Page 3 of 4 [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

09 Sep 2009, 9:21 pm

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.


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.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 93
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,876
Location: Finland

09 Sep 2009, 10:19 pm

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.


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.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

10 Sep 2009, 12:11 am

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



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 93
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,876
Location: Finland

10 Sep 2009, 12:21 am

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



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,156
Location: New Orleans, LA

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. :roll:


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,766
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. :roll:


Infidel-ity topic

Is it a plot? :?:


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 93
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,876
Location: Finland

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. :roll:


Infidel-ity topic

Is it a plot? :?:


No. It's a plop of the usual stuff that goes "plop"".



sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,766
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. :roll:


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. 8)


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,960
Location: Earth, mostly

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.


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.


_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 93
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,876
Location: Finland

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.


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.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

11 Sep 2009, 1:40 am

number5 wrote:

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.


Religion and theology were mankind's first attempt to make some kind of sense of a world that no one really understood. Religion and theology were later replaced by a more naturalistic mode of thought. Look up pre-Socratic philosophy. The Greeks were the first to purge the gods from an understanding of the world.

ruveyn



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,208
Location: Houston, Texas

19 Sep 2009, 4:49 pm

In the Bible, when it says how the Earth was created, it doesn't state the step-by-step process that God used to create things. Also, one "day" could have easily been 50 days.

As one who doesn't take the Bible literally, I can say that it leaves a lot of discussion in the science vs. religion topic.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

19 Sep 2009, 4:53 pm

Tim_Tex wrote:
In the Bible, when it says how the Earth was created, it doesn't state the step-by-step process that God used to create things. Also, one "day" could have easily been 50 days.

As one who doesn't take the Bible literally, I can say that it leaves a lot of discussion in the science vs. religion topic.


Testability and falsifiability is not at the heart of religious thinking. That makes it incompatible with science.

ruveyn



pgd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624

05 Mar 2011, 12:52 pm

Religion working together with science - Many religions mix with science the way water does with oil. Religion is more closely associated with opera, theater, entertaining storytelling, Vaudeville, and Saturday morning cartoons than science (my view).



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,985

05 Mar 2011, 1:33 pm

Under no circumstances would I pray to an aubergine, and I do not know and neverr knowingly will possess one.

Horrible things, even the cute white ones that deserve the name eggplant [I also do not tolerate most forms of cooked egg] unlike the seriously misrepresented purple hulks.

Though they are not the ONLY reason moussaka is one [not the one, simply one] Greek dish I will not willingly ingest.

But I have never heard of anyone attempting to communicate with solanaceous fruit and receiving an answer - not even with a tuber as Mr Potato Head.

I keep my prayer for one who communicates in return.