ET Warrior Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar The moment you say "there is", you enter the metier of science. Obiwan: Much as I applaud your empathy I must say that it was a fairly probable guess. If you see a girl you know put down her cell phone and start crying, for example, you will be pretty sure that it's because her boyfriend just broke with her. But that's not some godsent premonition. I'd say that your 'prophesy' was based not so much on divine inspiration as on an admirable knowledge of the human animal. "There is" an open can of pepsi in my refrigerator.......doesn't seem very science like to me..... And how, exactly, does knowing that a girl who maybe just got broken up with have to do with a prophesy of pregnancy? I dont see the correlation. Because it was a woman crying and praying at the altar.........no real reason to suspect she is pregnant, let alone to be certain enough about it to approach said crying woman and comfort her. These debates will never end, and you must know this. Your argument will ALWAYS be the same. Science, reasoning, blah blah blah. And then MY argument will always be the same. I simply believe. So why can't we just agree to disagree? WHY must proclaim your rightness to the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar It seems to me that you cannot imagine the mindset of an atheist, whereas most atheists can put themselves in your stead well enough to predict your response... Oh but I can imagine it. I have at points in my life questioned religion, looked at the world differently. But now i'm a firm believer in God. I can pretty much predict EVERYTHING you will say to ANYTHING i post......"You can't prove it" "Religion causes evil" "You can't prove that" "Science conquers all" I think i've covered about 98% of the arguments you will use. Admittedly, I only have one argument, but it's the one that works for me. I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munik Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 I skipped most of these posts, so hopefully joining in at the end I'm not repeating anything much. Anyhow, I myself don't criticize christianity in attempt to sway someone to the darkside. I just do it to point out the fallacy of it. If someone got all their hope and spiritual guidance and whatnot from a baloney sandwich, well, I would point out the oddness of the baloney sandwich. The bible is chock full of inane commandments, doubletalk, idle threats, just plain nonsense. And people use the bible to bully(Ha!) others. I don't care whether or not there is a way to prove christianity and god. It would still be stupid. If rapture occured at this second, I still would not convert. If I saw jesus walking above the ground in front of my house, I still would not convert. If I saw on the news that there was irrefutable proof that the Ark is on Mt. Ararat, with photos and twenty scientist claiming it to be true, I still would not convert. I am not a christian because I disbelieve in God. It is because being a christian is just not a good thing. Just to point out, some people are too apathetic to be labeled atheist. You can call these people agnostic. Instead of lumping them all into one group. Not everyone is against you. Don't be so paranoid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Originally posted by munik being a christian is just not a good thing. Well that's awfully nice of you to say...........[/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCanr2d2 Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Some people can have "blind faith", others can not, they have to see things to prove a lot of things. I fall into the tactile group, that if I can see it, that it exists. All I will say is that without Christianity, and it's sister religion Muslim (Based on almost the same texts), we would rid ourselves of a lot of the problems that exists now... We would still have almost the same laws and structures in the world, since most of them came not from religion but from civilisations that existed pre-christianity. I do not belittle those that believe in religion, only to try to point out that the text that you believe in isn't totally accurate, especially after it has been translated. We can't take the innaccuries of the years into account, since the Romans got it wrong by about 26 years in the backward application of their calander. By leaders in some of it's sects it has been taken out of context, and it is no longer considered that those that wrote it were ones who wrote in parables, and not literally....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lime-Light Posted February 16, 2003 Author Share Posted February 16, 2003 Originally posted by ET Warrior I dont want to debate about religion. I dont want to have you knock my religion, and me defend it, while i CANT defend it because there must be faith to believe and since you guys don't have it you won't get it. And i'm HAPPY for you, that you are happy living your life the way you want to. So why can't I live my life the way I want to without you ragging on me/my religion? Then go away. No one told you to come here, unless it was your god, in which case I'm sorry, its your mission to wander the abundant religion posts. Other poeple want to debate this, if you don't, ignore the religion posts. One thing I've come to realize reading these posts, is that logic and religion are incompatible, and rational people are incompatible with illogic. And even should christ or muhammed or whoever come down and demonstrate the existence of god, I still wouldnt submit to religion, because of all the attrocities poeple have used it to justify, through thier "interpretations" of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Originally posted by Lime-Light because of all the attrocities poeple have used it to justify, through thier "interpretations" of it. Lol then I wouldn't want to become an athiest because of all the atrocities that have been commited by athiests... (ex.... Hitler and his trying to rid of all the Jews.) (Sorry if the athiest thing came out harsh... but I was countering your point.) And what happened to my post? Was it deleated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psydan Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Originally posted by Lime-Light One thing I've come to realize reading these posts, is that logic and religion are incompatible, and rational people are incompatible with illogic. And even should christ or muhammed or whoever come down and demonstrate the existence of god, I still wouldnt submit to religion, because of all the attrocities poeple have used it to justify, through thier "interpretations" of it. LOL, well see what you guys are doing isn't really logical, you're saying that you don't care if religion is right or not, because of all the awful things PEOPLE have done in the name of it. But if a thousand scientists and I went out tomorrow and said that were going to kill all of the stupid people in the name of a more advanced and scientific world, would you stop using science just because of the awful things some PEOPLE did in the name of it? When scientists made the A-bomb and they dropped it on Hiroshima, does that make you stop using science or technology just because of what some people use it for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Well, while we're talking about big things that certain belief systems did for the world, why dont we talk about the good as well as the bad? Science: Vaccines, astronomy, all aspects of medicine, chemistry, glass, styrofoam, the car, plastic, the space program, TVs, the light bulb, the camera, the telephone, and many, many, many free thinkers. Religion: ?________________________ ( <---- Fill in the blank, and be honest) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Originally posted by ShockV1.89 Religion: ?________________________ ( <---- Fill in the blank, and be honest) ME!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pnut_Man Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Religion: Gives some people a reason to live on. Without religion suicide rates would sky rocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Originally posted by ShockV1.89 Well, while we're talking about big things that certain belief systems did for the world, why dont we talk about the good as well as the bad? Science: Vaccines, astronomy, all aspects of medicine, chemistry, glass, styrofoam, the car, plastic, the space program, TVs, the light bulb, the camera, the telephone, and many, many, many free thinkers. Religion: ?________________________ ( <---- Fill in the blank, and be honest) Once again!!! SCIENCE AND RELIGION ARE NOT ABLE TO BE COMPARED IN THIS MANNER BECAUSE SCIENCE COVERS MILLIONS OF THINGS THAT RELIGION WASN'T MEANT TO COVER!!!For example... Science: How does mitosis occur? Religion: Who is God? Science: Why is the sky blue? Religion: Does God love me? Science: What is snow made of? Religion: Is there an afterlife? Do you see? These things cannot be compared. Religion teaches how to get to Heaven and that there is a God. Science cannot disprove the existance of a God, science does not teach how to get to Heaven. Get my drift? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 I was simply responding to people talking about how science did bad things (like the a-bomb and such). I was just trying to show that it's done very good things. In addition, I was actually ASKING for the religious people here to tell what religion has done for the world. I mean, I literally want to know. Dont worry, I'm not trying to compare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Originally posted by Psydan But if a thousand scientists and I went out tomorrow and said that were going to kill all of the stupid people in the name of a more advanced and scientific world, would you stop using science just because of the awful things some PEOPLE did in the name of it? Science is a tool, not a belief system, which many of you don't get. Science is the opposite of believing. It's showing what's real, proving and finding evidence, which is what religion have this strange aversion towards. While science is suspension of belief, religion is suspension of logic. This is clearly evident in how religious people twist the past of the Earth into how they would like to perceive it, not how it is objectively seen. Science is a way of thinking, not a cause in itself. What you describe is social darwinism - improving our collective genepool and stuff like that. The problem is, then we're already talking about a belief, and well into the Nietzschian "über mench" and whatnot. Science is merely a tool for understanding the world - if it entails killing people, we're well into beliefs and far removed from the logic of preserving the race of man. "There is" an open can of pepsi in my refrigerator.......doesn't seem very science like to me..... Yet it is. You can see there is a can of pepsi. It's interpretation of data, it's science. You don't "believe" there's a soda can in your fridge - you can clearly deduce, prove and see evidence for the positive of that statement. Now, if you were to postulate that there would be an elephant in your fridge, then the positive proof of that assertion would be quickly rooted out. But the negative proof of it, that there is not an elephant in the fridge would be impossible to ascertain given that you work under the assumption that said elephant had the ability to turn invisible and shrink in size to fit the fridge. In the dark ages long gone, people thought the world was indeed flat. It was logical to assume so, since people back then didn't have any means to tell otherwise - why in the name of God would the earth be round since any fool can see that it's completely flat? While a flat earth was the barenaked reality and nature back then, there was no need to build another layer on top of that. Where is the logical inference that the sun is orbiting the sun, or that the earth is standing atop three elephants riding around the universe on a whale? It's not there, there's no reason to believe it. We can only make logical guesses and assumptions on the things we know - anything else and you could be considered midly delusional. We can likely never disprove God. But there's no positive evidence for Him, making believing in Him a futile and worthless effort, bordering on insanity. It's not logically sane to believe there exist a government conspiracy, hiding extra-terristials on earth, or that Sai Baba is an avatar of some supernatural power. Or believing that Jesus is the Saviour, for that matter. We can only reason from what we know, and work a logical way towards the unknown. Projecting God into anything we don't know is folly at best, and raving mad at worst - as evidenced in the history of science, reasoning is taking the place and filling the gaps in God's place, making his territory of the unexplained smaller by the day. Religion: Gives some people a reason to live on. Without religion suicide rates would sky rocket. Without going too much into social darwinism, the people that cannot live without accepting that they are at heart truly insignificant, and obey their primate desire to invent something to watch over them and place themselves above mere nature, are blind to the pitiless reality in which we exist, for better or worse. In fact, if this silly postulate was indeed true, the people of my country would be commiting suicide on a huge scale - it's simply not evident that atheists kill themselves due to realizing their perceived hollow existance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast Do you see? These things cannot be compared. Religion teaches how to get to Heaven and that there is a God. As I said before, religion is the antithesis to logic and reasoning. When you're purely using logic and your senses, you'll realize that the earth was not created how some people want it to, and that there's no need to believe in a supernatural entity. In short: Cling to religion and place yourself further from logical reasoning, which produces such useful tools as electricity and nuclear weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais Yet it is. You can see there is a can of pepsi. It's interpretation of data, it's science. You don't "believe" there's a soda can in your fridge - you can clearly deduce, prove and see evidence for the positive of that statement. Now, if you were to postulate that there would be an elephant in your fridge, then the positive proof of that assertion would be quickly rooted out. But the negative proof of it, that there is not an elephant in the fridge would be impossible to ascertain given that you work under the assumption that said elephant had the ability to turn invisible and shrink in size to fit the fridge. Alright then.............."There is" a God. BWAHAHA your science has proven the existance of my God....BWAHAHAHAHA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psydan Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 As for those saying "what has religion done? ". Im out of time, so Im gonna keep it simple, but if you believe like me, then religion is in the buissness of saving souls for eternity... That's a goal, and if you believe in A heaven and hell, well, thats the Good, but how did we go from "Religion has done bad things, I wouldn't be a Christian if God came down and walked on my lawn" to "Science has done a lot of "good" things, so I use its benefits"... BTW, Im asking that you ASSUME that religion is a truth, not just a belief system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Originally posted by Psydan BTW, Im asking that you ASSUME that religion is a truth, not just a belief system. But all religions are belief systems and the pure truth at the same time. Every religion saves its followers from a fate in hell. Because all religions claim they are the truth, I'm asking for evidence of what good the individual religions have done on an objective, secular basis, because that is the only thing that matters when we aren't in a position to judge the truthfulness of each belief system. I am able to set myself in your shoes and see the world as something God built, but what is the point of it all? The only thing I'll get from it is a sense of juvenile self-affirmation and reassurance that something is looking after me and holds me safe, and an infantile feeling of knowing I'm right without bothering to check if I am right. Since the world cannot live on happy toughts alone, I'm choosing to see it in an objective, secular way where we're concerned with building a better future - and that means looking past petty beliefs and high 'n mighty morals that are only hindering the literal saving of millions of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast Lol then I wouldn't want to become an athiest because of all the atrocities that have been commited by athiests... (ex.... Hitler and his trying to rid of all the Jews.) Hitler was not an atheist in the sense of this thread: He had a religion: Nazism. But even if we assume that Hitler was an Atheist in the sense of this thread then it would still not have mattered, because he did what he did because he was a Nazist, not because he was not a Christian. See below. Psydan Bantha Fodder LOL, well see what you guys are doing isn't really logical, you're saying that you don't care if religion is right or not, because of all the awful things PEOPLE have done in the name of it. But if a thousand scientists and I went out tomorrow and said that were going to kill all of the stupid people in the name of a more advanced and scientific world, would you stop using science just because of the awful things some PEOPLE did in the name of it? When scientists made the A-bomb and they dropped it on Hiroshima, does that make you stop using science or technology just because of what some people use it for? You are forgetting that we do not blame religion for what has been done in its name, but for the actions that it has induced. In the example above, I would not blame science for some scientists who had gone mad, or used it to justify their idiological crusade. I would, on the other hand, blame science if the rationalistic, critical, and non-dogmatic mindset promoted by science forced someone to do something like the outlined. But how likely is that? Methinks very unlikely. Compairing the above example to a religious one: Ayatollah Khomeni (sp?) issues a Fatwa against Salman Rushdie. If we assume that this was done purely because Khomeni wanted to create an outer enemy to consolidate his power, this wouldn't make me blame Islam or religion in general for the Fatwa (though more than likely he was also motivated by his religious beliefs). What I would blame religion in general, and Islam in particular, for is the fact that this Fatwa forces every zealous Muslim to pursue the death of Salman Rushdie. And I do mean forces. Pnut_Master Bantha Religion: Gives some people a reason to live on. Without religion suicide rates would sky rocket. Granted, for some people. Though I find it very, very cowardly not to be able to handle the infinite indifference of the Universe, I am not to tell who should live and die. But saving a few spineless people still leaves a looong way to excusing the millenia of oppression caused by religion. Reborn Outcast Very, Very Muscular Religion: Who is God? [...] Religion: Does God love me? [...] Religion: Is there an afterlife? When you say "is", you enter the metier of science. There go the first and last statements. The second one requires the existance of God, which includes an "is", and so is meaningless. So there is (no pun intended) in fact an overlapping field. C'jais Prophet of Nothing We can only reason from what we know, and work a logical way towards the unknown. Projecting God into anything we don't know is folly at best, and raving mad at worst - as evidenced in the history of science, reasoning is taking the place and filling the gaps in God's place, making his territory of the unexplained smaller by the day. And could be outright harmful. Think of medicine. Once the Church told people that disease was the punishment that God sent to man for his sins... This meant that there was no need to do research on the topic, because there was already an explanation. Case closed. And I'm not just making it up, the Church did get quite pissed off when people started challenging this view. C'jais Prophet of Nothing quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Religion: Gives some people a reason to live on. Without religion suicide rates would sky rocket. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In fact, if this silly postulate was indeed true, the people of my country would be commiting suicide on a huge scale - it's simply not evident that atheists kill themselves due to realizing their perceived hollow existance. Not quite true, C'Jais. We have many 'sleeping cells' of Christianity in Denmark. But fortunately their influence on the law has been largely curtailed. ET Warrior Avalanche Fan Alright then.............."There is" a God. BWAHAHA your science has proven the existance of my God....BWAHAHAHAHA... I fail to see what you base that statement on. Psydan Bantha Fodder As for those saying "what has religion done? ". Im out of time, so Im gonna keep it simple, but if you believe like me, then religion is in the buissness of saving souls for eternity... That's a goal, and if you believe in A heaven and hell, well, thats the Good, but how did we go from "Religion has done bad things, I wouldn't be a Christian if God came down and walked on my lawn" to "Science has done a lot of "good" things, so I use its benefits"... BTW, Im asking that you ASSUME that religion is a truth, not just a belief system. I am glad that you use the word "assume" rather than "believe". That means that we Atheists can play the game too. However your assessment is irrelevant, if not flat out wrong. This thread concerns itself solely with the real world, y'see. C'jais Prophet of Nothing I am able to set myself in your shoes and see the world as something God built Another benefit of D&D, apart from the improved reading skills (just to bug Hotrod). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar Hitler was not an atheist in the sense of this thread: He had a religion: Nazism. But even if we assume that Hitler was an Atheist in the sense of this thread then it would still not have mattered, because he did what he did because he was a Nazist, not because he was not a Christian. See below. Ah so you're chosing to ignore him because he wasn't a Christian? And I don't think that Nazism was a religion in a sense that Christianity, Islam or Buddihsm is. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. That is one of the definitons of religion. I could say the same for space travel, or the war against terrorism that Bush is trying to wage. Space travel is an activity pursued with zeal and the war against terrorism is a cause pursued with zeal. Are they religions? No. Originally posted by ShadowTemplar You are forgetting that we do not blame religion for what has been done in its name, but for the actions that it has induced. In the example above, I would not blame science for some scientists who had gone mad, or used it to justify their idiological crusade. I would, on the other hand, blame science if the rationalistic, critical, and non-dogmatic mindset promoted by science forced someone to do something like the outlined. But how likely is that? Methinks very unlikely. How about the Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (sp?) killing hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. Science caused that A-bomb to be build, scince made that plane that dropped the A-bomb. It was all sciences fault. Why do you still believe in science after that? Also, you wouldn't blame science if a scientist went mad and did something horrible? What if those Christians who went on the Crusades were mad? Would you still blame them for what they did? Originally posted by ShadowTemplar Compairing the above example to a religious one: Ayatollah Khomeni (sp?) issues a Fatwa against Salman Rushdie. If we assume that this was done purely because Khomeni wanted to create an outer enemy to consolidate his power, this wouldn't make me blame Islam or religion in general for the Fatwa (though more than likely he was also motivated by his religious beliefs). What I would blame religion in general, and Islam in particular, for is the fact that this Fatwa forces every zealous Muslim to pursue the death of Salman Rushdie. And I do mean forces. Key word there in the last sentence. Forces. The Muslims weren't doing it for their own good, they were doing it because they were forced to. What if that Ayatollah Khomeni was mad. Would you still blame him? Cause you sure wouldn't blame a scientist if they went mad and did something very wrong. Originally posted by ShadowTemplar When you say "is", you enter the metier of science. There go the first and last statements. The second one requires the existance of God, which includes an "is", and so is meaningless. So there is (no pun intended) in fact an overlapping field. "Look, there is a boy." "Where is Bob?" "That is so awesome." Are those scientific? You're probably going to go out onto some far limb and try and twist science to provide answers in order to prove that they are. You're twisting science in order to try and prove me wrong. I could phrase it another way. "When did the earth form?" Hmm there's no "there is" or "is" so it must not be science. Of courese you're going to come back and say, "when you use the word when you're entereing the metier of science." Ok how about "How did the earth form?" There's no "there is", "is", or "when" so is it science? You're going to come back and say "well when you say how you're entering the metier of science." Stop twisting science in every little possible way to try and prove us wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 The fact remains that there are better explanations for world phenomena than "God did it." I mean, these are tangible, real solutions that are far more feasible than simply blaming it on some deity that may or may not exist. Lets stop dancing around words. I cant prove god doesnt exist, which is why I'm not an atheist. He may very well exist, and if he does, AND was the architect of the universe.... bravo to him, nicely done. But nobody, and I mean nobody, can prove God DOES exist. Only God can do this. God should be the last, last explanation when people wonder why something happened, mostly because in THIS universe, there is almost definitley a physical reason. As for organized religion... it's no real surprise that people got stupid about it. Any belief system that becomes organized goes weird and gets away from its original purpose. Just look at the new Black Panther Party... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 Reborn Outcast Very, Very Muscular And I don't think that Nazism was a religion in a sense that Christianity, Islam or Buddihsm is. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That is one of the definitons of religion. I could say the same for space travel, or the war against terrorism that Bush is trying to wage. Space travel is an activity pursued with zeal and the war against terrorism is a cause pursued with zeal. Are they religions? No. No. The problem with that argument is that these activities are not pursued with zeal. Zeal is: "Enthusiastic devotion to a cause, ideal, or goal and tireless diligence in its furtherance." according to http://www.dictionary.com. The key here is: Devotion. It is not devotion that drives these people (ok, maybe el Presidente, but his "war on terror" sounds kinda like a new Crusade to me anyway). And if we can now quit these silly wordgames and get back to the real issue: Hitler did not kill people because he was an Atheist (which he wasn't anyway). While Urban II may or may not have ordered the Crusades for materialistic reasons (there are quite a few), those who went on them most certainly did so out of faith in Christianity. That is the real issue here: Religion forces compulsive behavior and, in the most extreme of cases, outright madness. Therefore it is bad. There is no proof that Atheism causes madness, or compulsive behavior. Therefore Atheism is not bad, in this respect. Reborn Outcast Very, Very Muscular How about the Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (sp?) killing hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. Science caused that A-bomb to be build, scince made that plane that dropped the A-bomb. But it was not science that made people use these things. I obviously can provide no religious analogy for this, as religion has never invented anything useful, but basically it is like saying that the guy who invented the baseball bat is responsible for the mugging of old ladies if the mugger used a baseball bat. Reborn Outcast Very, Very Muscular Why do you still believe in science after that? I don't. And I never have. Reborn Outcast Very, Very Muscular Also, you wouldn't blame science if a scientist went mad and did something horrible? What if those Christians who went on the Crusades were mad? Would you still blame them for what they did? You are talking about two different things here: First you ask me what I would say about science if some scientists went mad. Well, since science has not had anything to do with it, I wouldn't blame it on science. Then you ask me whether I would blame a madman for his actions. Yes I would. But I wouldn't blame the club, profession, religion, or whatever he was a member of unless they had something to do with him developing the said insanity. Reborn Outcast Very, Very Muscular Key word there in the last sentence. Forces. The Muslims weren't doing it for their own good, they were doing it because they were forced to. What if that Ayatollah Khomeni was mad. Would you still blame him? Cause you sure wouldn't blame a scientist if they went mad and did something very wrong. What I meant by forced was a compulsive behavior induced by their faith. And yes, I would blame Khomeni even if he was mad. And I would still blame a madman for his atrocities, no matter how much scientist he was, thankyeverymuch, so the last accusation was rather unfounded in my very honest opinion. Reborn Outcast Very, Very Muscular "Look, there is a boy." "Where is Bob?" "That is so awesome." Are those scientific? You're probably going to go out onto some far limb and try and twist science to provide answers in order to prove that they are. You're twisting science in order to try and prove me wrong. You are talking about physical phenomena which all belong in the metier of science ('cept perhaps the last one, but that is a subjective statement, as opposed to the objective (and objectively wrong) statement "there is a god"). So no, I don't need to twist anything. Reborn Outcast Very, Very Muscular I could phrase it another way. "When did the earth form?" Hmm there's no "there is" or "is" so it must not be science. There is a logical error in that: I said that if you have a sentence with the words "there is", then you are talking about the real, physical world. The parameter here is "if you have a sentence with the words "there is"". The logical operation is a "then", and the conclusion is "you are talking about the real, physical world". What I said is that if you fulfill the parameter, then the conclusion is correct. I did not say anything about what happened if you did not fulfill the parameter. Your response assumes that I did. An analogous situation would be: I say that: "Cows do not fly." Or: X=Cow => Y=Can't fly. To which you respond: "Since a pig is not a cow, then pigs can fly, right?" Or: X=/=Cow=>Y=/=Can't fly. Sorry, but the rules of logic don't work that way. ShockV1.89 Sith Lord Any belief system that becomes organized goes weird and gets away from its original purpose. Just look at the new Black Panther Party... Which is yet another advantage that science has over religion (apart from not being a belief system): It's not organised, in the sense of having a 'government'. It's more like an open-source program: There are many contributers, but no 'big boss'. BTW: What is this "Black Panther" thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar When you say "is", you enter the metier of science. I fail to see what you base that statement on. I base my statement on the fact that you said, whenever you say "IS" you enter into science. Therefore, saying "There is a God" is apparently science, and therefore must be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obi Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 I still want an answer for what I posted earlier. How can science explain, or anything other then God, explain my experiance? I don't buy into that "it was a good guess" thing..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Although it's something of a stretch, some sort of ESP could be to blame. I certainly consider that more of a possibility than divine intervention, although again, I dont have any real evidence to it. The Black Panther Party was a militant group in the US whose aim was to reform racial inequalities through a showing of force and aggressive protest. They were volatile, but actually fairly noble for the time. The new Black Panther Party, however, is basically a whole bunch of black supremists in disguise. Really a sorry shadow of the original entity, and a good example of what happens when radicals get a hold of a belief system and an organization. (Another example would be in the French Revolution, which started nice, and then the radical fundamentalists got a hold of it... but thats an extreme) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.