This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Religion
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Modulo definitions for "some" and "obvious", that's what I just said. I'm sure you have very strong opinions about which teachings are definitively clear and what constitutes deviation from them, but it's likely that some of the many people who disagree with those opinions have tolerably good reasons for doing so.
The same people who insist that people leave their opinions out of facts, and approach science without bias, will insist that something as important as Christianity should be approached with whatever bias and opinion is desired.
Post by
Skreeran
That's because science, by nature, is based on objectivity, while religion is, by nature, subjective.
Your own denomination of Christianity wouldn't even exist if people hadn't deviated from the traditionally accepted (Catholic) interpetation of the Bible.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
That's because science, by nature, is based on objectivity, while religion is, by nature, subjective.
Your own denomination of Christianity wouldn't even exist if people hadn't deviated from the traditionally accepted (Catholic) interpetation of the Bible.
Actually, the Catholic church had many unbiblical practices, which is why the Protestants broke off, they wanted a more traditional view of the Bible.
So, your point somewhat stands, but your facts are somewhat lacking.
Post by
MyTie
That's because science, by nature, is based on objectivity, while religion is, by nature, subjective.
Your own denomination of Christianity wouldn't even exist if people hadn't deviated from the traditionally accepted (Catholic) interpetation of the Bible.
Just because something is accepted doesn't make it objective. My "denomination" of Christianity, which is non-denominational Christianity, strives to follow the Bible as closely as possible, which is NOT what the Catholic religion strives to do.
Post by
Melilithia
As an atheist, this is something I kinda want to ask everyone.
What made you choose your religion? Is there some aspect of it that stuck out to you and tied everything together? Was it simply the first thing you were told and how you were raised? Some other reason?
Incoming tl;dr!
I was actually raised as a christian; my whole family is, minus one cousin of mine. I started to doubt it at around age 12, and completely left it at age 16... became agnostic for a while, almost became Wiccan actually.
I didn't really "choose" mine; it found me. I was linked a site by a new friend of mine on WoW, and he told me to talk to, basically, their leader.
After saying something stupid, I was basically knocked to the floor in pain (which I realize now was just him ripping something negative out of my 3rd chakra,) and apologized for doubting and disgracing him all my life... he told me that there was no need for apology. That it was understandable that I had been led astray by the wrong path, and that he was happy to welcome me back with open arms.
A week later, after I decided to walk down this path, I finally got out of the abusive family I'd been stuck with all my life. My life started becoming better and I, now, am much happier as a person.
I know how my body works on the non-physical, and it has helped me greatly in my everyday life; meditation is a great thing to do, and I enjoy sinking into a deep trance.
I also started finding out my past lives; I know 4 out of 6 of them now, and I've been royalty in 3 of them.
I've also learned to love being myself; I don't hate myself, or think I look ugly anymore. I've stopped being depressed and borderline suicidal (which I was when I was a christian and agnostic.) I've also became less of a doormat for other people to walk on.
Although, it is not without troubles. I have received ridicule from a lot of people; not to mention the attacks by enemy forces trying to either kill me, or force me down the wrong path again...
But I simply shrug it off, laugh in their faces, and move on with my life, knowing that soon enough I will rise to the top. I will help change the world for the better.
The thing about this is, I actually feel
involved
in the world; when I was a christian it was nothing but "sit on your butt and pray for the magic man in the sky to make things better, and oh yeah you should hate your natural urges too!" I pay more attention to events happening in the world, and see things for how they are. I know now that the abrahamic religions are just stories inside of fictional books.
.
.
.
.
.
That said, I am a Spiritual Satanist/Enkist.
As well, Satan/Enki is the most kind and loving being I have ever known. Humorous, fun-loving, though he obviously knows when to buckle down and get things done. He congratulates me when I do something well, but doesn't scold me when I screw up. I don't think I could ask for a better leader or friend.
Luckily, the world is waking up... deception and lies will not stand for much longer.
Ave Satanas.
Post by
Skreeran
That's because science, by nature, is based on objectivity, while religion is, by nature, subjective.
Your own denomination of Christianity wouldn't even exist if people hadn't deviated from the traditionally accepted (Catholic) interpetation of the Bible.
Just because something is accepted doesn't make it objective. My "denomination" of Christianity, which is non-denominational Christianity, strives to follow the Bible as closely as possible, which is NOT what the Catholic religion strives to do.My point is, your approach to Christianity is just as subjective as a Catholic's approach. Both of you would say "No, my way is the correct way," and I'm certain you could both cite numerous reasons you were correct, and neither of you would ever concede.
Science, on the other hand, strives to be objective. Certainly it is not always so, simply due to human nature, but you will find the scientific method, built on skepticism and falsifiability, is a very useful tool for boiling data down to the objective truth.
Post by
MyTie
My point is, your approach to Christianity is just as subjective as a Catholic's approach. Both of you would say "No, my way is the correct way," and I'm certain you could both cite numerous reasons you were correct, and neither of you would ever concede.
Science, on the other hand, strives to be objective. Certainly it is not always so, simply due to human nature, but you will find the scientific method, built on skepticism and falsifiability, is a very useful tool for boiling data down to the objective truth.
My point is that religion should be approached with skepticism and falsifiability as well. We must remain as objective as we can, not allow as much subjectivity as we want.
Post by
Skreeran
Good luck with that.
Post by
Gone
I always kind of chuckle when people imply that science and religion are mutualy exclusive (and by chuckle I mean I get really annoyed at peoples ignorance). Science is really just a system, you cant compare it to religon, which is more like a belief or a philosophy and claim they dont mix.
Maybe certain aspects of religion dont fit with methods of evidence that people associate with science. But that dosnt mean theres some line drawn where on one side you have science, and on the other is religion. Honestly I feel like people misuse the word science quite a bit, without actually understanding what it means, rather than just the meaning many people associate with it.
Post by
gamerunknown
Stephen Jay Gould (author of my favourite book, the Mismeasure of Man) claimed that science and religion operate in
non-overlapping magisteria
, though there have been criticisms of that view from both fields.
Post by
Gone
Still technically using it wrong. Science is just a system of coming to a conclusion based on a method of tests or reasoning. Science is a tool that can be applied (to a degree) to anything, including religion. And its not science that says whether or not something falls short of a test, its the person conducting said test.
Science is kind of like math in a way. Math is infaliable, but the aplication of it isnt. Its only peoples interperatations of numbers that bring out flaws. Same deal with science, at its core its just a process by which somebody comes to a conclusion. Whether its some geek in a high tech lab using an electron microscope, or some tribal chief in the jungle who dosnt speak a word of english, measuring rainfall in a coconut shell. Their both using an aplication of science.
Its true that science uses reasoning, while religion is based a great deal on faith. But there are also quite a few theorys that people take for granted as scientific "laws" that cant be proven to a certainty either. The things we know are constantly changing.
My point being that while religion is based largly on faith, people can also use reasoning to come to ones faith. The ammount of proof that a person requires to believe something varys from person to person. So somebody can still come to a relgion based on their own reasoning, and then faith comes in to fill the gap. If that makes any sense.
Post by
gnomerdon
christianity is only based on faith and nothing else. so to try to find reasoning for christianity through scientific research / etc etc would be almost an impossible task.
if only there was a christian healer that can touch a person and completely heal them of their ailments.
4 things that'll make almost eveyrone convert to religion
1. see a person die and ressurected
2. see a person walk on water with no strings / nothing
3. turn water into wine instantly.. oh yea.
4. cure any sick person of their illnesses
5. confirm and double check if it's a scam or a promotional thing
6. do #5 3-4 more times again
7. do #6
8. 5, 6, 7 again
9. After 1,000 samples of successful 100% times those 4 requirements were met everytime, there may be a creator.....
10. double check if you were scammed again.
11. create a new sample, and simulate it to 10,000 samples
12. double check for more scams
13. double check for more scams
14. get a camera and record the event
15. learn that it's a scam
16. redo 1-16 all over again
17. stop because ur done with this scam.......
or 17.b. there is a God.
Post by
MyTie
My point being that while religion is based largly on faith, people can also use reasoning to come to ones faith. The ammount of proof that a person requires to believe something varys from person to person. So somebody can still come to a relgion based on their own reasoning, and then faith comes in to fill the gap. If that makes any sense.
I like this.
I'd like to add that to create a functioning understanding of the universe, some degree of faith must be employed, even if that is faith in your perception of time.
Post by
Skreeran
Stephen Jay Gould (author of my favourite book, the Mismeasure of Man) claimed that science and religion operate in
non-overlapping magisteria
, though there have been criticisms of that view from both fields.
Here's the problem with that (one that Dawkins brings up in his
The God Delusion
): Religion isn't just a matter of morality and philosophy; in many cases, religion presents serious hypotheses about the origins of life, the universe, and everything, and it is there that it finds itself at odds with science. Religion can attempt to offer the meaning to it all all it likes, but the second you try to offer creationism as a viable alternative theory to the theory of evolution, science will begin picking it apart. The scientific method is all about battering a hypothesis with everything you've got and the ones that can sfand up to the scrutiny stay, while the ones that fall apart get left in antiquity.
Post by
Gone
Here's the problem with that (one that Dawkins brings up in his
The God Delusion
): Religion isn't just a matter of morality and philosophy; in many cases, religion presents serious hypotheses about the origins of life, the universe, and everything, and it is there that it finds itself at odds with science.
Its not really at odds with science. At best you could say that its at odds with mainstream perception of science. Like Ive said several times, science is only a process. At certain times faith can be at odds with science, but thats only blind faith, which not all religion is.
Now while certain conclusions drawn from religious beliefs can be at odds with the conclusions many people have gained from science, thats only based on our perception now. Who knows what will change about how we view the universe in a hundred years. And as I said, and as MyTie said a lot of what we consider knowledge about the universe is based in part on faith, and things we cant be certain of as well.
Post by
MyTie
Stephen Jay Gould (author of my favourite book, the Mismeasure of Man) claimed that science and religion operate in
non-overlapping magisteria
, though there have been criticisms of that view from both fields.
Here's the problem with that (one that Dawkins brings up in his
The God Delusion
): Religion isn't just a matter of morality and philosophy; in many cases, religion presents serious hypotheses about the origins of life, the universe, and everything, and it is there that it finds itself at odds with science. Religion can attempt to offer the meaning to it all all it likes, but the second you try to offer creationism as a viable alternative theory to the theory of evolution, science will begin picking it apart. The scientific method is all about battering a hypothesis with everything you've got and the ones that can sfand up to the scrutiny stay, while the ones that fall apart get left in antiquity.
Is it possible for the theory of evolution and creationism to co exist, in the strict interpretation of the Bible? I mean, is it possible that the Earth is 6 thousand years old, while taking into consideration scientific evidence?
I've long maintained that the two understandings of the universe, scientific, and Biblical, are compatible. If I can demonstrate a way that they are possibly compatible, can we stop the insistence on contrasting them?
Post by
Atik
See, I don't see a way they can co-exist.
According to the bible, humans were created mere days after the Earth and the universe.
We know for a fact that isn't true. The entire history of Homo Sapiens is hardly a blip in the history of the entire earth. We are a puny and insignificant part of the planet we live on.
And that is where religion and science butt heads.
Post by
Gone
See, I don't see a way they can co-exist.
According to the bible, humans were created mere days after the Earth and the universe.
How do you define a day mentioned in a story, where the begining predates the Earth and the Sun? Then theres also 2 Peter 3:8 "With the Lord a day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is a day".
I personally believe that the 6 days in which God created the Earth actually represent 6 periods of time, which could have extended for up to millions of years. Which makes the timeline for the creation story much more possible.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.