Science or Religion

[Jakely Bront]

Is Science the answer to how we are here and does it tell us why we are here? or Could it be that Religion is the answer of how and why are we here?

 

I cannot believe how blasted away I am because of this thoroughly insightful and compelling question ...

 

How can any mere human be so on top of this issue ... ?

 

I am learning so much, in here.

 

The Jakester.

[catholiboy]

Why this leads me to say there is no god, is because there is a mountain of evidence to say there isnt one. We dont need a god, that is a creation of man, without man there is no god. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to say there is a god.

 

The attack on the twin towers was precisely because of religion. Indeed you can read many passages in the bible that says similar things to islam, to totally destroy anything that does not conform to the will of this so called god.

 

The bible tells christians to kill, to allow women to be raped, practice infanticide, and torture. Again, the notion that good or bad is down to a religious belief is a falacy.

 

Our notion of good and bad is from the evolutionary process that has nothing to do with a deity.

 

Interstingly, the top countries reported by the UN to have the best standard and quality of life are those that are secular or indeed atheistic in tone, such as Norway and Sweden. Again i think an earlier poster's view that "godless" societies are predisposed to evil is wrong.

 

You dont need god or religion to be good, god is unimportant as a guide for moral standards, since the bible very often teaches the opposite. This thing simply doesnt exist.

 

So, what is this evidence? Darwinism? do you really think that you disprove the existence of a god who purports to exist outside of reality, with samples of reality? You could only possibly disprove belief in the most hardline, doctrinal god in this way. And that contitutes next to no argument whatsoever.

I'll allow you the fact that yes, religion is not required to have a stable happy society. Then again, the wearing of clothes as an extreme example isn't either. don't judge religion by it's value to a group of people as a socio-political mechanism.

 

Once more, you are talking about very doctrinal religion, which as basically accepted amongst philosophers as having next to no value at all.

 

What I meant about the twin towers was that, given the execution of the attack, it really cannot be taken as anything more than a convoluted excuse for religion. Look at it (and at most of the events, as you quite rightly point out, in the Bible and the Qur'an), and what do you see? Two men flying planes into a building. Would that strike you as a political or a religious stand? It was executed, and for all we know conceived, for very ambiguous reasons and with motives either religious or political. Should we really take Islamicism (as it is called) as being a categorical imperative for all of Islam? Or view it as an anomaly in an otherwise perfectly clean religious denomination? In which case, it is nothing more than a religious cult CORRUPTED by archaic beliefs which stem from political resentment.

[catholiboy]

Could I just point out that the old testament (ie the NON christian bit) is what contains infanticide et al.

So ha. I laugh at you eternally.

[cwes99_03]

Can I just point out that Catholiboy knows little about the scriptures as is evidently true of Tagred as well.

 

Can I also point out that this thread was dead for over a year, before you resurrected it with a statement that had nothing to do with the thread.

 

Again, the notion that good or bad is down to a religious belief is a falacy.

 

Our notion of good and bad is from the evolutionary process that has nothing to do with a deity.

This was the point of the thread. If this is not what you intend to discuss, then find a thread that discusses what you want to discuss and post there, or start a new thread. But be forwarned, those of you who are relatively new to Hypography should learn the rules of the theology forum by heart before doing so.

 

The purpose of this thread was to discuss if science proposes a why we exist theory.

 

Is Science the answer to how we are here and does it tell us why we are here? or Could it be that Religion is the answer of how and why are we here?

 

This thread is not intended to discuss whether Hitler was a christian or whether christians believe it is okay to rape or kill people for their beliefs.

[catholiboy]

Can I just point out that Catholiboy knows little about the scriptures as is evidently true of Tagred as well.

 

Can I also point out that this thread was dead for over a year, before you resurrected it with a statement that had nothing to do with the thread.

 

 

This was the point of the thread. If this is not what you intend to discuss, then find a thread that discusses what you want to discuss and post there, or start a new thread. But be forwarned, those of you who are relatively new to Hypography should learn the rules of the theology forum by heart before doing so.

 

The purpose of this thread was to discuss if science proposes a why we exist theory.

 

 

 

This thread is not intended to discuss whether Hitler was a christian or whether christians believe it is okay to rape or kill people for their beliefs.

 

Yes, I get that - but can I point you to the fact that Tagred introduced both Hitler and christian belief into this. I just felt vaguely annoyed.

Re-read the statement - how in any way did that have nothing to do with :"SCIENCE OR RELIGION?" I was making the point that science and religion just can't work TOGETHER... a point which a billion people had made before me on this thread.

 

Sorry, the name catholiboy can be very misleading...i am not really a massive christian, probably the least christian christian in the world. so please, fill my lack of knowledge of scriptures, and tell me where in the new testament it tells people to do the aforementioned activities.

 

 

???

[cwes99_03]

I didn't say it did, and that is not what is being discussed.

 

As a non-christian christian, or at best the weakest thing a christian can be and still call himself a christian, then what side are you taking on the issue here. Are you a christian or a scientist? You say you can't represent a christian because your knowledge is seriously weak on the subject.

 

I disagree with the point that science and religion can't work together. I use both day in and day out and don't find them mutually exclusive. Thus it isn't a question of one or the other. In my mind they work hand in hand.

[catholiboy]

Well, given as the only time I ever mentioend scripture was to poijt this out, I fail to see what you're getting at.

 

I lied. I have read the Bible. I was combating the fact that you seemed to be insinuating the above.

 

The side I take on the issue? In your very narrow terms, I am a christian; I could never take the "scientist" side: what specifications apply?

Forget it. I'm not going to argue points to someone who doesnt even get what I'm saying, let alone combat it.

[cwes99_03]

I didn't combat it because it has nothing to do with the thread. As you insist, the thing that you said wrongly was that

Could I just point out that the old testament (ie the NON christian bit) is what contains infanticide et al.

So ha. I laugh at you eternally.

To say it contains infanticide, can be understood, quite easily, that the OT allows for infanticide, or even it approves of infanticide. The killing of children is not a teaching or a practice in the OT. Instead it is a practice of people who were destroyed because of their wickedness, and that is contained in the OT. You were wrong in that you did not clearly state the truth, and a person who was a christian would certainly want to make that clarification since the OT and the NT are both used by christians, and they are both considered to be holy texts, as is evidenced by Jesus' use and the apostle's use of them repeatedly in their letters and teachings.

 

Now that being said, don't. Don't continue in this thread, unless you wish to talk about the topic science or religion. Don't continue in this thread if you think it is a moot point. Don't continue in this thread because before you came along it had been dead for over a year and there are several other threads already discussing it on Hypography.

[catholiboy]

JESUS.

I don't mean to sound annoying, BUT IT WAS NOT ME WHO POSTED ALL THE RUBBISH ABOUT INFANTICIDE AND HITLER.

GET YOUR GODDAMN FACTS RIGHT.

I only answered the thread because the issue remained unresolved.

[InfiniteNow]

No need for yelling, catholiboy. Your points will be better served by offering them with a cool head.

 

 

Cheers. B)

[catholiboy]

point taken.

[catholiboy]

 

To say it contains infanticide, can be understood, quite easily, that the OT allows for infanticide, or even it approves of infanticide. The killing of children is not a teaching or a practice in the OT. Instead it is a practice of people who were destroyed because of their wickedness, and that is contained in the OT.

 

And where did I state anything to the contrary? I only said the OT contained infanticide et al.

[simay77]

How can religion, being a creation of man, explain who or how or why we are here? Science, as we all know, is the pursuit of truth. Therefore, it is the ONLY way to understand our origins. Religion came about in a time when we didn't understand the motion of the planets or the 'rising' of the sun. Science shines a light on the ingorance that is glorified in religion.

**THE GOD DELUSION by Richard Dawkins**

[charles brough]

Is Science the answer to how we are here and does it tell us why we are here? or Could it be that Religion is the answer of how and why are we here?

 

It is the obligation of the social sciences to provide the data that social theorists can use to figure out just what religion is, why we have it, and how long have we had it.

 

Unfortunately, social theorists have failed miserably to do that. We are lamely told that we are "hard wired" for religion and that it provides "emotional and comforting" support. What a lame, totally inadequate “explanation”!!

 

The fact is that social science theorists are afraid to deal objectively with religion for fear of offending the faithful. Myself, I am an atheist and one who has no residence address so I am not afraid of anyone! All anyone needs to do is take a good look at the several centuries of social science data and a little evolution-thinking and here is the answer:

 

“Religion” is any world-view and way of thinking believed by a mass of people who govern a territorial part of the globe. Other such belief systems are “cults”, “faiths,” superstitions, etc.

 

The reason for religion is that we evolved through millions of years of evolution as hunting-gathering group social beings---that is, we are used to living in some forty-people sized groups! So, how did we manage to crowd together and live in such large societies as we now do? You guessed it! We evolved language and used it to form religions capable of bonding us into ever larger groups. That is all religions are for, but without their ability to bond us together so we don't feel crowed and can cooperate with each other en mass, civilization would be impossible.

 

How do religions evolve to fill such a role? Well, if you look at all the big and successful religions, you find that they all answer four very important questions which we all have: what is our common origin, what are our common goal(s), how are we to achieve them (the moral system) and what stands in our way?

 

The old religions always used "spirits" in their answers; and even though there are no such things, the very bond believing them created served to bind people together and build productive societies.

 

We can do even better now, however!

 

Charles, HOME PAGE

[charles brough]

Is Science the answer to how we are here and does it tell us why we are here? or Could it be that Religion is the answer of how and why are we here?

 

That is a good subject to bring up! Get ready for an extended answer!

 

The function of science is to increase the accuracy of our picture of ourselves and our universe. It is not to set goals, create moral codes, and run society like religions do. The last of many attempts to make science a religion was that of Aguste Compte about a century and a half ago. Since then, the whole thrust has been to reconcile religion and science.

 

Unfortunately, that is impossible. The whole practicalness of science has been that it has enabled us to get a more accurate picture of reality than the old religions by exploring NATURAL cause and effect. To "reconcile" science with religion would be to take us back a good 500 years. So the scientists just pretended to reconcile the two. They did this by compromising both. They turned the "inspired word of God" into "liberal Christianity" in which the believers only pretend they believe the so-called "miracles" in the Bible. Then, they also compromised science---the social sciences. It was a hard trick to do that without anyone noticing, but they were very successful. This may account for the social sciences being at the bottom of the ladder of academic prestigue!

 

charles, HOME PAGE