Faith and Reason.

[FNH]

I personally don't have an issue in what people believe, as long as it doesn't not infringe on my well being. The random knocks on the doors inviting me to church,
Those are things I take personal.

Help me out here, the other things you listed weren't good, but why is a polite invitation to a church infringement on your well being? regardless of your beliefs, I just don't see how an invitation is evil. *Doesn't have anything to do with the main debate.

[Tristam]

Thats not a problem with the scientific method, but rather the way the method was enforced.

None of the examples listed show any problem with applying a standard to beliefs, but rather display the fact that mankind will do horrible things, wether motivated by logic, or superstition. I would rather kidnap me for ransom, than a man kidnap me for his god's will. One can be reasoned/bartered with, the other will not.

This merry-go-rouind still goes back to the same premise that atrocities commited in the name of superstition are far harder to prevent/stop than atrocities commited in the name of some physical motive.

We can teach our children that the experiments on the tuskegee men were horrible due to their inhuman treatment of the victims and our children would grow up to hopefully not make the same mistakes. However when a person teaches their child that black people are "lesser people" because god made them that way, then the process of removing this prejudice goes beyond the simple tools of education.

The answer is ethics, either you approach a scientific question with an ethical set of experiments, or you throw ethics out the window. It has nothing to do with the ability of science to answer questions, just the approach. Although I would argue if you're willing to throw ethics out the window you're probably not approaching a problem rationally and without bias.

The religious argument is then that we get morality and ethics from god, which is demonstrably false. I would further argue that science can improve our understanding of the natural world to give us a more accurate framework to treat all living subjects ethically. Perhaps the greatest contribution of the study of evolution to society is the lesson that we're all very closely related, and the differences between us are miniscule against the background of the natural world.

[zoobernut]

Help me out here, the other things you listed weren't good, but why is a polite invitation to a church infringement on your well being? regardless of your beliefs, I just don't see how an invitation is evil. *Doesn't have anything to do with the main debate.

There is nothing inherently bad about a polite invitation to a church but context and method of invitation will completely change how that invitation is received. It can be a very rude thing if approached in the wrong way.

[Neosutra]

Help me out here, the other things you listed weren't good, but why is a polite invitation to a church infringement on your well being? regardless of your beliefs, I just don't see how an invitation is evil. *Doesn't have anything to do with the main debate.

If I invited my religious friends to my "religion is the devil and all religious people should be tortured forever" weekly meetings, do you think that would be taken as polite or improaching?

[FNH]

There is nothing inherently bad about a polite invitation to a church but context and method of invitation will completely change how that invitation is received. It can be a very rude thing if approached in the wrong way.

sure, but on the face of it there was no mention of anything like that.

[FNH]

If I invited my religious friends to my "religion is the devil and all religious people should be tortured forever" weekly meetings, do you think that would be taken as polite or improaching?

I don't know them so I can't answer that. Personally I'd say thanks but no thanks. This wasn't meant as part of the debate.

[Stiker]

Help me out here, the other things you listed weren't good, but why is a polite invitation to a church infringement on your well being? regardless of your beliefs, I just don't see how an invitation is evil. *Doesn't have anything to do with the main debate.

Unless I fail at reading, they were knocking on his door for said invite. That isn't the same as someone you know chatting with you and saying "hey why not church this Sunday?"

Think of a door-to-door salesman or a telemarketer. Sure they are trying to sell you something they think is great, but they are interrupting your dinner. That is annoying and going to piss you off.

If said person came knocking on my door asking if I want to go to church, even though I already go to one, I am going to be annoyed as well.

[Neosutra]

sure, but on the face of it there was no mention of anything like that.

Its the idea that someone is attempting to influence your beliefs via requesting you attend ordered meetings with them about their beliefs.

Also, I like what Tristam said about the study of evolution giving us a glimpse on just how close we are to other species, and how we probably shouldnt wipe them all out.

[Seraph]

Look...you're making logical points. Perfectly logical. Except it's about nothing.

Let me break it down.

Ask any door-to-door religious person if their religion is the truth.

Yes.

Is it THE truth?

Yes.

Is it the ultimate, final truth?

Yes.

Then by definition, it cannot change. The fact that it does change means that it's not the truth. And if it's not the truth, but claims to be the truth, that makes it bullshit.

PS I'm aware of the nature and history of the bible. Its sordid past only lends strength to my argument.

You are claiming that all religion doesn't change, but give me an example that an individuals specific interpretation of their beliefs is static. I am going to claim that once again, you are incorrect. How many people have altered their beliefs or changed faiths?


Edit: To further compound on this, often as a person ages their understanding of what they believe may improve, or they come to terms with why they believe what they believe. There are very few things about the human experience that are static. Your assumption inherently claims that people never learn new beliefs, or never learn more about those beliefs they already have. I find that notion absurd.

[FNH]

my question wasn't to derail into a debate about church, I dislike church as I said earlier, I was asking Mizango a question.

[kuronosan]

You are claiming that all religion doesn't change, but give me an example that an individuals specific interpretation of their beliefs is static. I am going to claim that once again, you are incorrect. How many people have altered their beliefs or changed faiths?

I'm going to jump into this conversation when I get home later on but based on the idea that people can change faiths at will alone should prove not only that no religion is right but it opens the possibility that religion itself does not exist.

Religion and beliefs are based completely on faith. If faith changes so easily, then clearly people are searching for something to believe in
History has shown a remarkable tendency to assign scientific and supernatural meaning to events and ideas we can't understand. Once a scientific explanation is found, people lean less on faith and more on knowledge.

I'll get more into what I mean later on when I'm not trying to pay attention in genetics.

[Neosutra]

You are claiming that all religion doesn't change, but give me an example that an individuals specific interpretation of their beliefs is static. I am going to claim that once again, you are incorrect. How many people have altered their beliefs or changed faiths?

The belief that there is a god is static among theists.

The belief that this god created the universe/planet.

The belief that this god is directly influencing events on this plant is static among theists (not counting diests).

And you are simply supporting Kaylia's argument: Religion is changed to suite the current desires of the believer. How can something be the truth if it isnt static? And if it is static, then it needs to be able to stand against logical analysis.

[barber2006]

Edit: Barber, why dont you go into one of those premises yourself, and offer some material to ponder/debate. Simply posting the top 10 religious debate topics doesnt lend any weight to either side. However I would state many of those meeting points are rather trivially removed.

Oh its, by far a 'top 10'. As you have seen the debate is mainly going to center on the validity of the bible on a messageboard such as this. And most people will fail to realize that the first 2 1/2 chapters of Genesis were written in a poetic style rather than narrative style and they were never meant to be taken literally. Furthermore, the story is nearly copied word for word from earlier creation accounts, the only difference being the place of humanity in creation as the culmination of creation rather than just a byproduct.

And we have already seen a gross misunderstanding of the anthropology of the Hebrew people during this time. Many scholars will readily admit that the people mentioned in the Old Testament before the time of Job were simply stories told amongst the Hebrew people to help them keep their faith/principles and maintain their individuality in the midst of being an extremely nomadic people. Claiming that the event where the first born Hebrews were spared by smearing some blood on the door is less important than the power that story has to let the Hebrew people know that they are a special people.

Now I understand that opens up a completely different set of worms that I don't have time to get into. Most notably 1) What makes them so special and 2) If the story of Joseph is just a metaphor then what makes you think the stories of Jesus aren't. Well, for starters the centralization of a Hebrew government and the beginning of actually writing these things down rather than passing them down by Oral tradition made a drastic change. During the Davidic period when the Hebrews actually had land and a palace etc, the process of oral tradition faded away.

Jumping ahead, the allegations that there are many 'different translations' of the bible is preposterous. The difference you see is simply a difference of moving along the continuum of being a literal translation to being more colloquial in the translation. The masoretic process of maintaining the documents throughout the history of the non-printing press era of Chrisitanity is well documented and thourough. The discovery of the dead sea scrolls in the Qumran community shows just how little has changed through the years.


So I typed way more than I had planned to. In response to your original question "why don't I bring up some topics to debate", my answer is simple. Compare our post counts. I don't have the time to give the kind of complete responses that this discussion merits. Furthermore, I really don't want to be the mouthpiece for one particular side or the other when there are people who have published material that can do a much better job than I can.

[Neosutra]

Actually, I dont think anyone here was using the validity of the bible as a conerstone for their debate (on either side). In fact I would claim the contrary.

[thatwasnifty]

There are some people, like Stephen Jay Gould, who don't see any problem with science and religion. They call it "Non-overlapping magisteria." Science and religion are two different fields that have nothing to do with each other, so neither should try to claim authority over the other.

I disagree and find myself thinking like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins. Religion, religiosity, and spirituality all require faith in the supernatural. Faith is belief and assertion in something despite all evidence to the contrary. Religion etc. make claims of existence (of God or gods, angels, karma, whatever), and questions of existence are clearly scientific questions, since science is concerned with the material. Everything that exists can be tested, measured, and experimented upon, otherwise by definition it doesn't exist. Religious claims fail scientific tests (Noah's arc, physical ascension to Heaven, miracles), therefore are fake and can be disregarded.

[Seraph]

The belief that there is a god is static among theists.

The belief that this god created the universe/planet.

The belief that this god is directly influencing events on this plant is static among theists (not counting diests).

And you are simply supporting Kaylia's argument: Religion is changed to suite the current desires of the believer. How can something be the truth if it isnt static? And if it is static, then it needs to be able to stand against logical analysis.

Then, by your definition, nothing outside of the belief in a higher creation power is actually religion.

I never said core beliefs change, but your implication that moral situations and guidelines cannot change over time to suit the human experience is silly. So, by that logic, obviously anything that came after the foundation of a religion and it's moral structure doesn't come into the equation of that morality because it didn't exist when the religion started.

How are we to know if shooting someone in the face is immoral? Guns didn't exist before the Bible did! In fact, nothing is applicable because it all came after God did!

The general claim that religion, and by extension it's consequences, doesn't change starts to seem rather silly when you bring it back to the realistic applicable example, instead of the strictly theoretical one. This all goes back to my statement that both religion and science are changing and trying to improve themselves, and neither one has reached the perfection level necessary for me to say the other isn't valid or applicable. All in the quest for self perfection, yo.

[Alleya]

Then, by your definition, nothing outside of the belief in a higher creation power is actually religion.

I never said core beliefs change, but your implication that moral situations and guidelines cannot change over time to suit the human experience is silly. So, by that logic, obviously anything that came after the foundation of a religion and it's moral structure doesn't come into the equation of that morality because it didn't exist when the religion started.

How are we to know if shooting someone in the face is immoral? Guns didn't exist before the Bible did! In fact, nothing is applicable because it all came after God did!

The general claim that religion, and by extension it's consequences, doesn't change starts to seem rather silly when you bring it back to the realistic applicable example, instead of the strictly theoretical one. This all goes back to my statement that both religion and science are changing and trying to improve themselves, and neither one has reached the perfection level necessary for me to say the other isn't valid or applicable. All in the quest for self perfection, yo.

I'm not saying it doesn't change. I'm saying that because it changes, making dogmatic statements about its claims is illogical. Something can't be THE TRUTH, FOR I AM THE LORD, if it changes because the majority of others, even those outside of the religion, decide that a certain part is no longer acceptable (see: slavery. god was fine with it) And if God is fallible (and let's face it, that's what you're saying), God cannot be God, and if God is not God, then there's no value in religious conviction.

[Mizango]

Well, personally, if you are religious and never really question what you believe, you aren't doing it right. If we are supposed to grow spiritually, I can't see how you do that without asking questions.

Fucking finally. This is what people don't seem to get most times, I got to where I am because I questioned what I was simply being told to accept. Then again you cant blame people that are told they will suffer and burn eternally in the devils domain if they dare to ask questions!


Incoming dissertation of epic proportions....


My mom used to tell me "Don't listen to those questions, that's just the Devil trying to plant the seed of doubt about the Kingdom". As fucked up as it sounds I really didn't want to attend her funeral after she was killed, not because of the fashion in which she died but because everyone in my family believes. (Again, Christian and Southern Baptists) But the thing that got me angry as all hell was the Pastor looking towards my family telling us "Dont be angry with the lord, he called one of his good sheep home, shes in a better place at home with the eternal father".

What!? Are you fucking kidding me? I immediate thought while he was saying that were as follows "You're telling me this faggot cant let one of his most LOYAL followers home in a more peaceful manner?" Ok, here comes the rehashed part for anyone that doesn't know.....

My mother was killed during a home invasion in 2003. She had gotten home from afternoon service and was taking a nap when a group of people burn into the home (We know this by the 911 tape) they bound her, gagged her, pistol whipped her with a gun and what turned out to be a piece of a brick that was lying outside my parents home. Mind you, while she was bound and for some unbeknown reason she was douched in a concentrated industrial solvent in hopes of "cleaning any prints off". It turns out that the solution got into her ears and melted her ear drums, she was blind in both eyes and it ate the skin and lips from her face.

After being in a coma at the Jaycee burn center in Chapel Hill, NC intensive care burn unit she died of complete and total organ failure. For the first time in my life I could not recognize my mother and was left with a closed casket memory of her and was subsequently left raising my 15 year old brother. Now, having a Pastor having the fucking nerve to tell me "Don't hate God, he called your mother home" was the ultimate slap in the face. What did she do wrong? Went to church every Sat and Sunday for 30 some odd years? Donated, participated in food drives and coat collection on behalf of the church? Yet here we are, devastated because he couldn't think of a better way to call my mom to paradise?

The weird thing about that? My mothers killers are still out there lol. The holy father is justice right? We should not question his motives or his plan for us? Fuck that. It took me a loooong time to not want to take my life or someone else's life during that time. So yes, I call it a chip, call it what you may, but save that Gods paradise bullshit for your life. I don't mind what others think, but don't impose that bullshit story on me. This is not the defining moment in my relationship with god or the church, seeing as how by time this happened I had already graduated college, twice and was deeply in love with Cosmology and Physics. The slap in the face came a few months later when I got a card from the a fore mentioned Pastor that read as follows: "Judge not the murderers of thy Mother, for they may escape penalty and justice here on Earth, but they shall pay in the after life" No, fuck that. That brings me no solace or closure, but he still doesn't get it to this day.

Most people here on BG that know me know this story already, I told this to the ones that don't and who like to judge me on what I do/say. I am not a Emo Debbie Downer type person, I am fine now and have let bygones be bygones. I am a quite happy and cheerful person in RL and an unbelievable optimistic. If anything came from this ordeal is to appreciate people more than you do and to not take people for I haven't seen, spoken or hugged either of my parents since that day. I am the same now as I was then, I just demand proof now more than ever and Science does and always have provided that for me.

Until we start living to 900 years old again, bread drops from the sky to poor people in Africa etc... then I will continue to be a skeptic

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

You are claiming that all religion doesn't change, but give me an example that an individuals specific interpretation of their beliefs is static. I am going to claim that once again, you are incorrect. How many people have altered their beliefs or changed faiths?


Edit: To further compound on this, often as a person ages their understanding of what they believe may improve, or they come to terms with why they believe what they believe. There are very few things about the human experience that are static. Your assumption inherently claims that people never learn new beliefs, or never learn more about those beliefs they already have. I find that notion absurd.

How long has the Bible been around? The Bhagavad Gita? The Koran? The Talmud?

How often have edits or amendments been made to run with the times? There haven't, ever. There have been less strict interpretations, but the ideas and beliefs derived from the central text have never, ever changed, thus the core beliefs of the religion don't change, just the interpretation changes dependent on the society in which the practitioners live.

If you believe solely on the ideas put forth in one book or spiritual manual that has remained unchanged for hundreds or thousands of years, there is not progress to match against as there is with science.

So to counter several arguments made; horrific acts or practices in the name of science are transient. Mistakes are learned from them upon review and are not oft repeated, if at all in light of new evidence. Horrific acts in the name of religion have been repeated over and over and over and over again, and while lessons are learned on a historical level of these acts due to tragedy, they are not learned on a religious level and incorporated into the religious text to teach from mistakes.

This is a defining difference in the interpretation and practice of religion and science.

[Seraph]

I'm not saying it doesn't change. I'm saying that because it changes, making dogmatic statements about its claims is illogical. Something can't be THE TRUTH, FOR I AM THE LORD, if it changes because the majority of others, even those outside of the religion, decide that a certain part is no longer acceptable (see: slavery. god was fine with it) And if God is fallible (and let's face it, that's what you're saying), God cannot be God, and if God is not God, then there's no value in religious conviction.

I think you are confusing the characteristics of the worshiped higher power with the level of understanding of those worshiping said power. If humanity always understood everything to a point of perfection from the moment of it's creation, what exactly is the point of existence anymore?

Some of these teachings and tails come from people who never even knew my language existed (or it didn't exist yet), and had no indoor plumbing. Does that make them incorrect? Not necessarily. Does that mean they were completely correct? Not necessarily. Advancements in science have been made on the same type of 'hunch'.

How many scientific discoveries wouldn't have been made because the science track at the time wasn't perfect? You are aiming at humanity and it's flawed implementation of it's religious beliefs in trying to disprove a higher power existence. Kinda doesn't hold water for me, and the best rebuttal you can use is "prove me wrong", and then we come to a pointless standstill until some advancement proves one or the other correct.