Faith and Reason.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Right, any faith or view or practice of a religion comes from one source. Why this is so hard for you to comprehend this 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.

Because it doesn't. I don't know how you can think that they don't change. They wouldn't still be around if they didn't change. They have to figure out answers to new questions and by doing that they have to reinterpret things. Interpretation defines the meaning of the words in those texts. Changing the meaning of those words... what the hell do you want?

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 you're saying that because they don't destroy the foundations of the religions they don't actually change?

Ok sure.

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.

Holy crap, did you just say that science and religion aren't the same? Holy motherfucking shit, did you just hear that, everyone? Maybe, just maybe, they can coexist!

Religion isn't about the text. It just isn't. It definitively isn't. That's why the Catholics didn't completely define a canon until the 1500s and needed to change (GASP) its policy of not having such a text to combat the protestants. Religions can be made without texts. Religious texts can be understood without following the religion. They intertwine, but come on man.

[Melchiah]

hahahahahahahahahahaha

jajajaja

Oh fine BRP. Let me clarify:

The scientific method proclaims truth as something that can be demonstrated, duplicated, quantified. Gravity is not open to interpretation. Heliocentricity is not open to interpretation. Science does not hide it's errors behind metaphor and allegory. When something is scientifically proven to be false, the community accepts the previous error and seeks to obtain the truth.

When religion is shown to be in error, more specifically church dogma, if it cannot bully it's way into compliance, the metaphor card gets pulled. Case in point: The Great Commission. There is a verse somewhere that makes the statement that before he dies, every man will have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ, so that every man might have the opportunity to repent and accept Jesus. Now, America and South America and Australia were unknown to the ancient world. So how did all those people before Columbus and the Spanish and the English in the 1400s get evangelized? Surely, if God is at once omni-benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent, he'd have told someone about the New World. That alone should indicate that the Bible, and Judeo-Christian religion is completely a product of man, and no other.

[Denchi]

Wait, I still don't understand how proving that science is pretty good at getting facts right either debunks religion or gives meaning to the world. Other than "It's pretty interesting." which it is.

Also, Neitzsche was absolutely anti-nationalism, but somehow people were led to interpret his thoughts differently and give rise to the whole Nazi ordeal, which was one giant fucking Nationalist gang-bang. Simply because people can read a text different ways, certainly doesn't make the original text incorrect.

[Archain]

God is love.

Love is blind.

Ray Charles is blind.

Therefore, Ray Charles must be God.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Holy crap, did you just say that science and religion aren't the same? Holy motherfucking shit, did you just hear that, everyone? Maybe, just maybe, they can coexist!

You must be under the assumption that I'm pitting one versus the other, which I am doing the opposite. Again, you're throwing context out of the window and arguing against something I never even posited.

Once more, I'm arguing against Seraph's case that religion and science are two sides of the same coin and both take some amount of faith to adhere to. I think this is not true because of these differences I am pointing out.

I never said nor intended to imply that once cancels the other out or that religion should be thrown out all together. I'm simply pointing out the differences in practice and understanding of the two. You seem to have this bug up your ass that I'm out to insult religion or debunk it entirely.

Religion isn't about the text. It just isn't. It definitively isn't. That's why the Catholics didn't completely define a canon until the 1500s and needed to change (GASP) its policy of not having such a text to combat the protestants. Religions can be made without texts. Religious texts can be understood without following the religion. They intertwine, but come on man.

I'm glad you picked the word "text" to respond to when I used teachings and other forms of communication to relay information and ideas about a belief. The point still stands that religion is structured around a base of defined and set ideas, regardless of the nine million interpretations of that base set of teachings there is still a structure that will not be altered regardless of new information coming to light. This is proven, this is fact.

[netz]

God is love.

Love is blind.

Ray Charles is blind.

Therefore, Ray Charles must be God.

The world would be a better place if everyone knew how to do mathematical proofs. Then, the erroneous assumption that religious books can be used in proofs (of creation, a God, etc) as axioms would hopefully go away.

Why in the world should anyone make that assumption? People have been duping each other for as long as mankind existed; why would you trust anything that you cannot easily prove to yourself?

What the is the point of belief, anyway, when it's very obvious that you shouldn't "just believe"? All across the world, people have come up with multiple, mutually exclusive belief systems, and you want me to trust that one of them is right...?

[Archain]

The world would be a better place if everyone knew how to do mathematical proofs. Then, the erroneous assumption that religious books can be used in proofs (of creation, a God, etc) as axioms would hopefully go away.

Why in the world should anyone make that assumption? People have been duping each other for as long as mankind existed; why would you trust anything that you cannot easily prove to yourself?

What the is the point of belief, anyway, when it's very obvious that you shouldn't "just believe"? All across the world, people have come up with multiple, mutually exclusive belief systems, and you want me to trust that one of them is right...?

You took what was supposed to be a post made in jest as something serious. I'm assuming that someone really must have made their way under your skin or you read the thread and something got you fired up and my retarded joke post was probably the easiest target. This is probably the only part of my post directed at you since it appears we're saying the same thing anyway.



Here's how I see things.

I'm agnostic. I believe that religion was created by people to control people. I view many present day religions as corrupt. Whether or not a god actually exists is not something that I would be able to answer. I personally don't believe that faith in anything is required in order to stay morally sound. In my eyes the Bible is the best selling fiction of all time.

While I hate the religious zealots of the world, I also hate militant aethiests. I don't need someone on either side shoving their beliefs down my throat. I'm not anti-God, I'm anti-religion.

I don't think you can compare the truths of science to the beliefs of religion.

[Melchiah]

Here's one for the conspiracy theorists:

In the old Jewish tradition, sacrifices of food were left on the altar, and were used to feed the priests. Lazy fuckers who didn't want to till a field or herd cattle create a religion that gets them fed, who's with me?

[Eratosthenes]

Here's one for the conspiracy theorists:

In the old Jewish tradition, sacrifices of food were left on the altar, and were used to feed the priests. Lazy fuckers who didn't want to till a field or herd cattle create a religion that gets them fed, who's with me?

That's kind of what I figured out from reading Exodus and Numbers. Moses got it all set up so his tribe (Levi) got to live off the rest of the tribes in exchange for not getting any land, and also got to be in charge at the same time, like the whole taxation without representation thing that drove the American colonies to revolt.

[Denchi]

The Jews have it made, because they don't have to convert anyone, they just feel sorry for people who aren't chosen like them.

[Neosutra]

Why do I see this turning into an israeli/palestine debate Q.Q.

On the topic of religion, I was curious if some of the theists here could detail a few of their reasons for believing. Not looking for overreaching "because I feel its the right answer", but more of a "well I dont think X could have happened without a god". One of the reasons I talk about religion alot is because it facinates me what makes various people believe. Ive talked with trailer trash theists and quantum physicist theist, and oddly enough they both believe for the same reason "I just believe". The ability to apply such arduous methodology to your physical work and suspend that system for your religious beliefs blows me away.

[Eratosthenes]

PYGMIES + DWARVES!

[Melchiah]

Why do I see this turning into an israeli/palestine debate Q.Q.

On the topic of religion, I was curious if some of the theists here could detail a few of their reasons for believing. Not looking for overreaching "because I feel its the right answer", but more of a "well I dont think X could have happened without a god". One of the reasons I talk about religion alot is because it facinates me what makes various people believe. Ive talked with trailer trash theists and quantum physicist theist, and oddly enough they both believe for the same reason "I just believe". The ability to apply such arduous methodology to your physical work and suspend that system for your religious beliefs blows me away.

Neo, I can give you the three main reasons why I *used* to believe, in order of importance:

1) Fear of the void

2) Because adults(who are supposed to know whats best when you're a kid) told me so

3) Tradition/Social Pressures

And I *know* I'm not the only one.

[Mizango]

Neo, I can give you the three main reasons why I *used* to believe, in order of importance:

1) Fear of the void

2) Because adults(who are supposed to know whats best when you're a kid) told me so

3) Tradition/Social Pressures

And I *know* I'm not the only one.

Pretty much the same as thoughts I used to have, in the same chronological order.

[Neosutra]

Where I grew up, it was a generally accepted truth. I mean, come on.. your teachers/pastor/parents/friends/city cant all be delusional can they!? Only a small % of mankind ever questions their reality/world/society, so it is no suprise that so many people just accept these beliefs as fact. The concept that everyone a person trusts has been feeding them BS (wether intentionally or not), is too much for some to handle.

[Maxxthepenguin]

You must be under the assumption that I'm pitting one versus the other, which I am doing the opposite. Again, you're throwing context out of the window and arguing against something I never even posited.

Once more, I'm arguing against Seraph's case that religion and science are two sides of the same coin and both take some amount of faith to adhere to. I think this is not true because of these differences I am pointing out.

I never said nor intended to imply that once cancels the other out or that religion should be thrown out all together. I'm simply pointing out the differences in practice and understanding of the two. You seem to have this bug up your ass that I'm out to insult religion or debunk it entirely.

I was pointing out a particularly irksome detail that seems to perpetuate. I assumed you were one of the people who is fighting the war of science vs religion. If you aren't, I apologize.

I'm glad you picked the word "text" to respond to when I used teachings and other forms of communication to relay information and ideas about a belief. The point still stands that religion is structured around a base of defined and set ideas, regardless of the nine million interpretations of that base set of teachings there is still a structure that will not be altered regardless of new information coming to light. This is proven, this is fact.

You seemed to talk about the texts for the most part ("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") and, honestly, I don't see how you can possibly believe other teachings that aren't written down don't change. If they aren't written down, they're likely to change incredibly fast. I mean, Christianity is centered around belief that Jesus, the whitest man in the middle east, is the son of god who is here to save all of mankind by getting killed and coming back to life before just gtfoing again. There are core beliefs. All that is well and good, but the point is, that isn't what really matters. The important stuff that affects the followers' lives, like evangelizing, following certain biblical laws and not others, views on how to treat the poor, general morality, etc etc is in flux at all times, adapting to the society that they are working in.

I was discussing your initial, mindboggling statement

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.

I clearly showed how edits and amendments are made to run with the times, specifically with the Catholic church. I cited a specific example. Notice, you are clearly talking about texts. You are saying the ideas and beliefs derived from said texts never change. You derive ideas and beliefs from the interpretations of the text, and it's not "more strict" or "less strict" in most cases. It's simply different.

God, it's so hard to make somebody with such a strong belief that religion never changes change his belief, despite real evidence.

[Neosutra]

You seem to be under the impression that science and faith can be reconciled, and are not infact by definition opposites Max. Or am I misrepresnting your words?

There is no overlap between science and faith. There is simply those that chose to apply a standard to their beliefs, and those that do not. They are different sides of the ven diagram, with no grey overlapping areas.

[Eratosthenes]

Neo, I can give you the three main reasons why I *used* to believe, in order of importance:

1) Fear of the void

2) Because adults(who are supposed to know whats best when you're a kid) told me so

3) Tradition/Social Pressures

And I *know* I'm not the only one.

I, also for these reasons, once thought I was a Christian.

I recall one day in my church's youth group, where we had all divided into small groups, my group leader decided that we'd go through everybody and state why we were Christians. When it became time for me to answer, I was embarrassed that the best thing I could come up with was "I was raised Christian". I now realize that I didn't believe even then and probably never really did, because if I'd been raised Muslim, I'd have thought I was a Muslim, and so on with anything else. Traditions and upbringing are not reasons to believe anything.

[Seraph]

Why do I see this turning into an israeli/palestine debate Q.Q.

On the topic of religion, I was curious if some of the theists here could detail a few of their reasons for believing. Not looking for overreaching "because I feel its the right answer", but more of a "well I dont think X could have happened without a god". One of the reasons I talk about religion alot is because it facinates me what makes various people believe. Ive talked with trailer trash theists and quantum physicist theist, and oddly enough they both believe for the same reason "I just believe". The ability to apply such arduous methodology to your physical work and suspend that system for your religious beliefs blows me away.

If you are brought up religious, and no one can give you a better answer than the first one you heard, why would you switch? Same principle applies to the non religious. You kinda make it seem like god has been disproven, and people believe anyway. That isn't the case.

I'd personally guess that if you are implying that intelligent individuals should rebuke religion, the motivating force behind their faith might very well be "What are the odds this could happen?" or possibly "If I'm wrong, no problem. If I'm right, bonus for me." Maybe people are just lazy to change their ways, or maybe something happened in their lives that defies explanation and compels them to believe. I bet the reasons will be as different as people are different.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Absolutely. Notice my frequent references to the people who developed the scientific method who happened to be Muslim and Catholic?