meaning that in a democracy, where people vote on things, the MAJORITY often get what they want. If you don't believe me; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

 

[Relent<]

Yeah the U.S. was no way founded on Christianity though many would like to believe that was true.

Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans as well, although they respected the rights of other religionists.

The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

The words "In God We Trust" were not consistently on all U.S. currency until 1956, also our Pledge of Allegiance had "Under God" added to it during the McCarthy Hysteria. Not because of Christianity but because of Communism. Thanks to that it superseding the motto "E Pluribus Unum" (From Many, One) adopted by the Union in 1782. Though I prefer "E Pluribus Unum" over "In God We Trust"

As for church with marriage I still don't understand how they get a say on who can marry or not, California's prop 8 was backed and paid for by religion. The government supplies those rights to marriage not the church.

This what confuses me the most, our constitution states we have the freedom to marry (which was proven in the trail one of the main reasons for the overturn) also because of the Majority can't use the constitution to take away rights against the minority. Which pretty much allows same-sex marriage and the constitution even protects those churches not to be force into having same-sex ceremonies in their church.

So if the chuch is not forced to marry anyone they don't want too, not forced to let anyone in they don't want too, why would they make a law turning anyone who is gay or lesbian into 2nd classes citizens taking rights away? Same-sex marriage doesn't affect church in anyway yet the fight the hardest to ban it, makes no sense at all. The whole "I believe marriage should be between man and woman," is Bullshit

I never said "christian," I said "puritans and capitalist." You know, the ones that came over on the colonial ships, and/or the Mayflower. And at any rate, the majority system is why the constitution had to be amended in favor of the minority. Case and point: slavery. If that had been left to a vote, it wouldn't have made economic sense to free them and have to pay for labor rather than force it on some poor slobs. It was actually the religious population that fought the hardest for abolition, in spite of the logicality of the economic circumstances. It came down to ethics.

All I have to say about bigotry, marriage, and religion has been said. Science is...something that slipped somewhat away from me in this post..

 

[Mash]

It's actually ironic that they fought against it, considering that their book advocates slavery.

Exodus 21: “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

 

[Bator]

Rifleman- I'd love to argue with you, but I honestly don't want to read all of that. {XD Could we get maybe a summary of your argument?

Relent, as much as I enjoy our discussions or arguments{whichever you prefer to call them}, I,m not going to argue or discuss this any further. This thread has long outlived it,s usefulness, that is, if it had any merit to begin with. I can,t conceive of any reason to prolong it. This subject isn,t beneficial or serve any purpose other than to polarize. Most are stedfast in their conclusions. I have no problem with that. I just felt like venting. It may seem scattered, and you,ll get no argument from me on that either, but I wanted to cover as much material and bring up as many points as I could from some of the statements that have been made in this thread. It might not have been as cohesive as I would have liked, but I didn,t want to write a proper essay as I,m already writing term papers and don,t have time. I,ve written my last post on this topic as I find the subject matter odious, obnoxious, objectional, offensive and subjective. Here, any reference to race, colour or religion is frowned upon, discouraged, considered an insult and just wrong, we don,t go there. This is one lesson we have learned from the US, and I should have known better than to get caught up, involved, and voice my opinion{you know what they say about them anyway} it was asburd and pointless and I should have just let it go, because, when it comes right down to it, I could simply care less.

 

[Relent<]

Return to your respective corners, gentlemen.
If you want to go at each others throats, then do it via pm or the mods will shut this thing down. At any rate, the conversation has deviated from the initial debate, and devolved into personal attacks.
I know I'm not a mod, but I've been around long enough to see where this is going.

 

[Mash]

Ah, you're right. Suppose we should probably act like adults if we're going to get anywhere with this.

Since I do actually want to do something productive with this thread, let me issue a challenge. For all the Creationists, Fundamentalists, or people who just don't agree with Evolution; why don't you? Give me your personal, subjective view on why you think Evolution is false, and if you can, tack on ONE good reason as to why nobody else should accept it as true.

 

[MistressValerie1]

Return to your respective corners, gentlemen.
If you want to go at each others throats, then do it via pm or the mods will shut this thing down. At any rate, the conversation has deviated from the initial debate, and devolved into personal attacks.
I know I'm not a mod, but I've been around long enough to see where this is going.

The personal dispute has been deleted from the thread. Everyone, especially 3030Rifleman, please remember to keep it civil here -- thanks.

 

[Mash]

An amusing questionnaire for the purpose of amusing people of any theology or irreligious creeds.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&feature=player_embedded
"Evolution is regarded as the backbone of modern biology."
Is it correct, or incorrect?

This is correct. Biology without Evolution is like building a wall without mortar. You may be able to know every little thing about each individual species without evolution, but you'll be missing aspects of it. Big aspects; like what the species was, and how it came to be what it is.

An interesting comparison I saw was that trying to teach Biology without evolution was like trying to teach Chemistry without the Periodic Table of Elements.

 

[Bator]

The personal dispute has been deleted from the thread. Everyone, especially 3030Rifleman, please remember to keep it civil here -- thanks.

I do consider myself a reasonable person perfectly capable of keeping it civil but I am not pleased with being singled out as If I was the only person participating in this, because there are more involved than just me. Personal attacks were made about me also, and how I choose to believe. Infact I was the first to being attacked over a statement that I made on a previous thread. I believed my comment to be innocent enough and wasn,t meant to offend anyone. It would hardly have been noticed and soon forgotten if it had been. Mash and another person who shall remain nameless made the decision to accuse me of preaching, which was not my intent. They made disparaging remarks about me and what my belief systems were, calling me stupid, ingorant and a cave man, even though I hadn,t mentioned it to either of them. A huge issue was made about it but they still couldn,t let it rest. They hadn,t had enough, and felt the need to get a few more licks in because they were not satisfied. These weren,t only directed at me but at anyone who held opposing views of their own. That is the main reason that this thread was created, they may deny it but I know differently and that it is the truth. I made some less than complimentary remarks and I readily admit to it, but so did they. There are at least two sides to every story. I could care less about if they they believe, or do not, it doesn,t affect my life at all, and I feel that I should be afforded the same respect. If Mash feels offended, he is not the only one, so do I and I don,t appreciate being portrayed as stupid, ignorant or a caveman for my right to believe. I don,t know how your culture works regarding a persons right to believe or not. Here in my country we don,t discuss it, let alone try to bully someone into believing the same as we do. It is considered off limits, insulting and offensive so we do not go there. It is fine with me if Mash is an Atheist, that is his point of view and not mine. I think this topic would be better served by not making negative claims about those who do not agree with him. That is the reason why I became angry and lashed out. If they had been more curtious, compassionate and polite, this wouldn,t have happened.

 

[Mash]

Drop it. Please. If you have a problem with how I express my beliefs, then the door is wide open. Nobody is forcing you to stay in here.

 

[Bator]

I,ve been asking you to drop it for weeks as well and nobody is forcing to stay either. I won,t leave because of you. They may censor me and remove my membership and that that is their choice and not yours, it,s been done before. You like to heave insults but when you are the one recieving them, that,s another story. Oh! and before I forget, thanks for reporting me, how did you do it with a straight face, while lying through your teeth. I bet you made yourself out to be the victim. This thread you started makes people angry and if not me then someone else will appear bcause this will never end. You can take my membership now if you desire Miss Valerie, Ive said all I wanted to say and I do believe in standing up for myself.

 

[Mash]

I'm not asking you to drop the debate that this thread was intended for. I'm asking you to drop the insults. Not because I can't argue back, but because I don't want this thread taken down, and because I don't want to be banned.

Oh, and for the record, I didn't report you. Ask one of the Admins if you feel the need to have proof.

 

[Bator]

I,ll be more than willing to drop the insults if you will stop yours, you were one of the first to start this, I would have been happy to let it go. You were one of the first, if not the first to lash out so don,t pretend to be innocent, you are every bit as guilty and responsible for this as I am, only I will admit it. I shouldn,t have stated what I did in regards to the insults, I was very angry, that isn,t an excuse, but neither should you have. Please try to stop being so condescending toward those of us how hold different beliefs, points of view or ideology than yourself. If you do this, I will not mention it again. If you will treat me with respect, I will do the same for you. I don,t think that I am being unreasonable or asking too much.

 

[MistressValerie1]

Please keep this thread on the topic of science and religion, and use PM's to settle personal disputes -- thanks.

 

[desk]

Most of the great scientists in the history of the world have had some type of religious affliation and have NOT been atheists. I think though that most belief systems are flawed including athiesm. I am an agnostic who leans toward a higher power. This is always an interesting post. Thank God for the first amendment!

 

[desk]

I think MistressValerie would be an excellent higher power...Hi MV!!!

 

[Mash]

Most of the great scientists in the history of the world have had some type of religious affliation and have NOT been atheists. I think though that most belief systems are flawed including athiesm. I am an agnostic who leans toward a higher power. This is always an interesting post. Thank God for the first amendment!

Admittedly, that is true. However, if you look back through time, you will realize that most of the human population had some sort of religious affiliation, regardless of profession, race, or intelligence. You will also notice that NONE of them could agree on anything. There are over 38,000 denominations in Christianity; that should be proof in itself that nobody can agree on what religion is right.

If we were to take a purely objective look at all of the current, empirical evidence, then either Agnosticism or Atheism would be the most logical choices. Mainly because there is NO current, empirical evidence that even remotely points towards a divine being. All of the current 'evidence' that anyone thinks they have are just assertions based on a book, or personal experience.

Subjectively however, I don't put a whole lot of stock into Atheism. I genuinely believe that there is no God, however I do not know that there is no God. Atheism is a convenient umbrella to sit under while I start looking at the scientific aspects of all of this. My beliefs will never, ever tell me what is right or wrong; that isn't what they are for. Science is the ONLY thing that will ever give me an objective truth.

 

[tklmaestro]

If we were to take a purely objective look at all of the current, empirical evidence, then either Agnosticism or Atheism would be the most logical choices. Mainly because there is NO current, empirical evidence that even remotely points towards a divine being. All of the current 'evidence' that anyone thinks they have are just assertions based on a book, or personal experience.

Science is Left brained. Religion is Right brained. The idea to becoming more evolved as human beings is to become "Whole brained"

At this point in our evolution Science will never find God or evidence of a higher power until it stops looking at an subjective universe through an objective lens.

The most logical way to aproach this is to be neither a believer nor an atheist, but instead to be open minded, because if you are not, you will never learn anything new, and skeptical, because it is the only way to know what you have learned is actually true.
In other words, it is best not to put too much stock in Religion or science, but better to prove it to yourself.

 

[Mash]

Science is Left brained. Religion is Right brained. The idea to becoming more evolved as human beings is to become "Whole brained"

At this point in our evolution Science will never find God or evidence of a higher power until it stops looking at an subjective universe through an objective lens.

The most logical way to aproach this is to be neither a believer nor an atheist, but instead to be open minded, because if you are not, you will never learn anything new, and skeptical, because it is the only way to know what you have learned is actually true.
In other words, it is best not to put too much stock in Religion or science, but better to prove it to yourself.

Scientists are paid to be open-minded. They look at all possible scenarios and possibilities with a purely objective mindset. Their personal beliefs should never, ever interfere with their work.

Science is the only way we are going to learn anything in this world. If you don't want to put stock in science, then you may as well start living the Amish lifestyle, my friend.

I'm skeptical about everything. I'm an atheist, but like I said, that's only a convenient title to use. I know without a shadow of a doubt however, that if there is a God, he cares little about my life. I certainly don't feel the need to pray to one.

 

[tklmaestro]

Scientists are paid to be open-minded. They look at all possible scenarios and possibilities with a purely objective mindset. Their personal beliefs should never, ever interfere with their work.

Science is the only way we are going to learn anything in this world. If you don't want to put stock in science, then you may as well start living the Amish lifestyle, my friend.

I'm skeptical about everything. I'm an atheist, but like I said, that's only a convenient title to use. I know without a shadow of a doubt however, that if there is a God, he cares little about my life. I certainly don't feel the need to pray to one.

Scientists might be paid to be open minded, but too many of them attempt to find answers by looking only with objective means and at the same time ignoring subjectivity. Not to say its wrong from a scientific view, but it only gives you half the answer.
If you are skeptical about everything, are you also skeptical about science? Because if you are not, then science is your religion.
And how are you so sure at a young age,that there isn't a god or a higher power that doesn't care about your life ? Because you think your life sucks? Well, everybodys life sucks. This is how we as humans learn and evolve. Like they say "No Pain, No Gain." So there must be something that cares enough about you to give you these opportunities to grow, and if you actually want to change how the world treats you, just change your perspective.

 

[Mash]

Scientists might be paid to be open minded, but too many of them attempt to find answers by looking only with objective means and at the same time ignoring subjectivity. Not to say its wrong from a scientific view, but it only gives you half the answer.
If you are skeptical about everything, are you also skeptical about science? Because if you are not, then science is your religion.
And how are you so sure at a young age,that there isn't a god or a higher power that doesn't care about your life ? Because you think your life sucks? Well, everybodys life sucks. This is how we as humans learn and evolve. Like they say "No Pain, No Gain." So there must be something that cares enough about you to give you these opportunities to grow, and if you actually want to change how the world treats you, just change your perspective.

If they were to make observations based on subjectivity, then the results would vary between every scientist, and that wouldn't be science. The only way to keep things consistent is to NOT being in personal issues.

For instance, let's say that there are two scientists. One is a creationist Christian, and the other is Non-religious. Let's say that they are out in the field working on a geology assignment, and they find a rock. An old rock. Upon testing this rock, they determine that it is 19,600 years old, approximately. Well, the creationist Christian, if he looks at this subjectively, will not accept that answer. He will argue, against the evidence, that this rock could not be any older than 6,000 years old because of his personal beliefs. Now, if these same two scientists were looking at this through an objective lens, and PURELY an objective lens, then they would have no problem with the result, but would test it another 2 times, just to be certain.

Science is not like religion. It isn't promising things that haven't happened; it isn't telling us to believe things that we cannot see with our own eyes. Everything science says is true, it can demonstrate. It can show you why something works, and how something works. It will never tell you something on faith.
Now, that isn't to say that I'm not skeptical. Like religion, science can be taken advantage of by lunatics and twisted into some hideous lie for personal gain. I'm skeptical about scientific discoveries until I can see that they are demonstrably true.

I could go on for a long time about why no higher power gives a shit about my life, but that wouldn't accomplish anything. I'm only eighteen years into my life, and already I'm dreading the rest of it. If there were any mercy in this world, I would have died already.

and if you actually want to change how the world treats you, just change your perspective

This is a fallacy, and let me tell you why. Everybody starts out innocent and naive. Nobody starts out as a cynic. The thing that makes people cynical is called 'life experience'. Shit happens to everybody, regardless of your perspective. If your perspective has any influence at all on your quality of life, then nobody would have bad lives, because we all start out happy and care-free.

 

[tklmaestro]

If they were to make observations based on subjectivity, then the results would vary between every scientist, and that wouldn't be science. The only way to keep things consistent is to NOT being in personal issues.

For instance, let's say that there are two scientists. One is a creationist Christian, and the other is Non-religious. Let's say that they are out in the field working on a geology assignment, and they find a rock. An old rock. Upon testing this rock, they determine that it is 19,600 years old, approximately. Well, the creationist Christian, if he looks at this subjectively, will not accept that answer. He will argue, against the evidence, that this rock could not be any older than 6,000 years old because of his personal beliefs. Now, if these same two scientists were looking at this through an objective lens, and PURELY an objective lens, then they would have no problem with the result, but would test it another 2 times, just to be certain.

I was thinking of more like physics and philosophy, but yes, geology is fine from an objective view.

 

[Mash]

I was thinking of more like physics and philosophy, but yes, geology is fine from an objective view.

Philosophy is nothing but subjectivity. It is how YOU view YOUR world, based on YOUR experiences.

I don't see how you can integrate subjectivity into physics. It's all fairly cut and dry without any room for personal discrepancies. An object on Earth free-falls at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared. There is no personal view of mine that will ever have an impact on that objective fact.

 

[tklmaestro]

http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/19023/gravity-doesnt-exist

Philosophy is nothing but subjectivity. It is how YOU view YOUR world, based on YOUR experiences.

I don't see how you can integrate subjectivity into physics. It's all fairly cut and dry without any room for personal discrepancies. An object on Earth free-falls at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared. There is no personal view of mine that will ever have an impact on that objective fact.

You mean Gravity? You believe in that nonsence?
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/19023/gravity-doesnt-exist