An interesting read.

[legameboy]

This is taken from Dan Brown's book, "Angels and Demons," and I have taken out dialogue from pages 378 to 383.

 

To the Illuminanti and to those of science, let me say this. You have won the war. The wheels have been in motion for a long time. Your victory has been inevitable. Never before has it been as obvious as it is at this moment. Science is the new God. Medicine, electronic communications, space travel, genetic manipulation... these are the miracles about which we now tell our children. These are the miracles we herald as proof that science will bring us the answers. The ancient stories of immaculate conceptions, burning bushes, and parting seas are no longer relevant. God has become obsolete. Science has won the battle. But science's victory, has cost every one of us. And it has cost us deeply. Science may have alleviated the miseries of disease and drudgery and provided an array of gadgetry for our entertainment and convenience, but it has left us in a world without wonder. Our sunsets have been reduced to wavelengths and frequencies. The complexities of the universe have been shredded into mathematical equations. Even our self-worth as human being has been destroyed. Science proclaims Planet Earth and its inhabitants are a meaningless speck in the grand scheme. A cosmic accident. Even the technology that promises to unite us, divides us. Each of us is now electronically connected to the globe, and yet we feel utterly alone. We are bombarded with violence, division, fracture, and betrayal. Skepticism has become a virtue. cynicism and a demand for proof has become enlightened thought. Is it any wonder tha thumans now feel more depressed and defeated than they have at any point in human history? Does science hold anything sacred? Science looks for answers by probing our unborn fetuses. Science even presumes to rearrange our own DNA. It shatters God's world into smaller and smaller pieces in quest of meaning... and all it finds is more questions.

 

The ancient war between science and religion is over. You have won. But you have not won fairly. You have not won by providing answers. You have won by so radically reorienting our society that the truths we once saw as signposts now seem inapplicable. Religion cannot keep up. Scientific growth is exponential. It feeds on itself like a virus. Every new breakthrough opens doors for new breakthroughs. Mankind took thousands of years to progress from the wheel to the car. Yet only decades from the car into space. Now we measure scientific process in weeks. We are spinning out of control. The rift between us grows deeper and deeper, and as religion is left behind, people find themselves in a spiritual void. We cry out for meaning. And believe me, we do cry out. We see UFOs, engage in channeling, spirit contact, out-of-body experiences, mindquests-all these eccentric ideas have a scientific veneer, but they are unashamedly irrational. They are the desperate cry of the modern soul, lonely and tormented, crippled by its own enlightenment and its inability to accept meaning in anything removed from technology. Science, you say, will save us. Science, I say, has destroyed us. Since the days of Galileo, the church has tried to slow the relentless march of science, sometimes with misguided means, but always with benevolent intention. Even so, the temptations are too great for man to resist. I warn you, look around yourselves. The promises of science have not been kept. Promises of efficiency and simplicity have bred nothing much pollution and chaos. We are a fractured and frantic species... moving down a path of destruction.

 

To science, I say this. The church is tired. We are exhausted from trying to be your signposts. Our resources are drying up from our campaign to be the voice of balance as you plow blindly on in your quest for smaller chips and larger profits. We ask not why you will not govern yourselves, but how can you? Your world moves so fast that if you stop even for an instant to consider the implications of your actions, someone more efficient will whip past you in a blur. So you move on. You proliferate weapons of mass destruction, but it is the Pope who travels the world beseeching leaders to use restraint. You clone living creatures, but it is the church reminding us to consider the moral implications of our actions. You encourage people to ineract on phones, video screens, and computers, but it is the church who opens its doors and reminds us to commune in person as we were meant to do. You even murder unborn babies in the name of research that will save lives. Again, it is the church who points out the fallacy of this reasoning.

 

And all the while, you proclaim the church is ignorant. but who is more ignorant? The man who cannot define lightning, or the man who does not respect its awesome power? The church is reaching out to you. Reaching out to everyone. And yet the more we reach, the more you push us away. Show me proof there is a God, you say. I say use your telescopes to look to the heavens, and tell me how there could not be a God! You ask what does got look like. I say, where did that question come from? The answers are one and the same. Do you not see God in your science? How can you miss Him! You proclaim that even the slightest change in the force of gravity or the weight of an atom would have rendered our universe a lifeless mist rather than our magnificent sea of heavenly bodies, and yet you fail to see God's hand in this? Is it really so much easier to believe that we simply chose the right card from a deck of billions? Have we become so spiritally bankrupt that we would rather believe in mathematical impossibility than in a power greater than us?

 

Whether or not your believe in God, you must believe this. When we as a species abandon our sense of accountability. Faith... all faths... are admonitions that there is something we cannot understand, something to which we are accountable... With faith we are accountable to each other, to ourselves, and to a higher truth. Religion is flawed, but only because man is flawed. If the outside world could see this church as I do... looking beyond the ritual of these walls... they would see a modern miracle, a brotherheard of imperfect, simple souls wanting only to be a voice of compassion in a world spinning out of control.

 

Are we obsolete? Are these men dinosaurs? Am I? Does the world realyl need a voice for the poor, the weak, the oppressed, the unborn child? Do we really need souls like these who, though imperfect, spend their lives imploring each of us to read the signposts of morality and not lose our way?

 

Tonight we are perched on a precipice. None of us can afford to be apathetic. Whether you see this evil as Satan, corruption, or immorality... the dark force is alive and growing every day. Do not ignore it. The force, though might, is not invincible, Goodness can prevail. Listen to your hearts. Listen to God. Together we can step back from this abyss.

 

Feel free to debate about the fallacies of this, but this piece really was amazing to me in such a way I can't describe. I thought you all might find it intruiging.

[Tyrion]

This post reminds me, I really need to read Angels and Demons. Loved The Da Vinchi Code.

 

Anyway, onto analysis:

 

The persion who is speaking(henceforth known as he) seems to make some arrogant statements in regards to morality . He seems to feel that we cannot control ourselves, that God is the only way to prevent the horrors of unchecked development in science. He also feels that The Church is right, and that it's own beliefs are right. Infact, what he is defining as believing in God is the defintion of ignorant! He feels that our own thirst for knowledge will lead us down a path of destruction, and that to remain dormant in science and to believe wholly in a God without proof or doubt. While I believe that it is exactly the opposite of that will help us: to continue our quest for knowledge and to question everything, although I too feel that cynicism and demand for proof is required if we do not want to perish in our own inquiry.

 

In the second paragraph, the priest is remaining ignorant again in that his religon is right and what will steer us to safety, while belitting other ways of thinking. He says that UFOs, engagement in channeling, spirit contact, out-of-body experiences, mindquests, ect, are irrational without even daring to doubt wether his own belief in Christianity is with merit. He also goes on to how with science we're killing ourselves and destroying each other, when we had gone on just as easily killing and destroying each other without the help of science; it's a feeling we've nutured ever since our very creation.

 

In the third paragraph, he goes on how we need the Church to govern ourselves. He even declares that talking to each other face to face is the only true way, that we cannot consider the moral implications of out actions, and that the use of literally thoughtless fetus' is in itself fallicious, taking those beliefs as fact without even considering or questioning why.

 

Then in the fourth, he declares that we are the ignorantones. In his lightning question, it's fallicious because he's taking a blind stance on it. He is saying it's better to take the ingnorant stance; that we should respect it's power, when even mortals today can create it's energy within a day at most. As well, he is saying that because we cannot understand the wonders of the universe, there has to be a God. Of course the heavens are magniciant to us, we're puny humans who cannot even imagine the luck and process involved in creating the heavens. Which is why we created gods, to give us an answer to every thing we don't know or are fearful to know.

 

For the last three paragraphs, I'll say this. We are our own God, we are own saviour, we are own destroyrer. It is us who create the medicenes and fufil the deeds that save us. And it is also us who creates the weapons to kill us, to plunge stone and iron into our flesh. The evil he speaks of is ignorance, we have to think of every single act we do, we shouldn't rely on old tomes to guide us on our lives. He said religion is flawed because of us; does that not mean too God is flawed too because of the religion we base his qualities on? We may or not be alone, there may very well be a God. But to say that we found him, that there is no doubt that we are forgotten to him, that we shouldn't rely nor think upon ourselves, is really what is leading us on the pathway to destruction.

 

(Longest. Post. Ever.)

[Jubatus]

Science, you say, will save us. Science, I say, has destroyed us.

 

Science is saving us, but not to the end Dan Brown was dogmatically aiming at. Where he, as so many others, unquestioningly assumes the survival of mankind as a must, science is saving us by opening our eyes and slowly, painfully dragging us into the light of truth.

 

That truth being that we really have no higher purpose nor worth to existence than what we make for ourselves, that we really are not some spiritual godspawns whereto the universe has to be justified - what arrogance!

 

The truly blind ones will have a long time adjusting to the light and they'll desperately claw on to others and keep them from entering the light, because they do not want to be alone with their fears, one of those fears sadly being the light.

 

Hopefully the cycle of generations will weed out these poor weaklings.

[Druid_Allanon]

This dude is evidently unhappy about science overtaking religion. Sure, science could be a bad thing, what with the invention of atomic bombs and weapons of mass destruction. However, science also paves the way for more new developments in techonology. It has resulted in the invention of facilities which makes our lives easier. It has brought about many discoveries which could save lives. He just wants to believe that God is responsible for all these.

 

I say use your telescopes to look to the heavens, and tell me how there could not be a God!

 

I fail to see the logic in this statement. What I see would be planets.

[Reborn Outcast]

Ok first off, legameboy, what an amazing piece. I remember when I read this too and it struck me as a great piece of writing (not just from a religious sense but just in general ya know?) And to all those who have not read "Angels and Demons"... read it. Now.

 

And also please note this before you start reading my post! Dan Brown is NOT religious! Therefore, that passage does not represent his beliefs, it's just that, a piece from his book. In fact, I believe that he wrote this piece simply to spark some debate, which isn't what I'm trying to do, I'm just taking the opposite stance as the others who have posted.

 

Just thought I would give a little disclaimer.

 

Originally posted by Druid Allanon

I fail to see the logic in this statement. What I see would be planets.

 

What the speaker is trying to imply about that statement is, if you look at the sky at light and see the millions of galaxies and hundreds of trillions of stars, with all the wonders in the galaxy, could you really think it was all random creation. That something that beautiful wasn't created by God or that God at least helped to create that beauty. That's all he's saying. (Note: I am not trying to argue with your statement, I'm just trying to explain the speaker's logic. )

 

Originally posted by Jubatus

...[science is] slowly, painfully dragging us into the light of truth.

 

That truth being that we really have no higher purpose nor worth to existence than what we make for ourselves, that we really are not some spiritual godspawns whereto the universe has to be justified - what arrogance!

 

Just wondering, but how is science "dragging" us into the light that you speak of? If you're going to make a statement and then call EVERY religious person in the world arrogant, I at least suggest that you specify exactly what in science is dragging us into this "truth." Is it an invention? What is it?

 

Originally posted by Tyrion

He feels that our own thirst for knowledge will lead us down a path of destruction, and that to remain dormant in science and to believe wholly in a God without proof or doubt. While I believe that it is exactly the opposite of that will help us: to continue our quest for knowledge and to question everything, although I too feel that cynicism and demand for proof is required if we do not want to perish in our own inquiry.

 

The speaker is not telling us to remain dormant in science. Go back and read more carefully his examples of what science is doing to us as humans. Like he says, we would all like to think of ourselves as significant, but because of science, we have been told time and time again that our being here on Earth was an accident. That we are less significant in the universe than a single grain of sand on all the beaches of the Earth. Now, he's not saying to abolish science, because in other parts of that speech (and the book) he (and others) admit that science and religion actually go hand in hand and help each other in certain ways. What he's saying is that maybe we should just step back for a little and marvel at the beauty of what we see on Earth and in space, who we are as special individuals instead of tiny, meaningless specks in the universe.

 

Nowhere does he say "abolish science totally" he's just saying that maybe we should slow down the pace and just relax and look at everything around us from a "beautiful" point of view, instead of scientific all the time. Now, I like science, I want to become a scientist, but I also just like to look at the inherant beauty of the universe sometimes, and there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with that does there?

 

And one more thing (sorry about the long post). The quest for knowledge is a great thing. I want to be part of that quest. But when do you draw the line at that quest? Atom bombs, manufactured poison chemicals that are used for the sole purpose of killing? Those don't seem like very noble and safe things that we should be "questing" for, and that's all the he's trying to say.

 

 

 

 

 

(I am in no way, shape, or form condoning science. It would be a stupid thing for me to do, because we need science and I as a Christian will admit that. Science is an awesome thing, but sometimes it gets a little dangerous ya know? And I hope to study astrophysics or chemistry in college. )

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

The speaker is not telling us to remain dormant in science. Go back and read more carefully his examples of what science is doing to us as humans. Like he says, we would all like to think of ourselves as significant, but because of science, we have been told time and time again that our being here on Earth was an accident. That we are less significant in the universe than a single grain of sand on all the beaches of the Earth. Now, he's not saying to abolish science, because in other parts of that speech (and the book) he (and others) admit that science and religion actually go hand in hand and help each other in certain ways. What he's saying is that maybe we should just step back for a little and marvel at the beauty of what we see on Earth and in space, who we are as special individuals instead of tiny, meaningless specks in the universe.

 

Of course, when you look at it in Christian-stained eyeglasses(what would that color be? blue? green? gore red? ), you could also see that you're pretty meaningless. I mean, you were created by God, and in the history of time you are only one in dozens if not hundred of BILLIONS of people.

 

Nowhere does he say "abolish science totally" he's just saying that maybe we should slow down the pace and just relax and look at everything around us from a "beautiful" point of view, instead of scientific all the time. Now, I like science, I want to become a scientist, but I also just like to look at the inherant beauty of the universe sometimes, and there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with that does there?

 

I marvel at the beauty of the sky too, but I also realize that some of the things I see are actually quite small too compared to the universe. The priest was making a comment about how we should be in awe of the power of lightning, when there's much more marvelous and powerful things not only in space, but even in our creations.

 

And one more thing (sorry about the long post). The quest for knowledge is a great thing. I want to be part of that quest. But when do you draw the line at that quest? Atom bombs, manufactured poison chemicals that are used for the sole purpose of killing? Those don't seem like very noble and safe things that we should be "questing" for, and that's all the he's trying to say.

 

I agree, but his point was in that the church should be the one deciding the line, not humanity itself. That's where I primarily disagree.

 

(I am in no way, shape, or form condoning science. It would be a stupid thing for me to do, because we need science and I as a Christian will admit that. Science is an awesome thing, but sometimes it gets a little dangerous ya know? And I hope to study astrophysics or chemistry in college. )

 

The word you're looking for is condemning, not condoning.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by Tyrion

The word you're looking for is condemning, not condoning.

 

Dast, I was going to point that out

[Jubatus]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

Just wondering, but how is science "dragging" us into the light that you speak of? If you're going to make a statement and then call EVERY religious person in the world arrogant, I at least suggest that you specify exactly what in science is dragging us into this "truth." Is it an invention? What is it?

 

I used the term "dragging" because many of us are resisting, mainly through religion, and science is doing so by eliminating sources for superstition that leads to religion. Eliminating by discovery after discovery about the true nature of our existence.

[Reborn Outcast]

Originally posted by Tyrion

Of course, when you look at it in Christian-stained eyeglasses(what would that color be? blue? green? gore red? ), you could also see that you're pretty meaningless. I mean, you were created by God, and in the history of time you are only one in dozens if not hundred of BILLIONS of people.

 

Just thought I'd point out something interesting.

 

The amount of humans on the earth today is greater than the total number in history. (I only have 1 link, but I'll try and find more.)

 

If you look at the table of human growth, you would realize that 6 billion different people were not born in 40 years, that's just a grand total. So out of the 6 billion people on earth today, many of them are probably still living from the 3 billion in 1960, which makes the 6 billion pretty close to the total amount of humans living on earth ever. Just a little interesting thing.

 

But what I'm trying to say is, no one should think of themselves as insignificant. Everyone IS capable of making a difference if they put themselves to it. (Man, that was corny wasn't it? ) But science partially makes it seems as if we have no effect whatsoever because of how insignificant we care compared to the rest of the universe.

 

 

Originally posted by Tyrion

I marvel at the beauty of the sky too, but I also realize that some of the things I see are actually quite small too compared to the universe. The priest was making a comment about how we should be in awe of the power of lightning, when there's much more marvelous and powerful things not only in space, but even in our creations.

 

He's not saying we should be in awe of lightning specifically. It's just an example. Of course there are much more powerful things in the universe, but what he is trying to say is, if you don't have any respect for the power in the universe, it could come back to bite you in the butt. (I hope that wasn't to confusing.)

 

Originally posted by Tyrion

I agree, but his point was in that the church should be the one deciding the line, not humanity itself. That's where I primarily disagree.

 

Could you show me the sentence where he specifically says that? I didn't really see any place where he says that the church is the deciding line.

 

Originally posted by Tyrion

The word you're looking for is condemning, not condoning.

 

Yes, I believe that is the word I'm looking for. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

And, just so everyone knows, I'm finding it hard to type out my stance on this, because it makes it seem like I'm trying to say science is of no use which is the exact opposite of what I think. I just need to clarify that because when I read over what I type, I kind of seem like a science-abolishing zealot, when I'm really not.

[El Sitherino]

Maybe it's just me, but I found that boring.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

Just thought I'd point out something interesting.

 

The amount of humans on the earth today is greater than the total number in history. (I only have 1 link, but I'll try and find more.)

 

If you look at the table of human growth, you would realize that 6 billion different people were not born in 40 years, that's just a grand total. So out of the 6 billion people on earth today, many of them are probably still living from the 3 billion in 1960, which makes the 6 billion pretty close to the total amount of humans living on earth ever. Just a little interesting thing.

 

Wow, didn't know that. I knew that the total population got lower and lower the further back we went in time, but I was sure we passed at leat 20 billion...

 

But what I'm trying to say is, no one should think of themselves as insignificant. Everyone IS capable of making a difference if they put themselves to it. (Man, that was corny wasn't it? ) But science partially makes it seems as if we have no effect whatsoever because of how insignificant we care compared to the rest of the universe.

 

But religion doesn't change that, you can still feel you're insignifigant. In both religion and science, you can remain perfectly happen fowarding humanity.

 

 

He's not saying we should be in awe of lightning specifically. It's just an example. Of course there are much more powerful things in the universe, but what he is trying to say is, if you don't have any respect for the power in the universe, it could come back to bite you in the butt. (I hope that wasn't to confusing.)

 

I suppose, but my point was in that one thing may look powerful to us, but there's always something more powerful(well, until you get the forces which created the big bang...even then, there might be always something bigger).

 

Could you show me the sentence where he specifically says that? I didn't really see any place where he says that the church is the deciding line.

 

To science, I say this. The church is tired. We are exhausted from trying to be your signposts. Our resources are drying up from our campaign to be the voice of balance as you plow blindly on in your quest for smaller chips and larger profits. We ask not why you will not govern yourselves, but how can you? Your world moves so fast that if you stop even for an instant to consider the implications of your actions, someone more efficient will whip past you in a blur. So you move on. You proliferate weapons of mass destruction, but it is the Pope who travels the world beseeching leaders to use restraint. You clone living creatures, but it is the church reminding us to consider the moral implications of our actions. You encourage people to ineract on phones, video screens, and computers, but it is the church who opens its doors and reminds us to commune in person as we were meant to do. You even murder unborn babies in the name of research that will save lives. Again, it is the church who points out the fallacy of this reasoning.

 

In that paragraph he was stating that it's the church who should remind us of the moral implications of our actions.

 

And, just so everyone knows, I'm finding it hard to type out my stance on this, because it makes it seem like I'm trying to say science is of no use which is the exact opposite of what I think. I just need to clarify that because when I read over what I type, I kind of seem like a science-abolishing zealot, when I'm really not.

 

Nah, you really are a science-abolishing zealot, don't deny it.

[Reborn Outcast]

Originally posted by Jubatus

I used the term "dragging" because many of us are resisting, mainly through religion, and science is doing so by eliminating sources for superstition that leads to religion. Eliminating by discovery after discovery about the true nature of our existence.

 

That's not true. Christian churches all over the world are sending out money for AIDS work in Africa and other areas of the world. AIDS relief is a fairly new, scientific area, yet Christians are helping out.

 

Science can "eliminate" things that people think are clues about our true nature, but can science ever truly prove that there is no God at all? I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, but does that mean that he couldn't have let them run free for a while? Partially controlled evolution? Science will NEVER be able to prove that there is no God, because no matter what you say, even if someone manages to scientifically prove everything in the universe, couldn't God have started it all and left it to be discovered by science?

 

You see what I mean? It's kind of round-about thinking to you probably, but do you at least see what I'm getting at?

[Reborn Outcast]

Originally posted by Tyrion

I suppose, but my point was in that one thing may look powerful to us, but there's always something more powerful(well, until you get the forces which created the big bang...even then, there might be always something bigger).

 

Yes, I see what you mean, but the priest was just using lightning as an example. And the thing is, we can't really "define" the Big Bang so to speak. (At least not yet.) There's not yet any specific proof like there is for lightning. I guess that's the reason why he used lightning as the example.

 

And hey, even though I'm a Christian, I can believe that God "created" the Big Bang. It is my humble belief that God left Genesis open for interpretation. When it says "Let there be light, and there was light" it could mean God started the Big Bang. I think it's vague on purpose.

 

Originally posted by Tyrion

In that paragraph he was stating that it's the church who should remind us of the moral implications of our actions.

 

Well, he's not specifically saying that. He mentioned the Pope going around and urging restrain from the world leaders, but that doesn't mean that they need to listen to him. It makes Christians look bad because sometimes, Christians are the only ones talking about moral implications, which leaves them isolated and looking like know-it-alls.

 

 

Originally posted by Tyrion

Nah, you really are a science-abolishing zealot, don't deny it.

 

I resent that.

[Hiroki]

Good points there, Reborn Outcast. And I also agree that was left vague on purpose...what is 7 days to a almighty being who has existed forever? It is all in how you look at it. Only in recent times have people started taking the book of Genesis as full on literal fact, word per word.

[El Sitherino]

While we might not be able to prove god doesn't exist, one also cannot prove he does exist.

 

 

oh and it's usually the military scientists who create these weapons of mass destruction, using the tax dollars of the countries citizens no less, so if you don't want to fund these, then don't pay taxes along with abolishing science.

 

 

(was just making a general statement to anyone who shares a lot of this person's ideology)

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

That's not true. Christian churches all over the world are sending out money for AIDS work in Africa and other areas of the world. AIDS relief is a fairly new, scientific area, yet Christians are helping out.

 

 

LOL! By doing what? Telling them to abstain? LOL! Christians are the main cause of the huge spread of AIDS in Africa. They keep telling people to abstain even though it doesn't work.

They could encourage them to use condoms but no...

[Jubatus]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

That's not true. Christian churches all over the world are sending out money for AIDS work in Africa and other areas of the world. AIDS relief is a fairly new, scientific area, yet Christians are helping out.

 

Not gonna get into how much the Christians are really "helping out" down there, but get to the stronger point; they can do what they do without religion, without a diety to cling to, had they the balls.

 

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

Science can "eliminate" things that people think are clues about our true nature, but can science ever truly prove that there is no God at all? I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, but does that mean that he couldn't have let them run free for a while? Partially controlled evolution? Science will NEVER be able to prove that there is no God, because no matter what you say, even if someone manages to scientifically prove everything in the universe, couldn't God have started it all and left it to be discovered by science?

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again - asking science to disprove something that has never been even marginally proven is folly. It's like me claiming that our universe resides inside a purple peanut governed by the seven-legged ant, Wonga-Wonga Watanaga and ask you to disprove it.

 

EDIT: Corrected early morning typos

[Kain]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

While we might not be able to prove god doesn't exist, one also cannot prove he does exist.

 

Look, I'm not gonna get involved in this one(you can thank whoever you like, I just don't feel like I want a headache), but that is thee single biggest truth EVAR. And heres why:

 

1: God is known through books written by a less than perfect species who's greatest creation is the wheel(it really is)

2: God isn't a creature, he's a BEING, and thus, cannot truly be proven existant or not by science

3: Its nice to have something to look forward to after life(I believe in astral projection, but thats me), but neither side can prove or disprove Heaven and Hell or Nirvana and Limbo, or reincarnation over transcendence.

 

Don't quote me cuz I ain't coming back to defend myself.

[Reborn Outcast]

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

LOL! By doing what? Telling them to abstain? LOL! Christians are the main cause of the huge spread of AIDS in Africa. They keep telling people to abstain even though it doesn't work.

They could encourage them to use condoms but no...

 

So OBVIOUSLY by telling them to abstain it encourages them to go out and rape people, spreading AIDS... :confused:

 

Originally posted by Jubatus

Not gonna get into how much the Christians are really "helping out" down there, but get to the stronger point; they can do what they do without religion, without a diety to cling to, had they the balls.

 

...but because they're doing it in the name of God, that immediately makes it a laughing matter to you? Show me proof that Christians are doing less than any other AIDS relief foundations in Africa. (Keyword, Africa.)

 

And in terms off good deeds, hmm, I guess I kind of remeber Mother Teresa winning the Nobel Peace Prize or something.

 

Originally posted by Jubatus

I've said it before and I'll say it again - asking science to disprove something that has never been even marginally proven is folly. It's like me claiming that our universe resides inside a purple peanut governed by the seven-legged ant, Wonga-Wonga Watanaga and ask you to disprove it.

 

Christians aren't asking you to scientifically prove there is a God. It's called faith. The reason it's so special is that it can never be proven, either right or wrong, so you just have to believe.

 

(Eh, and I'm not trying to start a religious flamewar, I just came in here to talk about the text.)

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

So OBVIOUSLY by telling them to abstain it encourages them to go out and rape people, spreading AIDS... :confused:

 

I think you need to take a sex-ed class. You do realize that the spread of AIDS in Africa isn't due to raping right? I guess not.

You don,t really understand let me explain. See, they encourage them to abstain but at the same time condemn all other methods of contraception. So using a condom is bad. People listen and don't use them. People aren't educated to use condoms and don't use them. So AIDS spreads faster because they aren't taught any other method of contraception then abstinence.

 

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

...but because they're doing it in the name of God, that immediately makes it a laughing matter to you? Show me proof that Christians are doing less than any other AIDS relief foundations in Africa. (Keyword, Africa.)

 

And in terms off good deeds, hmm, I guess I kind of remeber Mother Teresa winning the Nobel Peace Prize or something.

 

As a said above, they aren't doing less, they're doing it wrong.

As far as good deeds go, you're blind if you think Christians only do good deeds, they do a lot of bad things too.

[Jubatus]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

...but because they're doing it in the name of God, that immediately makes it a laughing matter to you? Show me proof that Christians are doing less than any other AIDS relief foundations in Africa. (Keyword, Africa.)

 

And in terms off good deeds, hmm, I guess I kind of remeber Mother Teresa winning the Nobel Peace Prize or something.

 

You're exactly misunderstanding what I said they way I should have forseen. That they help is what it is, but they do not need to be Christians to do it - that is what I said. It's like you're proposing that you cannot be kind and helpful without believing in a god.

 

That Mother Teresa won a Nobel Peace Prize means exactly nada to me. She was a Christian and therefor a contributor to the continuing pain of the world making her a blind, fearful fool like all the rest of them.

 

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

Christians aren't asking you to scientifically prove there is a God. It's called faith. The reason it's so special is that it can never be proven, either right or wrong, so you just have to believe.

 

Indeed, and the source of that belief, fear, is more damaging to the course of mankind than anything I can think of.

[TheLiberator34]

Hmmm, well that whole thing came from a piece of fiction so reading it with a grain of salt would be smart. I think that it does make some good points against the point of view that many people are taking. That is, leaving science to act unrestrained is okay and to hell with the potential consequences. Obviously that point of view can be detrimental to society so it is a bad thing, since scientific discoveries can be a benefit or a hazard to human beings.

As for the part talking about humans losing their sense of faith and wonder regarding the world around them, I think that's a natural process that is bound to happen to the human race. Individual people naturally become more skeptical and more analytical of the world around them as they get older. So as a species it would make sense that we follow the same process(mental maturation on a species wide level).

As for fear being a source of faith like Jubatus suggests, I don't buy that. I wouldn't feel any allegiance or obligation to some unprovable higher power because I'm afraid of it, becuase if you cant prove something exists then how can you fear it?

I do think the idea of believing in a higher power for good can reinforce you own sense of morality. But that' s something that only individual people can decide.

Just my two cent's on the matter.

[Jubatus]

Originally posted by JediLiberator

As for fear being a source of faith like Jubatus suggests, I don't buy that. I wouldn't feel any allegiance or obligation to some unprovable higher power because I'm afraid of it, becuase if you cant prove something exists then how can you fear it?

 

You got it wrong. I'm not saying people turn to religion because they are afraid of the religion, they turn because they are afraid of the world or parts of it.

[Hiroki]

Jubatas, keep your opinions pretty. Don't accuse Christianity of bring the world "pain". And do not call its followers fools. You very well could offend any christians on this board. Watch it, bub.

[Jubatus]

Originally posted by Hiroki

Jubatas, keep your opinions pretty. Don't accuse Christianity of bring the world "pain". And do not call its followers fools. You very well could offend any christians on this board. Watch it, bub.

 

First off, you might do well to address me by my name correctly if you hope to gain any positive response to your "request".

 

Way more importantly, the offence any Christians on this board might take from my outspoken views on them is infinitesimal next to the offence they incur in me by their christianity. Warn them.