Lets Bash Religion...or Not

[RexoftheFord]

No. It is a way to find purpose in living one's life. Texts are not the religion. The principles are the religion. The lifestyle that is demanded by the principles and living these principles are the religion. The texts are just suppose to be guides.

But even compasses can be misused by the point man.

No, spirituality is everything you listed above. A religion is a group of people who get together and decide what they all believe in. Twisting and changing text, and the basic principles that these types of spiritual people believe in.

I don't have a problem with spirituality, i have a problem with religious institutions that want power, so they can convert other people, and get more power.

You've confused religion with cult. Religion is not a gathering of people. A church or cult is a gathering of people.

Religion exists before the church and the institutions and the cults.

Religion is a set of principles and beliefs, not the gathering of people.

In the common vernacular i am right, in the textbook definition, you are right. Now tell me which one is more pertinent to the discussion?

Well, I've always been one to throw general consensus aside cause most of the time, the general populace is filled with morons who don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Which is why I've chosen my definition. Both are pertinent to the discussion equally. But since I've provided my view as a logical thought out process, rather than a mere belief without evidence, I've chosen to use a textbook definition.

Well then, one of us would have to change our terminology for the discussion to continue, we would have to find suitable words to define terms. I'm assuming you replace my definition of religion with 'institution'?

An institution is a group of people who get together and decide on a common dogma.

then we both agree that religious institutions are the cause of most of the worlds suffering?

But religion in the definition you use (spirituality) is not the cause?

Congratulations we no longer have a discussion. We both agree, and all we had to do was list out our definitions. How do you like that. Like fucking magic.

This is a philosophical problem of language that is currently being worked on. There are too many definitions for words and sometimes people are arguing the same thing on seperate terms, when they agree. I'm sorry that it took this long to clarify that..yes I do agree with your view on this.

Again, free speech zone about religion or atheism. We could start a new topic about religion or atheism if you'd like. Or science for that matter.

 

[lizards]

I don't quite understand this.

Spoiler: It is just one of these waiting to happen. That is all.

but republicans did.....

 

[Flos]

I don't feel bad. And I said certain phenomena in religious texts could be proven scientifically. Not religion itself.

Plus, I see you're following the Popperian model of Scientific research. That theories have to be able to be disproved. But lets say you created a theory that did rely on empirical data that couldn't be disproved. Would this mean it wasn't scientific? I suppose it would. Because then it would fail to be a theory and would ascend into knowledge. So what you are saying is that science is a search for knowledge and when something can no longer be disproved it has reached certain knowledge?

You will have to give examples of that phenomena before I can revoke your feel-bad status. For example, you cannot prove Noah's Ark occurred, no can you prove it is probable that it did occur. I'm sure there are instances in religious texts where we know from science now that what happened could very well have happened.

And, basically, yes. Science is not designed to handle religious ideals and tales. When we cannot disprove something, it cannot be scientific, even if it is most likely correct. Theories have to be worded in a way to where there is room for someone to say, "No. You're wrong, and here's the experiment/observation to prove it."

For example, we can assume based on the number of galaxies in the universe that there is most likely another planet somewhat resembling Earth out there. However, just having the data that says it's probable does not mean it is proven. We have reached our limit on knowledge.

You can very well say God (or any deity of your choosing!) exists, but you cannot say God (or any deity of your choosing) exists and that your statement is scientific. You cannot conduct an experiment to disprove that God (or any deity of your choosing) exists.

It's why I get bothered when people attempt to insert religion into science. The entities should remain separate to keep their integrity.

 

[grimsprice]

The Big Bang hasn't been proven. It's a theory. You have a system to tell you what it right and wrong. They're called LAWS.

Theory in the common vernacular means " a good idea".

Theory in the scientific means " an explanation of an observation".

The big bang has been proven, as well as evolution. There are mountains of evidence for both. Get over it.

 

[SilentHunter7]

Yet when you confess and repent your sins are removed. Thus any priest or religious figure is automatically without sin.

Confessing, and repenting are two different things.

Confessing is someone robbing a QuickMart and telling God he's sorry as he's spending the money on rims for his car.

Repenting is someone robbing a QuickMart, and then sometime down the road, turning himself in, and volunteering to work for free at the store to pay off what he stole and then some, all while working the local soup kitchen and donating to the Red Cross.

Only one of these actually removes your sin.
Hint: It's not the first one.

 

[raxer92]

Yeah, I'll probably get reported for this, but whatever. I see posts constantly trying to degrade religion. Not as a way through which a person understands the origins of the world or their purpose though, but through the minority populations of the religion or individuals distorting the purpose of religion. I think it's kind of stupid to purposely bash religion constantly, considering a lot of great things have come out of religious principles. But whatever. I don't like religious institutions, and I hate all propaganda. Religious or Atheist. My mind isn't for sale,rent, or lease.

Personally I find both extremes to be entirely retarded. Those dead certain of all religious principles or those dead certain all religions are wrong. Both extend into illogical thinking on both ends.

But what do you think? Feel free to talk. If you look at my profile, free speech is a thing I like. But please provide some solid evidence.

Same point of view as you, though i do feel that religion is somewhat of a threat due to it having hold back people in scientific eras such as "galileo"

 

[raxer92]

Yet when you confess and repent your sins are removed. Thus any priest or religious figure is automatically without sin.

Confessing, and repenting are two different things.

Confessing is someone robbing a QuickMart and telling God he's sorry as he's spending the money on rims for his car.

Repenting is someone robbing a QuickMart, and then sometime down the road, turning himself in, and volunteering to work for free at the store to pay off what he stole, and then some, all while working the local soup kitchen, and donating to the Red Cross.

Only one of these actually removes your sin.
Hint: It's not the first one.

See moronic "SIN" reasons like that are what kept the rule of "no talking about religion within this household" active throughout most of my life

 

[Bofore13]

First off the big bang has been proven to have happened. And there is noting to the contrary to evolution. And I think that if you need a system to tell you what is right or wrong then you probably have a pretty weak mind.

The Big Bang hasn't been proven. It's a theory. You have a system to tell you what it right and wrong. They're called LAWS.[/quote]

Exactly I don't need laws to tell me what is and is not "right". Also a theory is a theory I know but until any evidence to the contrary comes along that falsifies it then it is in essence true. and don't even try to turn that one around saying that there is no evidence to the contrary to the existence of one or possibly more gods, because there isn't any evidence to support your claim either.

 

[grimsprice]

There is just as much evidence for evolution as there is for the big bang.(and might i add this is a great parallel to draw, since the type of evidence is the same).

You should buy Dawkins new book, "The Greatest Show on Earth"

Dawkins is a fool, and I don't believe that. Evolution is a solid theory with more evidence than an episode of CSI but the Big Bang is such a mess sometimes. Seriously, anti-matter and matter cancelled each other out but there was more matter for some reason and now the universe exists? I belive the big bang happened, but I would say it's far from as credible as evolution.

As i've said before. Both these theories explain what happened after something else occurred. Evolution explains what happened after life appeared. the big bang explains what happened after the matter in our universe appeared. Both have a great deal of evidence. Scientists agree that the universe is expanding, and therefore was, in the past, small. So small that it had to be a single point. That expansion is what the big bang theory explains. And the evidence for it is the expansion of the universe. Just as speciation is evidence for evolution.

 

[RexoftheFord]

I don't feel bad. And I said certain phenomena in religious texts could be proven scientifically. Not religion itself.

Plus, I see you're following the Popperian model of Scientific research. That theories have to be able to be disproved. But lets say you created a theory that did rely on empirical data that couldn't be disproved. Would this mean it wasn't scientific? I suppose it would. Because then it would fail to be a theory and would ascend into knowledge. So what you are saying is that science is a search for knowledge and when something can no longer be disproved it has reached certain knowledge?

You will have to give examples of that phenomena before I can revoke your feel-bad status. For example, you cannot prove Noah's Ark occurred, no can you prove it is probable that it did occur. I'm sure there are instances in religious texts where we know from science now that what happened could very well have happened.

And, basically, yes. Science is not designed to handle religious ideals and tales. When we cannot disprove something, it cannot be scientific, even if it is most likely correct. Theories have to be worded in a way to where there is room for someone to say, "No. You're wrong, and here's the experiment/observation to prove it."

For example, we can assume based on the number of galaxies in the universe that there is most likely another planet somewhat resembling Earth out there. However, just having the data that says it's probable does not mean it is proven. We have reached our limit on knowledge.

You can very well say God (or any deity of your choosing!) exists, but you cannot say God (or any deity of your choosing) exists and that your statement is scientific. You cannot conduct an experiment to disprove that God (or any deity of your choosing) exists.

It's why I get bothered when people attempt to insert religion into science. The entities should remain separate to keep their integrity.

Well if you could control my emotional status, I'd say you could revoke my feel-bad status. Considering you don't, you're just a git for implying you could control my actions. lol but onto the other topics.

There are historical documents and scientific studies in the Mesopotamian region that speak of a very large flood that covered the region. This is evidence for a possible Noah's Ark situation, or just the Great Flood. Remember that most people considered the "World" in their time as whatever regions they've traveled to or could see at a distance. Not as we've come to know it.

Two, according to your example, nothing can be proven scientifically, because each theory would have some sort of hole in it that can be patched up. This would make everything a probability, so using scientific proof as a term would be a misnomer. It would really be scientific probability.

Also, if a theory is meant to be written in a way where someone can go "hey you're wrong here," are you saying that the goal of science is to be wrong? Or to lack knowledge? Or is the ability to be disproven just something that arises in science due to our limited understanding of natural principles?

 

[SilentHunter7]

See moronic "SIN" reasons like that are what kept the rule of "no talking about religion within this household" active throughout most of my life

Okay, more simple is:
Confessing is saying that you're sorry.
Repenting is actually being sorry, and owning up to it.

 

[Kubanator]

Something cannot happen for no reason. So the Big Bang just happening can't be valid. Something had to generate it for the universe to start. If that's your theory of choice that is.

Very very bad science. Quantum mechanics dictates that a big bang will randomly occur approximately 10^1056 years. Also, guess what? Time could exist forever. When ever a big bang occurs, anything that happened before it is irrelevant. A singularity breaks causality. Anything that happens before a big bang does not effect what happens after it. Hence time is reset. The universe's gravitational pull could cause a repetition of big bangs, each one resetting time.