Faith and Reason.

[Alleya]

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.

You have yet to make any sort of argument for how belief in a higher power changes anything you wrote there. I believe answers will come from within, others believe they already have the answers from without. The true difference comes when the latter group begins to impose their stories on my life and the lives of others, often with violence and hate. No one has ever been murdered in the name of science. Go on--tell me religion is valuable when it accomplishes nothing that humans cannot already do. Having non-answers to things science cannot yet explain is utterly worthless.

[Seraph]

You have yet to make any sort of argument for how belief in a higher power changes anything you wrote there. I believe answers will come from within, others believe they already have the answers from without. The true difference comes when the latter group begins to impose their stories on my life and the lives of others, often with violence and hate. No one has ever been murdered in the name of science. Go on--tell me religion is valuable when it accomplishes nothing that humans cannot already do. Having non-answers to things science cannot yet explain is utterly worthless.

You just changed your initial claim that "religion doesn't change" to "religion is worthless." You keep jumping around instead of ever answering any of my counterpoints to you. I'm going to blow you out of the water with one simple fact. Ready?

Christianity didn't always exist, and it does now. Holy crap. A break in your static religious theory. From this once single act, the sumation of human religion, in it's entirety, changed. In fact, the specific beliefs of Christianity have also changed in the past 2000 years. You can cherry pick out specific beliefs from a religion and claim they are static, but then don't make the vast all inclusive general claim.

All dogs are animals, not all animals are dogs.

You are also making the assumption humanity is capable of establishing the moral structure needed to govern itself and prevent chaos without religion, but I think religion is most likely the reason why secular laws about morality exist. That is a chicken/egg issue though, and I don't think anyone can make a solid argument one way or the other. However, I think humanity as a whole becomes more able to function without the direct interference of religious establishment because of societies understanding of it's morals. We don't _need_ the church to police us, because we now do it ourselves. We don't _need_ a religion to spill it all out for us, because many are able to figure it out for themselves. That doesn't make religion worthless though. That is just your belief~

[Denchi]

I'm not going to be able to follow this topic closely, but I'll just give my 2 cents.

I think the worth of religion is a common understanding of metaphysical, objective truths that can guide our lives. Science doesn't give qualitative meaning to anything in the Universe, it simply states facts. If we're worried about how we ought to act, then we need to understand what is important in life, and what is good, and what is bad. Stating that Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system is interesting, and science can prove that, but nowhere can science state "And Jupiter is good." In the same way, science can find out how old rocks are, and how fast the universe is expanding, how many nerves are in a human body, etc etc. But please show me the scientific method that proves that killing is bad. Science can prove that someone is dead, but it doesn't tell me it's bad, or good ,or anything. We would have to attribute good or bad to death independently of science, and we do. Sometimes death is good, and sometimes death is bad, it depends.

Normative claims don't come from science. Finding "truth within" has always been one of the scariest things I've heard from people. There are so many people in this world with different views, and throughout time there have been different views. The idea that we should all just accept each other for who we are and "all just get along" is a bit silly, because that presupposes that there wouldn't be conflict. Of course there would be conflict, there are barbaric people in this world (by our standards at least) who we could never convince. I think there needs to be an absolute truth to avoid an anarchist society, or nihilistic society, that doesn't sound pleasant to me. And science certainly doesn't clear any of that up.

[Maxxthepenguin]

[b]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 [b]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.

This kind of post is what's so amazingly frustrating in these "debates": the sheer ignorance of how the phenomenon of religion has developed over the years and what the meaning of different things are.

Let's start with the first part: The Bible has at various times included different books and passages. It has been translated multiple times, sometimes with vastly different meanings. Many statements are vague as to the implications of meaning. As most religions will tell you, the works are largely allegorical. They are "infallible" but the direct meaning is open to interpretation.

The Bagavad Gita, after it was written, it was not changed, but many new texts were added.

The Talmud's express purpose was to interpret and expand upon the torah. Different components of it were written at different times. Not only that, but it has multiple opinions in the text. It contains arguments and though it gives you the verdict, it doesn't shut down argument, because that would be against the point, because the point of the talmud was to academically argue how to set the laws to live in accordance to the guidelines set by the Torah. Its purpose was to change and update itself, the reason it hasn't been is because the Romans took over and destroyed the Sanhedrin.

The Koran has, as far as I know, not changed. Islam seems to revere its holy book the most sacred of all, as not even translations are considered accurate as they lose the specific nuance of the Arabic language and gain unintended nuance.

The positions of the Catholic Church have changed wildly over time and the word of the church can supercede the bible. The reason protestant christianity was formed was because some people found that was being abused with things like indulgences and thus created their own independent groups dedicated simply to the text. They rejected the historical meaning and nuance that was learned by the church and decided to simplify. The protestants were like the strict constitutionalists, who wanted simply what was written on their text to be considered the religion.

Religions can and do change. Feel free to have your own opinion, but get the facts first.

btw, when was the last time they updated the Scientific Method? And what religion was the guy who did the pioneering work on it?

[Neosutra]

I'm not going to be able to follow this topic closely, but I'll just give my 2 cents.

I think the worth of religion is a common understanding of metaphysical, objective truths that can guide our lives. Science doesn't give qualitative meaning to anything in the Universe, it simply states facts. If we're worried about how we ought to act, then we need to understand what is important in life, and what is good, and what is bad. Stating that Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system is interesting, and science can prove that, but nowhere can science state "And Jupiter is good." In the same way, science can find out how old rocks are, and how fast the universe is expanding, how many nerves are in a human body, etc etc. But please show me the scientific method that proves that killing is bad. Science can prove that someone is dead, but it doesn't tell me it's bad, or good ,or anything. We would have to attribute good or bad to death independently of science, and we do. Sometimes death is good, and sometimes death is bad, it depends.

Normative claims don't come from science. Finding "truth within" has always been one of the scariest things I've heard from people. There are so many people in this world with different views, and throughout time there have been different views. The idea that we should all just accept each other for who we are and "all just get along" is a bit silly, because that presupposes that there wouldn't be conflict. Of course there would be conflict, there are barbaric people in this world (by our standards at least) who we could never convince. I think there needs to be an absolute truth to avoid an anarchist society, or nihilistic society, that doesn't sound pleasant to me. And science certainly doesn't clear any of that up.

One would state that people would have more fullfilling benefitial lives if they apply standards to the "truths" they use to guide their lives.

Im not saying people shouldnt delve into philosophy and devote themselves to the abstract questions of life, Im stating that people should remain objective to the answers they find.

However, if you truly believe there has to be some "absolute truth" to avoid anarchy, then I believe we have different perspectives of what we want society to look like.

[Seraph]

One would state that people would have more fullfilling benefitial lives if they apply standards to the "truths" they use to guide their lives.

Im not saying people shouldnt delve into philosophy and devote themselves to the abstract questions of life, Im stating that people should remain objective to the answers they find.

However, if you truly believe there has to be some "absolute truth" to avoid anarchy, then I believe we have different perspectives of what we want society to look like.

I don't think it's as much of a case as avoiding anarchy, as trying to be better. Scientists are constantly trying to understand the 'big bang' and what possibly came before it. Why is that? Humanity want's to understand the actions that set their existence in motion, whether is was somehow guided by a higher power, or by some lucky set of circumstances.

One of my beefs is that many people assume that divine intervention always has to come in the form of a lightening bolt, or a man on the cross, or the sudden creation of a paradise garden, or a magical hat, or a burning bush, or an old man descending from the clouds complete with white robes, beard, and choirs of angels escorting him. I often wonder why the laws of physics work the way they do. I often wonder why the unique properties of water and the hydrogen bond allow it to act in such a way to make life possible. I often think about just how amazing it is that Earth is rotating a star that can give off the correct type and amount of energy to support life, and rotates it at such a distance to make this possible, in such a way as to reflect enough energy to prevent damage, but sustain life. I often think how interesting it is that all of the components to create life exist in a location where it's creation is even possible.

It all seems extremely lucky, that the uncountable number of events happened in such a fashion to allow us to even exits. In addition, the compilation of forces in the universe and their interaction with one another is a wonder to behold, and indescribable to complete detail with the tools humanity has at it's disposal. This may be the reason why so many people choose to assume there is some higher power governing or helping in how the universe works. Either they are correct, or the assumption is incorrect because of the lack of human understanding. Given enough time, eventually one way or the other we might find out for sure. Until that day though, all bets are off, and everyone is just as likely incorrect as everyone else. In the meantime however, it is fun to 'compare religious notes', so to speak.

[Neosutra]

I don't think it's as much of a case as avoiding anarchy, as trying to be better. Scientists are constantly trying to understand the 'big bang' and what possibly came before it. Why is that? Humanity want's to understand the actions that set their existence in motion, whether is was somehow guided by a higher power, or by some lucky set of circumstances.

One of my beefs is that divine intervention always has to come in the form of a lightening bolt or a man on the cross. I often wonder why the laws of physics work the way they do. I often wonder why the unique properties of water allow it to act in such a way to make life possible. I often think about just how amazing it is that Earth is rotating a star that can give off the correct energy to support life, and rotates it at such a distance to make this possible, in such a way as to reflect enough energy to prevent damage, but sustain life. I often think how interesting it is that all of the components to create life exist in a location where it's creation is even possible.

It all seems extremely lucky, that the uncountable number of events happened in such a fashion to allow us to even exits. In addition, the compilation of forces in the universe and their interaction with one another is a wonder to behold, and indescribable to complete detail with the tools humanity has at it's disposal. This may be the reason why so many people choose to assume there is some higher power governing or helping in how the universe works. Either they are correct, or the assumption is incorrect because of the lack of human understanding. Given enough time, eventually one way or the other we might find out for sure. Until that day though, all bets are off, and everyone is just as likely incorrect as everyone else. In the meantime however, it is fun to 'compare religious notes', so to speak.

One doesnt have to study physics/biology/chemistry for long to see that "life" exists where the conditions that support it arise. Life means a different thing based on who you are talking too, but im sure you realize there are alot more stars in the sky than the big yellow one carried through our skys by the trundholm sun chariot.

Do you really find it unbelievable that when this solar system was developing, the objects that were too fast to maintain an orbit flew away, the objects that were too slow fell into the sun, and the mass that was in the right synchronous path remained in such?

Do you really find it unbelievable that proteins would form on planets that maintained the correct chemical athmosphere to block the damaging radiation? Do you find it unbelievable that mold grows on your coffee if you leave it in a dark spot for a week? How ironic it would be if everytime the conditions for life come together in any star system, those lifeforms look up and shout "What chance! what luck! That we would happen to exist in this exact position on the universe, praise Zorbos the mighty!"

Humanity derives divine intervention in everything it doesnt understand. God, for those who chose to replace their questions with superstition, is merely the summation of everything they dont know, and thus god is getting smaller every day.

[Seraph]

One doesnt have to study physics/biology/chemistry for long to see that "life" exists where the conditions that support it arise. Life means a different thing based on who you are talking too, but im sure you realize there are alot more stars in the sky than the big yellow one carried through our skys by the trundholm sun chariot.

Do you really find it unbelievable that when this solar system was developing, the objects that were too fast to maintain an orbit flew away, the objects that were too slow fell into the sun, and the mass that was in the right synchronous path remained in such?

Do you really find it unbelievable that proteins would form on planets that maintained the correct chemical athmosphere to block the damaging radiation? Do you find it unbelievable that mold grows on your coffee if you leave it in a dark spot for a week?

Humanity derives devine intervention in everything it doesnt understand. God, for those who chose to replace their questions with superstition, is merely the summation of everything wthey dont know, and thus god is getting smaller every day.

It's not I don't believe it isn't possible, more than I am impressed at the series of events that had to happen for it to occur. That's the reason I bring up the big bang example. Most scientists do not discount the general theory of the big bang, but questions arise as to its origin, or what happened before the big bang. It is possible that all mater over time just happened to come together via gravity until some cosmic critical mass was formed, but if that is the case why is the universe expanding at an ever increasing rate, instead of slowing down? That seems to discredit the notion that the matter was all pulled there over time. How did the mater get to where it was before it was pulled in?

At this point, it just becomes an "How odd, I wonder if there is another explanation" moment, and life goes on. Origin is a key piece of information in the grand human scheme of things. Maybe everything came from a tear in another universe. Maybe everything was always just here. Maybe Jesus pooped us all out. Someday I would like to know. Maybe someday I will find out. The assumption that there is no life after death is just as groundless as the notion that when we die we get to eat cherry pie in a cloud filled heaven with angels. Noone really knows for sure, and noone has bothered to come back to life and personally tell me about it. Either way, that still doesn't discourage me from trying to be a better person while I am alive, and I think that personally religion helps me to do that. That is a personal choice though, and I think a core issue of this thread.

[Neosutra]

It's not I don't believe it isn't possible, more than I am impressed at the series of events that had to happen for it to occur. That's the reason I bring up the big bang example. Most scientists do not discount the general theory of the big bang, but questions arise as to its origin, or what happened before the big bang. It is possible that all mater over time just happened to come together via gravity until some cosmic critical mass was formed, but if that is the case why is the universe expanding at an ever increasing rate, instead of slowing down? That seems to discredit the notion that the matter was all pulled there over time. How did the mater get to where it was before it was pulled in?
.

Glad to impress you.

However: Not all astrophysicist agree with the big bang, even if it is the most accepted theory currently. Additionally, "the big crunch" hasnt been a believable theory for some time. Most physicists today have moved away from some cyclic behavior of expansion -> collapse to some more advanced theories of just how matter exists in our dimension and higher dimensions.

Once you start seeing there are mathematical models, scientific postulates, and increasingly possible theories of how this physical universe could have developed, you see there is less and less need for supernatural claims of origin.

If we have a good number of logical scientific theories that offer explainations for origin, why would one be inclined to believe ones not based on fact?

I dont claim to know the answer, and Im not sure if we will have a good answer before I die. However I am happy to say "i dont know", and continue my effort to find the answer. I take offense at the concept of people half-hazardly handing out these answers, and thus taking away from the effort to prove/throw away the current legitamate theories. How much faster do you think we could find the real answers if humanity as a whole devoted itself to trying to test these theories, instead of raising their hands in prayer to Shiva.

[Seraph]

How much faster do you think we could find the real answers if humanity as a whole devoted itself to trying to test these theories, instead of raising their hands in prayer to Shiva.

What, you want to work 7 days a week? Yeah right~

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

This kind of post is what's so amazingly frustrating in these "debates": the sheer ignorance of how the phenomenon of religion has developed over the years and what the meaning of different things are.

Let's start with the first part: The Bible has at various times included different books and passages. It has been translated multiple times, sometimes with vastly different meanings. Many statements are vague as to the implications of meaning. As most religions will tell you, the works are largely allegorical. They are "infallible" but the direct meaning is open to interpretation.

The Bagavad Gita, after it was written, it was not changed, but many new texts were added.

The Talmud's express purpose was to interpret and expand upon the torah. Different components of it were written at different times. Not only that, but it has multiple opinions in the text. It contains arguments and though it gives you the verdict, it doesn't shut down argument, because that would be against the point, because the point of the talmud was to academically argue how to set the laws to live in accordance to the guidelines set by the Torah. Its purpose was to change and update itself, the reason it hasn't been is because the Romans took over and destroyed the Sanhedrin.

The Koran has, as far as I know, not changed. Islam seems to revere its holy book the most sacred of all, as not even translations are considered accurate as they lose the specific nuance of the Arabic language and gain unintended nuance.

The positions of the Catholic Church have changed wildly over time and the word of the church can supercede the bible. The reason protestant christianity was formed was because some people found that was being abused with things like indulgences and thus created their own independent groups dedicated simply to the text. They rejected the historical meaning and nuance that was learned by the church and decided to simplify. The protestants were like the strict constitutionalists, who wanted simply what was written on their text to be considered the religion.

Religions can and do change. Feel free to have your own opinion, but get the facts first.

btw, when was the last time they updated the Scientific Method? And what religion was the guy who did the pioneering work on it?

Religion doesn't change, interpretation of the same base texts change, and thus can move backwards and forwards depending on the interpreter. Science consistently moves forward as it is weighed against past arguments. Sure contradictory text is added to religious volumes but it doesn't take away or strike down previous verses or chapters, it just adds flames to the fire.

This is hardly a rebuttal to my posts, it doesn't even touch on the points I've made. The basic text for any religion remains the same regardless of the times. You've only furthered my point that different interpretations of the same basic rules laid out by one "holy" book are all that has changed.

Science is a set of laws that are proven, and if not proven theorized and debated freely.

Religion, and the script of a religious volume cannot be debated on its content or merit ( by its followers ), only interpreted differently and exploited for a particular end.

My facts are correct and stand uncontested. Maybe read my entire post instead of skimming it responding to one piece?

Edit : When I said Talmud I meant the Torah. Misspoke on my part so I apologize for the confusion on that

[Kwijiboe]

Your facts?

[Seraph]

Religion doesn't change, interpretation of the same base texts change, and thus can move backwards and forwards depending on the interpreter. Science consistently moves forward as it is weighed against past arguments. Sure contradictory text is added to religious volumes but it doesn't take away or strike down previous verses or chapters, it just adds flames to the fire.

This is hardly a rebuttal to my posts, it doesn't even touch on the points I've made. The basic text for any religion remains the same regardless of the times. You've only furthered my point that different interpretations of the same basic rules laid out by one "holy" book are all that has changed.

Science is a set of laws that are proven, and if not proven theorized and debated freely.

Religion, and the script of a religious volume cannot be debated on its content or merit ( by its followers ), only interpreted differently and exploited for a particular end.

My facts are correct and stand uncontested. Maybe read my entire post instead of skimming it responding to one piece?

If you mean the definition of the word 'religion', I will agree with you. That doesn't change.

Otherwise I disagree completely. Core beliefs of a specific religion often do not change, but new religions spring up, and portions of them are altered, revised, replaced, or just thrown away. The only 'fact' you have established is that often the rules and beliefs of a religion are often written down for safe keeping. These scripts are rewritten, and altered in multiple ways over time. What people worship and how they worship it is in constant flux to best accommodate their ability to worship that which they believe in. As far as Christianity is concerned, many of the lessons and teachings in the New Testament are meant to directly replace or compliment those in the Old Testament. If that isn't change in religion, I just don't know what is.

You haven't presented any evidence to the contrary, and have been contested successfully by multiple people. I think you are just desperately trying to win on the losing side of a semantics war. Religion wasn't perfect when it started, many people know this, and as a result it changes over time to try to compensate with that.

Maybe you meant to say "Religious people are stubborn." That's a more vague insult that can't be directly proven wrong or torn apart.

[Kaylia]

This kind of post is what's so amazingly frustrating in these "debates": the sheer ignorance of how the phenomenon of religion has developed over the years and what the meaning of different things are.

Let's start with the first part: The Bible has at various times included different books and passages. It has been translated multiple times, sometimes with vastly different meanings. Many statements are vague as to the implications of meaning. As most religions will tell you, the works are largely allegorical. They are "infallible" but the direct meaning is open to interpretation.

The Bagavad Gita, after it was written, it was not changed, but many new texts were added.

The Talmud's express purpose was to interpret and expand upon the torah. Different components of it were written at different times. Not only that, but it has multiple opinions in the text. It contains arguments and though it gives you the verdict, it doesn't shut down argument, because that would be against the point, because the point of the talmud was to academically argue how to set the laws to live in accordance to the guidelines set by the Torah. Its purpose was to change and update itself, the reason it hasn't been is because the Romans took over and destroyed the Sanhedrin.

The Koran has, as far as I know, not changed. Islam seems to revere its holy book the most sacred of all, as not even translations are considered accurate as they lose the specific nuance of the Arabic language and gain unintended nuance.

The positions of the Catholic Church have changed wildly over time and the word of the church can supercede the bible. The reason protestant christianity was formed was because some people found that was being abused with things like indulgences and thus created their own independent groups dedicated simply to the text. They rejected the historical meaning and nuance that was learned by the church and decided to simplify. The protestants were like the strict constitutionalists, who wanted simply what was written on their text to be considered the religion.

Religions can and do change. Feel free to have your own opinion, but get the facts first.

btw, when was the last time they updated the Scientific Method? And what religion was the guy who did the pioneering work on it?

It's the only post that I read, but what you said is right. It's an important misconception many people seem to overlook.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

If you mean the definition of the word 'religion', I will agree with you. That doesn't change.

Otherwise I disagree completely. Core beliefs of a specific religion often do not change, but new religions spring up, and portions of them are altered, revised, replaced, or just thrown away. The only 'fact' you have established is that often the rules and beliefs of a religion are often written down for safe keeping. These scripts are rewritten, and altered in multiple ways over time. What people worship and how they worship it is in constant flux to best accommodate their ability to worship that which they believe in. As far as Christianity is concerned, many of the lessons and teachings in the New Testament are meant to directly replace or compliment those in the Old Testament. If that isn't change in religion, I just don't know what is.

You haven't presented any evidence to the contrary, and have been contested successfully by multiple people. I think you are just desperately trying to win on the losing side of a semantics war. Religion wasn't perfect when it started, many people know this, and as a result it changes over time to try to compensate with that.

Maybe you meant to say "Religious people are stubborn." That's a more vague insult that can't be directly proven wrong or torn apart.

How old is the "New Testament"?

You're making a claim that religion and science are two sides of the same coin which is the furthest thing from the truth. Science is an applied method of divulging truth by experimentation and is always up for revision. A religion is entirely based off of the recorded teachings of one or several people and usually collected into one text and the practitioners never say "Oh this isn't right let's throw this out because this came to light," they just find a new way to practice or interpret it that is socially acceptable.

Case in point, Muslims living in the outskirts of Pakistan stone a woman for being raped. Muslims in the US wouldn't do that. Same religion, same book, different interpretations based on circumstances.

If I go to a village in the outskirts of Pakistan, gravity will work the same way it does in New York City.

You can't compare the two. Now spirituality can change, one persons understanding of metaphysics and the universe can change, but a set of rules and ideas outlined by a religion cannot change or evolve.

A new religion "springing up" isn't change in 'religion'. We must be arguing two different things or you're just entirely missing the point and not understanding a word.

[Tristam]

I don't think it's as much of a case as avoiding anarchy, as trying to be better. Scientists are constantly trying to understand the 'big bang' and what possibly came before it. Why is that? Humanity want's to understand the actions that set their existence in motion, whether is was somehow guided by a higher power, or by some lucky set of circumstances.

One of my beefs is that many people assume that divine intervention always has to come in the form of a lightening bolt, or a man on the cross, or the sudden creation of a paradise garden, or a magical hat, or a burning bush, or an old man descending from the clouds complete with white robes, beard, and choirs of angels escorting him. I often wonder why the laws of physics work the way they do. I often wonder why the unique properties of water and the hydrogen bond allow it to act in such a way to make life possible. I often think about just how amazing it is that Earth is rotating a star that can give off the correct type and amount of energy to support life, and rotates it at such a distance to make this possible, in such a way as to reflect enough energy to prevent damage, but sustain life. I often think how interesting it is that all of the components to create life exist in a location where it's creation is even possible.

It all seems extremely lucky, that the uncountable number of events happened in such a fashion to allow us to even exits. In addition, the compilation of forces in the universe and their interaction with one another is a wonder to behold, and indescribable to complete detail with the tools humanity has at it's disposal. This may be the reason why so many people choose to assume there is some higher power governing or helping in how the universe works. Either they are correct, or the assumption is incorrect because of the lack of human understanding. Given enough time, eventually one way or the other we might find out for sure. Until that day though, all bets are off, and everyone is just as likely incorrect as everyone else. In the meantime however, it is fun to 'compare religious notes', so to speak.

And one of my beefs is the argument from personal incredulity, just because everything seems "just so perfect" or "lucky" to someone dosen't mean that there is a god. In fact it's not evidence for anything. It means things are the way they are because they are the way they are. And until we find out why they are the way they are there's no reason to assume divine intervention.

There may be a time when humans have enough knowledge of the universe to suggest, as many suspect, that we are not all that special whatsoever.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Religion doesn't change, interpretation of the same base texts change, and thus can move backwards and forwards depending on the interpreter. Science consistently moves forward as it is weighed against past arguments. Sure contradictory text is added to religious volumes but it doesn't take away or strike down previous verses or chapters, it just adds flames to the fire.

This is hardly a rebuttal to my posts, it doesn't even touch on the points I've made. The basic text for any religion remains the same regardless of the times. You've only furthered my point that different interpretations of the same basic rules laid out by one "holy" book are all that has changed.

Science is a set of laws that are proven, and if not proven theorized and debated freely.

Religion, and the script of a religious volume cannot be debated on its content or merit ( by its followers ), only interpreted differently and exploited for a particular end.

My facts are correct and stand uncontested. Maybe read my entire post instead of skimming it responding to one piece?

Edit : When I said Talmud I meant the Torah. Misspoke on my part so I apologize for the confusion on that

I did read it. It was all conceived based on a simple premise that was simply false.

I'm not arguing against science, I wouldn't really do that, I only use it as an example as something that you think is comparable to religion so that you can better relate to what I'm saying. I'm not even arguing. I'm stating well known facts that seem to escape your grasp.

It doesn't matter if religions keep the same book, it's the belief and faith that matters. If those change, the most definitive and important part of the religion changes. Furthermore, these religions existed long before the books were necessarily codified in definitive fashion. The Catholic Bible was not even specifically defined as having specific books until they were faced with the Protestants in the 1500s. The current composition of that bible is less than 500 years old.

"Religion, and the script of a religious volume cannot be debated on its content or merit ( by its followers ), only interpreted differently and exploited for a particular end." That is specifically and completely wrong. There is respect for authorities in most religious practices but by no means are there never ideas that are created by common people and by no means can common people not ascend the ranks if they want to. The merit of specific sections can be added or removed. That's why there are so many Christian denominations; they have different views on what's important in the Bible. Check out the Gnostics if you want to see a radically different version of Christianity.

Your facts are wrong.

And I don't care if you meant the Torah instead of the Talmud; the Talmud is arguably more important anyways.

That's not even beginning to discuss how modern, secular society has completely changed how religion is interpreted or how the core of science, the scientific method, has not changed since it was conceived by Catholics monks and Muslim theologists.

[Melchiah]

Judeo-Christian belief is arrogance exemplified. We are made in the image of a being who is at once omni-benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent. Our God gives us divine mandate to purge the world of non-believers either through assimilation or blood. Our beliefs are truth on their own merit and are not subject to any type of question or test.

Is it just me, or is the whole faith thing just a very convenient cop-out? I know this is the truth because I believe it to be so, and as such my beliefs defy demonstration to the contrary?

I'm trying to be objective and not derogatory, but it's really hard on an issue this obtuse.

Also, Religion gets "interpreted", science is normally pretty cut and dried.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I did read it. It was all conceived based on a simple premise that was simply false.

I'm not arguing against science, I wouldn't really do that, I only use it as an example as something that you think is comparable to religion so that you can better relate to what I'm saying. I'm not even arguing. I'm stating well known facts that seem to escape your grasp.

It doesn't matter if religions keep the same book, it's the belief and faith that matters. If those change, the most definitive and important part of the religion changes. Furthermore, these religions existed long before the books were necessarily codified in definitive fashion. The Catholic Bible was not even specifically defined as having specific books until they were faced with the Protestants in the 1500s. The current composition of that bible is less than 500 years old.

"Religion, and the script of a religious volume cannot be debated on its content or merit ( by its followers ), only interpreted differently and exploited for a particular end." That is specifically and completely wrong. There is respect for authorities in most religious practices but by no means are there never ideas that are created by common people and by no means can common people not ascend the ranks if they want to. The merit of specific sections can be added or removed. That's why there are so many Christian denominations; they have different views on what's important in the Bible. Check out the Gnostics if you want to see a radically different version of Christianity.

Your facts are wrong.

And I don't care if you meant the Torah instead of the Talmud; the Talmud is arguably more important anyways.

That's not even beginning to discuss how modern, secular society has completely changed how religion is interpreted or how the core of science, the scientific method, has not changed since it was conceived by Catholics monks and Muslim theologists.

Right, any faith or view or practice of a religion comes from one source. Why this is so hard for you to comprehend is beyond me. You're treating this is something of fact that religion is changing when it is still based entirely off of one source. This is fact, you haven't disproven anything.

You're giving an example of denominations of the teaching of Christ and saying religion has changed to counter my argument that denominations are based off of one sources and simply interpretation, and you even agree on the point of interpretation. You don't even have a grasp on what you're arguing about and you're trying to use "fact" as your argument? You make zero sense.

All you're pointing to is that there are many branches of one tree, and new branches can grow from that. They are still part of the same tree. The same rules. The ideas. The same source. This is not growth. This is not change. This is evidenced by a view of religion reverting back to something you or I would consider archaic. This does not occur within the realm of science.

So whatever you're trying to argue, in my argument that religion and science are not equals to be debated or decided on which is "best" as a "belief" and picking out bits and pieces, isn't making sense. Let's try to use the context of my argument and why I'm making the points I'm making in comparison.

The fact remains that religion, which is based on the belief of the teachings or combined teachings put together in a text do not change. Religion doesn't change or progress,
the same teachings are just interpreted differently with different results. This is not the same in science. So when Seraph says that the jury is still out on what to believe in either religion or science, my case points out thats like me saying the jury is still out on whether I should eat an apple or a tire.

[BRP]

science is normally pretty cut and dried.

hahahahahahahahahahaha

jajajaja