10 Sep 2009, 12:11 am
10 Sep 2009, 12:21 am
10 Sep 2009, 10:45 am
Sand wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
DeaconBlues wrote:
(In fact, the attitude seems to be restricted to the Abrahamic faiths, although only certain fundamentalist branches of Christianity and Islam exhibit it these days.)
There's plenty buddhists that kill infidels too.
Where? When? Who? Please cite plausible news sources.
ruveyn
See http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/slrv.htm
And now we have "Plotinus" claiming to be from Sri Lanka talking about military might enforced on the people and the incomprehensible nature of Nirvana.
sartresue
Veteran
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 69
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism
10 Sep 2009, 10:52 am
skafather84 wrote:
Sand wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
DeaconBlues wrote:
(In fact, the attitude seems to be restricted to the Abrahamic faiths, although only certain fundamentalist branches of Christianity and Islam exhibit it these days.)
There's plenty buddhists that kill infidels too.
Where? When? Who? Please cite plausible news sources.
ruveyn
See http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/slrv.htm
And now we have "Plotinus" claiming to be from Sri Lanka talking about military might enforced on the people and the incomprehensible nature of Nirvana.
Infidel-ity topic
Is it a plot?
10 Sep 2009, 10:57 am
sartresue wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Sand wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
DeaconBlues wrote:
(In fact, the attitude seems to be restricted to the Abrahamic faiths, although only certain fundamentalist branches of Christianity and Islam exhibit it these days.)
There's plenty buddhists that kill infidels too.
Where? When? Who? Please cite plausible news sources.
ruveyn
See http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/slrv.htm
And now we have "Plotinus" claiming to be from Sri Lanka talking about military might enforced on the people and the incomprehensible nature of Nirvana.
Infidel-ity topic
Is it a plot?
No. It's a plop of the usual stuff that goes "plop"".
sartresue
Veteran
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 69
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism
10 Sep 2009, 11:02 am
Sand wrote:
sartresue wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Sand wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
DeaconBlues wrote:
(In fact, the attitude seems to be restricted to the Abrahamic faiths, although only certain fundamentalist branches of Christianity and Islam exhibit it these days.)
There's plenty buddhists that kill infidels too.
Where? When? Who? Please cite plausible news sources.
ruveyn
See http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/slrv.htm
And now we have "Plotinus" claiming to be from Sri Lanka talking about military might enforced on the people and the incomprehensible nature of Nirvana.
Infidel-ity topic
Is it a plot?
No. It's a plop of the usual stuff that goes "plop"".
Fizz, fizz topic
Oh, what a relief it is.
Good one.
10 Sep 2009, 9:58 pm
Sand wrote:
number5 wrote:
EC wrote:
Religion cannot co-exist with science. Theists can try to rationalize and say, well of course evolution happened - God did it. This argument is called God of the Gaps, because wherever there is a gap in human knowledge, it can be filled with God. For example, 2000 years ago in Scandinavia, people believed that whenever thunder roared above their heads, it was Thor's doing; Thor was angry, and was pounding his hammer in the sky. Now of course we know that thunder is a sonic shockwave produced by lightning.
Saying that religion is compatible with science is a lie; religion actively attempts to destroy the influence of science, sabotage science itself, and wants nothing more than the total abolition of science and the instatement of theocracy. To an arm-chair theist, what I'm saying most likely sounds offensive, but whoever pushes this nonsense about science being compatible with its mortal enemy should really read the bible.
Saying that religion is compatible with science is a lie; religion actively attempts to destroy the influence of science, sabotage science itself, and wants nothing more than the total abolition of science and the instatement of theocracy. To an arm-chair theist, what I'm saying most likely sounds offensive, but whoever pushes this nonsense about science being compatible with its mortal enemy should really read the bible.
Agreed. All we really need to do is look at religous trends. People were generally more religious when more gaps were present. Now that the gaps are closing, people either accept the science and forfeit some (or all) aspects of their religion, or they cling harder to religion by embracing their God and rejecting the scientifically filled gap. If you believe in virgin birth, then you are rejecting science in favor of religion.
As an atheist I regard religion as a vestigial plague on human good sense and development but a virgin birth is a lot more possible than some of the more outrageous concepts. Quite a few animals are parthenogenetic but the uniform product is always female. Which leads to the odd conclusion that Christ was a bearded lady.
Actually, no; it's a common misconception (if you'll pardon the term), but the Virgin Birth of Catholic doctrine was that of Mary, not Jesus. The idea was that since Mary was born without the sin of Adam on her soul (apparently Adam's sin was sex, rather than disobedience - who knew?), she was a pure enough vessel to bear the Christ.
Personally, I think that's a load of dingo's kidneys, but it's a matter of belief, not fact...
Still and all, though, if the Virgin Birth were parthenogenetic, Mary would still fit the profile - female.
10 Sep 2009, 10:08 pm
DeaconBlues wrote:
Sand wrote:
number5 wrote:
EC wrote:
Religion cannot co-exist with science. Theists can try to rationalize and say, well of course evolution happened - God did it. This argument is called God of the Gaps, because wherever there is a gap in human knowledge, it can be filled with God. For example, 2000 years ago in Scandinavia, people believed that whenever thunder roared above their heads, it was Thor's doing; Thor was angry, and was pounding his hammer in the sky. Now of course we know that thunder is a sonic shockwave produced by lightning.
Saying that religion is compatible with science is a lie; religion actively attempts to destroy the influence of science, sabotage science itself, and wants nothing more than the total abolition of science and the instatement of theocracy. To an arm-chair theist, what I'm saying most likely sounds offensive, but whoever pushes this nonsense about science being compatible with its mortal enemy should really read the bible.
Saying that religion is compatible with science is a lie; religion actively attempts to destroy the influence of science, sabotage science itself, and wants nothing more than the total abolition of science and the instatement of theocracy. To an arm-chair theist, what I'm saying most likely sounds offensive, but whoever pushes this nonsense about science being compatible with its mortal enemy should really read the bible.
Agreed. All we really need to do is look at religous trends. People were generally more religious when more gaps were present. Now that the gaps are closing, people either accept the science and forfeit some (or all) aspects of their religion, or they cling harder to religion by embracing their God and rejecting the scientifically filled gap. If you believe in virgin birth, then you are rejecting science in favor of religion.
As an atheist I regard religion as a vestigial plague on human good sense and development but a virgin birth is a lot more possible than some of the more outrageous concepts. Quite a few animals are parthenogenetic but the uniform product is always female. Which leads to the odd conclusion that Christ was a bearded lady.
Actually, no; it's a common misconception (if you'll pardon the term), but the Virgin Birth of Catholic doctrine was that of Mary, not Jesus. The idea was that since Mary was born without the sin of Adam on her soul (apparently Adam's sin was sex, rather than disobedience - who knew?), she was a pure enough vessel to bear the Christ.
Personally, I think that's a load of dingo's kidneys, but it's a matter of belief, not fact...
Still and all, though, if the Virgin Birth were parthenogenetic, Mary would still fit the profile - female.You seem to be saying that Mary's mother was invaded by God to produce her and Jesus is left out of the virgin birth business. That's a new one on me.
11 Sep 2009, 1:40 am
19 Sep 2009, 4:49 pm
19 Sep 2009, 4:53 pm
05 Mar 2011, 12:52 pm
05 Mar 2011, 1:33 pm
05 Mar 2011, 3:19 pm
I don't think religion and science can work together. For one thing that throws scientific method out the window, as believing in a supernatural origin of creation means you operate your experiments with a foregone conclusion. I doubt a Christian or Muslim scientist would work to Falsify god, Falsification being an important part of methodology
Quote:
I regard religion as a vestigial plague on human good sense and development
Pretty well. Its like our parasitic conjoined twin that uses our blood supply but it is composed only of arms and legs and a backbone without any neural tissue, growing off our back and slowing us down. We can't just cut it off as we risk our lives in the process; we have to wait for medicine to develop a safe technique to separate us
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Intelligent design has no place in science classrooms. |
17 Mar 2024, 8:20 pm |
| Anybody working from home in tech field |
28 Feb 2024, 9:59 am |
| People working out inspire me but doesn't get me into a gym |
08 Mar 2024, 5:13 pm |
| Feel bad that I didn't start working at 16, 17 or 18 |
27 Mar 2024, 4:20 pm |
