Faith and Reason.

[Sqwunk]

To each his own though, I mean whatever it takes for you to life a fruitful and productive life without stepping on my toes is fine by me. Like I pointed out yesterday, when my daughter comes home from school upset because some bible thumping kid tells her that "She is going to hell because she does give God any money on Sundays", that crosses the line in more ways than one. Keep your shit to yourself. When I am looking for Ribs from a cookout, don't ask me if I'm saved. Fuck you, I just want some goddamn ribs, not a sermon and some homeless guy telling me my fate.

I'm catholic myself, but nothing irks me more than when people are hypocritical in what they believe (i.e. the example you gave is basically a human passing judgment on another human.) Which I know plenty of people are like this. Most of which I've seen are the older generations of people in the religions, which they also happen to be very closed minded. aka, calling anything they don't trust, the devil reincarnate

Stiker further proves my point in the post below me (trying not to +1 myself in posts)

Wasn't even just Baptists that have done that either, my sister and I were also told once in a Catholic school that we were going to hell unless we converted Catholic. So it isn't like that line of thought isn't just owned by one tenant of Christianity/religion.

[Stiker]

To each his own though, I mean whatever it takes for you to life a fruitful and productive life without stepping on my toes is fine by me. Like I pointed out yesterday, when my daughter comes home from school upset because some bible thumping kid tells her that "She is going to hell because she does give God any money on Sundays", that crosses the line in more ways than one. Keep your shit to yourself. When I am looking for Ribs from a cookout, don't ask me if I'm saved. Fuck you, I just want some goddamn ribs, not a sermon and some homeless guy telling me my fate.

Now from reading this (and Neo's OP), it sounds like most of this would be from Baptists no?

Hell, even as a practicing Christian Baptists believe I'm not yet saved because I haven't partaken in a "Believer's Baptism" and have only been "Sprinkled" as a baby. I also remember being in downtown Dallas with my church youth group years ago and having someone ask me "Have you been saved by the blood of Jesus?" To which I responded yes much to his surprise. Unfortunately, as he was trying to bug the rest of our group I mentioned we were all a part of a church youth and he asked which one and I answered without thinking. Once the word "Methodist" came out of my mouth, he went into full conversion mode.

Wasn't even just Baptists that have done that either, my sister and I were also told once in a Catholic school that we were going to hell unless we converted Catholic. So it isn't like that line of thought isn't just owned by one tenant of Christianity/religion.

My point in all this comes from a quote (and I can't remember when or where I heard it) that says "The biggest problem that the rest of the world has with Christianity are other Christians. They praise God with their lips and walk out on Sunday and defy it with their actions. That is was an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable." And that really can extend to any other religion as well to be honest. I've always been of the belief that Christians were asked to share the Gospel, but not shove it down people's throat. Trying to convert someone through fear only serves to push people away more often than not. Sure it may work in some cases, but the rate of backfire is unreal.

The really ironic part in doing this is that the main belief of Christians is that Jesus' death was a sacrifice to save us from sin as well as give us victory over death. Yet, people choose to use the fear of death to try to convert. Makes no sense to me and it drives me nuts how that tends to give religion in general a very bad name.

Edit for Clarification: I do realize the examples I gave don't portray everyone in said faiths. Just want to make that clear. I know plenty of Methodists that aren't shining examples of Christianity either.

[Dimmauk]

Now from reading this (and Neo's OP), it sounds like most of this would be from Baptists no?

Hell, even as a practicing Christian Baptists believe I'm not yet saved because I haven't partaken in a "Believer's Baptism" and have only been "Sprinkled" as a baby. I also remember being in downtown Dallas with my church youth group years ago and having someone ask me "Have you been saved by the blood of Jesus?" To which I responded yes much to his surprise. Unfortunately, as he was trying to bug the rest of our group I mentioned we were all a part of a church youth and he asked which one and I answered without thinking. Once the word "Methodist" came out of my mouth, he went into full conversion mode.

Wasn't even just Baptists that have done that either, my sister and I were also told once in a Catholic school that we were going to hell unless we converted Catholic. So it isn't like that line of thought isn't just owned by one tenant of Christianity/religion.

My point in all this comes from a quote (and I can't remember when or where I heard it) that says "The biggest problem that the rest of the world has with Christianity are other Christians. They praise God with their lips and walk out on Sunday and defy it with their actions. That is was an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable." And that really can extend to any other religion as well to be honest. I've always been of the belief that Christians were asked to share the Gospel, but not shove it down people's throat. Trying to convert someone through fear only serves to push people away more often than not. Sure it may work in some cases, but the rate of backfire is unreal.

The really ironic part in doing this is that the main belief of Christians is that Jesus' death was a sacrifice to save us from sin as well as give us victory over death. Yet, people choose to use the fear of death to try to convert. Makes no sense to me and it drives me nuts how that tends to give religion in general a very bad name.

That is the one thing I dont miss about DFW. There are fucking churches everywhere, and not the Fried Chicken kind either.

[drwaffles]

Me personally, I am Catholic and I'm quite proud to be Catholic and have my religion to ground me and faith to use as a moral compass. I'm sure though this will be tossed aside with some comment about how I can have an opinion but it's wrong or something like that. So whatever; lent started today and as a penance, I'll pray for the souls of people who continually think that I'm nothing more than just an idiot.

You don't need to be religious to have a properly-functioning moral compass. I'd even wager to say that there's no correlation between being religious and how moral you are, especially considering some religious people perform acts of charity not out of selflessness, but out of concern for their own well-being after their physical self has passed away. No, I'm not saying that good deeds performed by the religious community are always or even frequently spawned from fear or selfishness, just that it's rather silly to infer that being religious means that you're more well-equipped to differentiate right from wrong.

[Acturus]

I don't see where the two sides are even beginning on equal footing.

"Religion" is being defined as a practical but fallable application of "Spirituality".

So, then, "Science" is being similiarly defined as a practical but fallable application of what?

And how can we realistically expect to get anywhere if we go about lining up every prophet who's ever made a statement and then been disbelieved or disproven but refuse to line up every "scientist" who's ever made a statement and was also disbelieved or disproven?

But hey, I'll get my +1 rocks off with the next guy.

[Neosutra]

People forget about scientific racism and how science was also used to guide and direct our beliefs--to give a specific and recent example, for the justification of slavery. Craniology was the study of human skulls to determine intelligence, evolution was used to suggest black people were the missing link to apes (Look up Ota Benga, he was also featured in Ben Button--for almost no reason it seems). Science changes overtime, and so does religion. People point out that the bible says we should kill homosexuals, but we obviously don't do that anymore. The problem here is man.

I really like how Seraph put it. No need for me to repeat everything else.

Im glad you brought this up Kwijiboe.

The concept that man will commit good/evils regardless of their faith/beliefs is a common thread in these topics. To get to the root of the problem however, we must look at how mankind moves past these motives, and which negative stigmas are easier to remove. Education and research can remove motives that are founded in ignorance, however nothing can convince a man to change his prejudices if they are rooted in divine authenticity.

For instance, in your example, you stated that science was used to justify prejudice. The fact is that science isnt some over reaching idealogy. Science is merely a tool box for applying standards to what one submits as fact. "Science" wasnt used to suggest black people were the missing link, science was actually used to determine this theory was in fact invalid. Just because someone submits a hypothesis, doesnt mean that person is using "science" to prove their idea. It is just the process in which one examines and validates their hypothesis which can be accurately referred to as "science".

And to be clear, we dont kill homosexuals in the street anymore because society doesnt allow it, not because christianity has evolved to somehow accept it. Things would be very different if this was infact a purely theocratic state.

Also, I wanted to address Seraphs' comment about "science and religion both seeking an answer, neiter of whom have one".

Again, you are trying to make science into some existential entity. It isnt that science or religion hasnt found any answers yet, its that:

"Man has always looked for the answers, and hasnt found them all yet."

Science is just the practice of applying a standard to the answers we put forth. Religion is just the practice of avoiding that standard, to reduce the complexity of any hypothesis.

[Seraph]

Now from reading this (and Neo's OP), it sounds like most of this would be from Baptists no?

Hell, even as a practicing Christian Baptists believe I'm not yet saved because I haven't partaken in a "Believer's Baptism" and have only been "Sprinkled" as a baby. I also remember being in downtown Dallas with my church youth group years ago and having someone ask me "Have you been saved by the blood of Jesus?" To which I responded yes much to his surprise. Unfortunately, as he was trying to bug the rest of our group I mentioned we were all a part of a church youth and he asked which one and I answered without thinking. Once the word "Methodist" came out of my mouth, he went into full conversion mode.

Wasn't even just Baptists that have done that either, my sister and I were also told once in a Catholic school that we were going to hell unless we converted Catholic. So it isn't like that line of thought isn't just owned by one tenant of Christianity/religion.

My point in all this comes from a quote (and I can't remember when or where I heard it) that says "The biggest problem that the rest of the world has with Christianity are other Christians. They praise God with their lips and walk out on Sunday and defy it with their actions. That is was an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable." And that really can extend to any other religion as well to be honest. I've always been of the belief that Christians were asked to share the Gospel, but not shove it down people's throat. Trying to convert someone through fear only serves to push people away more often than not. Sure it may work in some cases, but the rate of backfire is unreal.

The really ironic part in doing this is that the main belief of Christians is that Jesus' death was a sacrifice to save us from sin as well as give us victory over death. Yet, people choose to use the fear of death to try to convert. Makes no sense to me and it drives me nuts how that tends to give religion in general a very bad name.

Edit for Clarification: I do realize the examples I gave don't portray everyone in said faiths. Just want to make that clear. I know plenty of Methodists that aren't shining examples of Christianity either.

See, I'm starting to think I'm the exception and not the rule. If there is a single, unifying theme to Christianity, it's something akin to "Don't be an asshole." What do people do? They try to spread this mindset by being assholes. :-/



Edit:

[Stuff Above Me]

I think my biggest issue is that many assume that religion and science are polar opposites, and I completely disagree. I think the difference is often how people apply what they take away from each. I don't understand how they can't exist simultaneously, and even compliment each other. If the point of religion is self improvement, science is just an extension of that behavior. Humanity trying to improve itself through better understanding of itself and it's environment. Science just usually focuses on physical interaction, and religion on moral and social iteration and behavior.

[FNH]

“The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church” – Magellen

wait, are we going to debate religion or the organization of "church"? The modern construct of the church is not what I would call a shining star for religion.
Since we a re sharing I am a believer and follower of God and Christ, I follow the Gospel of Christ and believe he is my savior. Do I believe everything written in the Bible? No, it was written by man and therefore can be flawed. For example: Noah's Ark previously mentioned is likely a literary device used to show how important the event was, and no not every animal we know would have been on there, since the world they know that was flooding was probably a small area, since *gasp* they didn't do much exploration at the time. Do I believe Earth is 4k years old? No, but I don't believe it was chance happening of animals and humans just being here. Do I believe in evolution? Yes, the evidence is there, however, I believe it was a gift from God not just a chance happening, as is all science. Like John Lennox I think God and science can go hand in hand. Also, a note on Lennox he debated Dawkins a year or so ago, maybe it's the homer in me but I think he did well even had Dawkins agreeing with a majority of points, he'll be debating debating Christopher Hitchens in March.

probably 5 pages posted since I started this...

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

People forget about scientific racism and how science was also used to guide and direct our beliefs--to give a specific and recent example, for the justification of slavery. Craniology was the study of human skulls to determine intelligence, evolution was used to suggest black people were the missing link to apes (Look up Ota Benga, he was also featured in Ben Button--for almost no reason it seems). Science changes overtime, and so does religion. People point out that the bible says we should kill homosexuals, but we obviously don't do that anymore. The problem here is man.

I really like how Seraph put it. No need for me to repeat everything else.

I'm going to heartily disagree because of one major factor: The text of science changes to prove its previous findings as incorrect and they are accepted as truth until we move on, also, there has been numerous amounts of faulty science in which you mentioned that the hand of religion has tainted the findings.

The text of religion stays the same and its more controversial and hardline concepts and writings are held back only by law and society, the text is still there unchanged waiting to be interpreted in a million different ways, which is simply not the case with science.

This is why there are people in America who believe that dinosaurs walked the earth with man 5,000 years ago, and teach their children this. There are hardline Bible Camps in the US in which the teachers feel that they should raise their children to "die for Jesus" as the Muslims die for Mohammed.

This is dangerous, and science is always revised upon consensus of new findings and research, so what may have been dangerous and ignorant in the past with science is always evolving unless religious doctrine.

I just can't see the comparison in religion and science based on this.

[Dimmauk]

Im glad you brought this up Kwijiboe.

The concept that man will commit good/evils regardless of their faith/beliefs is a common thread in these topics. To get to the root of the problem however, we must look at how mankind moves past these motives, and which negative stigmas are easier to remove.

For instance, in your example, you stated that science was used to justify prejudice. The fact is that science isnt some over reaching idealogy. Science is merely a tool box for applying standards to what one submits as fact. "Science" wasnt used to suggest black people were the missing link, science was actually used to determine this theory was in fact invalid. Just because someone submits a hypothesis, doesnt mean that person is using "science" to prove their idea. It is just the process in which one examines and validates their hypothesis which can be accurately referred to as "science".

And to be clear, we dont kill homosexuals in the street anymore because society doesnt allow it, not because christianity has evolved to somehow accept it. Things would be very different if this was infact a purely theocratic state.

Also, I wanted to address Seraphs' comment about "science and religion both seeking an answer, neiter of whom have one".

Again, you are trying to make science into some exsstential entity. It isnt that science or religion hasnt found any answers yet, its that:

"Man has always looked for the answers, and hasnt found them all yet."

Science is just the practice of applying a standard to the answers we put forth. Religion is just the practice of avoiding that standard, to reduce the complexity of any hypothesis.

Other religions still kill Homosexuals.

[Kwijiboe]

Personally, I am not religious. If anything, my childhood (as you/Mizango explained it) is very similiar to yours. I was born and raised Catholic and I dread talking to my family about religion, because I do not think praying helps, or going to church is what makes me a better person.

My science background? I'm not sure what you mean, my undergrad was not a science class-- but I'm not condemning the sciences. I just know there is evidence of man abusing power gained from religion and science.

Further, Why is science ethically and morally bound? Is there anywhere in science that says killing is wrong? Science has led men to commit abhorrent acts in the name of science, have you read Medical Apartheid by Harriet Washington? Another example is the Nazi Germany's experience on man. Science has no quarrels with ethics or morality, to quote Hobbes, the state of nature posits that "naturally every man has right to every thing.. even to one another's body." It is laws that keeps us from breaking moral and ethical guidelines in the pursuit of science, and many of these foundations were influenced by religion.

I personally tire from people saying that Religion has barbaric rules and bigoted roots in its history. However, so does science. All I can say is I find both absolutely fascinating, and in most cases, I will side with science.

What ZarakiKujata said about people picking and choosing is correct, however people do this in regards to EVERYTHING. Abortion is a great example, people say they will side with science-- and science has conflicting findings at what point a human being is created. The same goes for global warming. Science cannot give us answers, but it leads to answers, to the bettering of ourselves. Religion does the exact same thing.

Someone in the thread said that science is theory, the same can be said about religion. We keep furthering our knowledge, and the understanding of the world to reach these answers-- both help humans reach this understanding.

[Mizango]

Other religions still kill Homosexuals.

Luckily Ahmadinejad and Iran don't have this problem.

[Dimmauk]

Luckily Ahmadinejad and Iran don't have this problem.

They have no gays because they killed them all.

[MrW]

I don't take religion too seriously. But the underlying morals and principles are what I value. You can be a good person without being a devout Muslim, Christian, Baptist, etc. I guess the best thing about religion is the hope/meaning it gives to people's lives. The worst thing about religion is probably the judging and fingerpointing that goes on. Sorry I couldn't be more profound like the rest of these posts.



P.S. Hammurabi's Code

[Stiker]

Personally, I am not religious. If anything, my childhood (as you/Mizango explained it) is very similiar to yours. I was born and raised Catholic and I dread talking to my family about religion, because I do not think praying helps, or going to church is what makes me a better person.

I've never believed this either and I think someone believing that going to Church every Sunday gets you "God brownie points" is out of their mind. Church is meant, in my opinion, to be a place in which you can gather with people in order to strengthen your faith -- it is not the end all-be-all of becoming a great Christian or person.

[Neosutra]

Someone in the thread said that science is theory, the same can be said about religion. We keep furthering our knowledge, and the understanding of the world to reach these answers-- both help humans reach this understanding.

Did you miss my entire post to you Kwijiboe? You keep referring to science as some existential entity that controls people just like religion does.

Science is -nothing- more than applying standards to what you beleive. Science hasnt led anyone to do horrible acts, it hasnt led anyione to do anything. Science isnt a motivator, it isnt a mover, it doesnt have agendas, nor can it be held responsible for the dealings of man anymore than we can hold the constitution responsible for the current economic crisis. "Science" isnt a theory, it is the method that we deal with theories, before we consider them fact.

[Kwijiboe]

No I didn't read it, trying to do work at same time, hah.

[Stiker]

Science is -nothing- more than applying standards to what you beleive. Science hasnt led anyone to do horrible acts, it hasnt led anyione to do anything. Science isnt a motivator, it isnt a mover, it doesnt have agendas, nor can it be held responsible for the dealings of man anymore than we can hold the constitution responsible for the current economic crisis. "Science" isnt a theory, it is the method that we deal with theories, before we consider them fact.

Just because science itself is those things, that doesn't mean that people haven't done horrible things in the name of scientific research or tried to further some agenda using science as their base. The same goes for religion.

[Seraph]

Did you miss my entire post to you Kwijiboe? You keep referring to science as some existential entity that controls people just like religion does.

Science is -nothing- more than applying standards to what you beleive. Science hasnt led anyone to do horrible acts, it hasnt led anyione to do anything. Science isnt a motivator, it isnt a mover, it doesnt have agendas, nor can it be held responsible for the dealings of man anymore than we can hold the constitution responsible for the current economic crisis. "Science" isnt a theory, it is the method that we deal with theories, before we consider them fact.

Eh, hard to do a comparison if you totally eliminate the application of the entity. By that comparison "Religion" is the method that we deal with morality and social interaction, before we apply them.

[Neosutra]

Just because science itself is those things, that doesn't mean that people haven't done horrible things in the name of scientific research or tried to further some agenda using science as their base. The same goes for religion.

Name one. Im sure you can come up with a few atrocious acts that you will blame the scientific method for, but I just need to get an idea of what you are talking about before I can comment.

Eh, hard to do a comparison if you totally eliminate the application of the entity. By that comparison "Religion" is the method that we deal with morality and social interaction, before we apply them.

No, Religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth.

Science = Method of applying a standard to hypothesis presented by mankind.

Religion = Set of beliefs that require a suspension of that standard.

One tells you what to believe, the other simply applies a filter to these beliefs. A filter that is a result of our ability to logically deduce and compare conflicting bits of information to determine which is fact, and which is falacy.