Lets Bash Religion...or Not

[The Mick]

What priests are there for is to bare your sins so that you don't have to, they are there to show you a physical connection wth god. So that when you've done wrong you can make it wright by admitting you were at fault, its more or less there to make you feel better about yourself and make you a better person because of it. Priests have sin like the rest of us, it can never be washed away as long as it lives in your memories but the weight on your shoulders can be lifted by merely admitting to yourself you did something wrong. Because most people can't do this on there own there are priests to help you, like a theropist or a psychologist.

 

[RexoftheFord]

I obviously arrived too late to properly add to this thread, so let me just say this in response to the OP:

Yes, I dislike extremists of any kind, too, and I don't like it when threads get out of hand and devolve into mindless flaming.
But no, I don't think we should avoid religious (and even anti-religious) threads as long as they're civil and not a flame war.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be stopped.
I don't like all those threads about guns, but I'm not petitioning against them.

However, when such a thread ends up with flames and aggressions flying around, either a mod has to step in and clean it up or close the thread. We have moderators for a reason, let them moderate.

It's always the argument when a religion thread opens up that "this'll end in flames" but, funnily enough, often it does not happen. And sometimes, when it happens, it's because of the people saying it'll end in flames. They're fulfilling their own prophecy.

So let's just keep it civil, continue our discussions and let the moderators handle it.

Well, I don't disagree with you. Which is why I said this is a free speech area. I don't think anything should be discounted from discussion at all, because we can all learn from eachother. Flaming happens when a person is intentionally trying to cause a fight, and it's usually cause they feel some sort of sense of power when doing it. Which means they're usually a bit insecure.

 

[Tdc2182]

I don't quite understand this.

What's not to understand? Just talk. You can bash religion if you want. You can support religion if you want. You can support a moderation. Or you can just sit out.

This is an area of free speech. I've merely offered my view.

No this is not. Go to a different website, you don't make the rules here.

 

[13lackfriday]

It seems that religion threads have replaced the political threads recently.

Those are my only thoughts on the topic.

You're about as opinionated as the US Census Bureau.

 

[Pegghead]

Y'wanna hear my stance on religion? Well no, you probably don't. I'm a raised Catholic, baptism, education the works. With the many religious debates on this site I've thought long and hard about Religion and Atheism. Thousands of years ago, people couldn't understand just why the sun rose every morning, or why it sometimes rained so they figured an almighty presence named God did it all, in accordance with this, people assumed that if they pleased their God, kept him happy then he may be kind enopugh, to give them good rain, keep them free of disease etc and thus religion was born. As it progressed, they assumed that their God would not like it if people fought, or committed crimes, so things such as the ten commandments and the Qur'an were established, to make sure people lived out good morals under fear that their God may enduce his wrath upon them. Fastforward thousands of years later, most things that people once thought Godly forces controlled such as weather and disease were discovered to be scientifically feasible without the aid of an almighty force...such as a God. But they figure "Well, the very basis for religion has just been disproved, and deep down everyone knows that their most probably is no almighty, Godly force. But look at what we've established, we teach people about living good wholesome lives through things such as service and our holy books. With things such as prayer people have structure and order in their lives. So how 'bout we keep religions going, in order for the many people who follow our religions to have guidance". So sure, there probably isn't a God but who cares, religion gives us many good things, like guidance and structure. Some nutsos take it too far, some people use religion as an excuse to wage war, some people think their religion is the only right way so they go around treating members of other faiths as they would piles of dog doo on their front lawn and some people judge a man (Or woman...) by the faith he (Or she) follows rather than by his (Oh fuck this shit) character. On the occasions when idiots do things as afforementioned, it gives religion a bad but false name, causing many to turn from it (Among other reasons). And personally, I think most atheists choose that lifestyle as they believe there is no God, fair enough, but like I said before, it doesn't matter if there's no Gods, not mighty powers because Religions have brought so many people together in unity, given them guidance in times of struggle and a sense of belonging, God or not, why should someone defy that? Oh and by the way, sorry to have sounded really preachy and long-winded here, considering my faith and this website, I've wanted to say all that for a looooong time.

 

[Skeleon]

Well, I don't disagree with you. Which is why I said this is a free speech area. I don't think anything should be discounted from discussion at all, because we can all learn from eachother. Flaming happens when a person is intentionally trying to cause a fight, and it's usually cause they feel some sort of sense of power when doing it. Which means they're usually a bit insecure.

Then what's there to discuss about?
Any reasonable person knows that anything taken to its extremes is crap.

 

[juriel]

religion is crap because its based on fear, people fear what will happen to them in the afterlife so they pray to the good guy...etc... so religious ppl are just cowards. And do not give me that "i pray because i like to think there is someone out there listening to me"...if it it SHOW IT TO ME !!! . THE SECOND U SHOW ME "GOD" (or w/e deity) IN THAT SECOND I START TO BELIEVE !!!

 

[Tdc2182]

Haha, you said "But please provide some solid evidence"... Was that intentional? Did you do that on purpose? Sneaky, sneaky.

It's intentional. I don't want a pointless flame war. I want intelligent discussion, which I know is a long shot on the internet

Really? I think we have come and passed the bridge of pointless flamewar when you said "lets bash religion"
Honestly, I want to know where you get whatever you are smoking.

 

[Calatar]

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 please provide some solid evidence.

I tend to disagree that a lot of "great" things have come out of religious principles.
And even if that were true, there are factually "bad" things that have come out of religion, ex: religious terrorists, religious-based genocides (examples), restricting blasphemous truths (Galileo) to name a few.

Given the many bad things that have been wrought in part because of these ideologies, do you really think that religion should be criticism-free because it had some positive results too?

That's like saying you can't criticise smoking because it helps with inflammatory colitis. Maybe you are drawing some arbitrary pedantic distinction between "criticising" and "bashing"; I don't know. But when you tire of listening or reading criticism, the best method is to stop reading. Declaring that religion should be free is silly.

Religions, all religions, make outlandish claims. Some claims are falsifiable ("And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive."=FALSE, or arbitrarily nobody is believing unless they get what they ask for.), others are not(God exists but is in such a state that He is inherently undetectable to humans by any means unless He wills it). Rarely do they have "solid evidence" supporting them, and as such they are unproven statements about reality. All of Christianity relies on the core of the Holy Bible, but people take issue with actually looking in detail at parts of it. When you analyze it objectively, you do find that it makes many many contradicting claims, both in OT and NT, so you don't get off scot-free by saying, "nuh-uh, old-testament doesn't count!" You find that it contradicts its own alleged moral claims (which I might note, most Christians view as objective), and many of those claims are also morally repugnant (ex: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.)

So then, many valid criticisms of Christianity, the religion I am most familiar with. Judaism is naturally guilty of many of the same problems, as it contains much of the same material. Islam also makes many contradicting claims about destroying enemies of the religion yet being non-violent. (some contradictions)

So we find that religion in general makes specific claims regarding the nature of reality, yet is not even logically consistent within itself. It fails rigorous examination of truth, as it can only be considered true by elaborate justification of its claims (no no, 6 days really means like, a lot of time, so that part works/6 GOD-days, man), ignoring clear contradictions, and ignoring false claims about reality (pretending disease is caused by evil spirits, in contrast to germ theory, among other things).

So, I conclude that religions consist of sets of beliefs based on false information.

Science on the other hand is designed in such a way so that it is designed to uncover the truth. All statements it makes can and must be falsifiable, empirically proven, or heavily supported by empirical evidence. In cases of contradictions, the claims are changed so that every bit of science is a better description of reality. This is in contrast to religion, who in the face of contradicting evidence takes one of 3 options:
a. Ignore the evidence, continue to hold a factually incorrect belief (Creationism, in contrast to geology and evolution)
b. Argue semantics (days=/=days, days means like, billions of years)
c. Pretend that part of your religion just doesn't exist. (slavery is A-OK! so long as the slaves treat their master like Jesus Christ)

Science can and does explain the origins of life, our universe, sentience, and morality. The answers it arrives at are either sufficient, or require more study to eventually find our way closer to understanding the nature of reality. People who cling to religion and the idea of a creator forming all of existence just find it easiest. Big Bang Theory is complicated, seriously so. As we study the methods of subatomic interacting in the Large Hadron Collider, we learn more about the interdimensional subatomic particles that make up all of reality. We live in 3 dimensions. Quantum mechanics is so difficult to comprehend that Einstein himself rejected several of the ideas when he discovered them, even though they were shown to be mathematically and empirically true. The nature of our universe is anything but simple, and "God" in the sense of any major religion simply does not help explain anything. It is merely a crutch for those who do not wish to burden themselves with understanding the strange nature of the world we live in.
Once you begin redefining God, such as in terms of guiding the submechanics of quantum interactions, you cease any meaningful connection to any religion. God becomes just another arbitrary (used that word a lot, haven't I?) concept, that you sculpt to fit whenever and wherever you find there is something you do not understand.

Religion by no means should be given a permanent free pass. It is an illegitimate view of reality wrought from customs, culture, a human need for explanations, and a limited human mind that prefers simpler explanations.

EDIT: Whew, that was bigger than I would have liked. Now nobody will read it. Well, you did ask for a detailed and intelligent discussion, so that is what I have to contribute, with a smattering of examples.

 

[Pegghead]

religion is crap because its based on fear, people fear what will happen to them in the afterlife so they pray to the good guy...etc... so religious ppl are just cowards. And do not give me that "i pray because i like to think there is someone out there listening to me"...if it it SHOW IT TO ME !!! . THE SECOND U SHOW ME "GOD" (or w/e deity) IN THAT SECOND I START TO BELIEVE !!!

Do you have any religious friends? Do they actually fear God? Your analysis is pretty crap, to be honest. You clearly don't understand religion or why people are religious. We don't want to show you God, because frankly, we don't care. You're set on not believing, so be it. You're got your stance, take it. We accept it. It'd be great if you could accept ours as well. I know a lot of Christians and some Muslims, and I've never heard of anyone fearing, and certainly never heard of anyone praying because they like to think someone is listening.

What you have there my friend, is pure ignorence. I can try to tell you some things, but only if you're willing to listen.

Pegghead, that was a wall of text, bit hard to read, but I think I'm similar to you. So I'd agree.

Well thankyou pwning dude, that's exactly my stance in a nutshell. And Juriel, you don't know anything about my religion so keep out of it (And proper grammar and punctuation for that matter).

 

[SonicKoala]

Why is every second thread on this website about religion? Why is everyone SO OBSESSED with talking about it? I don't really see what the point of these threads are - they never seem to accomplish anything, and they all descend into another pointless flame war between those who are so positive that they are right about how religion is bullshit, and those that are offended by such accusations.

Does anybody really think that by peddling off their stupid little theories as to why religion is/is not viable, they're going to change anybody's opinion? Fuck no. ALL it's going to accomplish is garner responses such as "oh yeah, right on, I totally agree" or "hey fuck off, you're an idiot for agreeing/not agreeing with me".

And whatever happened to the whole "search bar" complaint. Sure, the title of the thread is different, but this EXACT SAME FUCKING CONCEPT has been done over and over and over and over again. If it were up to me, religious threads would get banned. They add absoloutely nothing to the Escapist as a community. This is a fucking GAMING website - if you want to talk about religion, please go somewhere else. If it were up to me, religious threads would get banned from this site. They serve no purpose whatsoever, and they never generate any worthwhile debate or discussion. Why? Becuase literally NOBODY is "on the fence" about religion - they either ARE religious (at least to some extent - and nothing anyone says will change that), or they AREN'T religious (once again, people who's opinions will never change). So I say stop these silly threads. They're so painfully redundant - these same points have been made countless times before in threads that talk about the EXACT SAME THING.

Religion is a personal choice. If you're religious, keep it to yourself. If you aren't religious, once again, keep it to yourself.

 

[RexoftheFord]

Looks like you missed the last part of the title "..or Not" And it seems as though you've completely breezed over my OP. So thank you for being the ignorant 'tard that I've been happy to see only existed in a very small amounts in this thread. I'm sorry, but I can't stand people with a blatant disregard of their surroundings.

Really? I think we have come and passed the bridge ofpointless flamewar when you said "lets bash religion"
Honestly, I want to know where you get whatever you are smoking.

 

[RexoftheFord]

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 please provide some solid evidence.

I tend to disagree that a lot of "great" things have come out of religious principles.
And even if that were true, there are factually "bad" things that have come out of religion, ex: religious terrorists, religious-based genocides (examples), restricting blasphemous truths (Galileo) to name a few.

Given the many bad things that have been wrought in part because of these ideologies, do you really think that religion should be criticism-free because it had some positive results too?

That's like saying you can't criticise smoking because it helps with inflammatory colitis. Maybe you are drawing some arbitrary pedantic distinction between "criticising" and "bashing"; I don't know. But when you tire of listening or reading criticism, the best method is to stop reading. Declaring that religion should be free is silly.

Religions, all religions, make outlandish claims. Some claims are falsifiable ("And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive."=FALSE, or arbitrarily nobody is believing unless they get what they ask for.), others are not(God exists but is in such a state that He is inherently undetectable to humans by any means unless He wills it). Rarely do they have "solid evidence" supporting them, and as such they are unproven statements about reality. All of Christianity relies on the core of the Holy Bible, but people take issue with actually looking in detail at parts of it. When you analyze it objectively, you do find that it makes many many contradicting claims, both in OT and NT, so you don't get off scot-free by saying, "nuh-uh, old-testament doesn't count!" You find that it contradicts its own alleged moral claims (which I might note, most Christians view as objective), and many of those claims are also morally repugnant (ex: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.)

So then, many valid criticisms of Christianity, the religion I am most familiar with. Judaism is naturally guilty of many of the same problems, as it contains much of the same material. Islam also makes many contradicting claims about destroying enemies of the religion yet being non-violent. (some contradictions)

So we find that religion in general makes specific claims regarding the nature of reality, yet is not even logically consistent within itself. It fails rigorous examination of truth, as it can only be considered true by elaborate justification of its claims (no no, 6 days really means like, a lot of time, so that part works/6 GOD-days, man), ignoring clear contradictions, and ignoring false claims about reality (pretending disease is caused by evil spirits, in contrast to germ theory, among other things).

So, I conclude that religions consist of sets of beliefs based on false information.

Science on the other hand is designed in such a way so that it is designed to uncover the truth. All statements it makes can and must be falsifiable, empirically proven, or heavily supported by empirical evidence. In cases of contradictions, the claims are changed so that every bit of science is a better description of reality. This is in contrast to religion, who in the face of contradicting evidence takes one of 3 options:
a. Ignore the evidence, continue to hold a factually incorrect belief (Creationism, in contrast to geology and evolution)
b. Argue semantics (days=/=days, days means like, billions of years)
c. Pretend that part of your religion just doesn't exist. (slavery is A-OK! so long as the slaves treat their master like Jesus Christ)

Science can and does explain the origins of life, our universe, sentience, and morality. The answers it arrives at are either sufficient, or require more study to eventually find our way closer to understanding the nature of reality. People who cling to religion and the idea of a creator forming all of existence just find it easiest. Big Bang Theory is complicated, seriously so. As we study the methods of subatomic interacting in the Large Hadron Collider, we learn more about the interdimensional subatomic particles that make up all of reality. We live in 3 dimensions. Quantum mechanics is so difficult to comprehend that Einstein himself rejected several of the ideas when he discovered them, even though they were shown to be mathematically and empirically true. The nature of our universe is anything but simple, and "God" in the sense of any major religion simply does not help explain anything. It is merely a crutch for those who do not wish to burden themselves with understanding the strange nature of the world we live in.
Once you begin redefining God, such as in terms of guiding the submechanics of quantum interactions, you cease any meaningful connection to any religion. God becomes just another arbitrary (used that word a lot, haven't I?) concept, that you sculpt to fit whenever and wherever you find there is something you do not understand.

Religion by no means should be given a permanent free pass. It is an illegitimate view of reality wrought from customs, culture, a human need for explanations, and a limited human mind that prefers simpler explanations.

EDIT: Whew, that was bigger than I would have liked. Now nobody will read it. Well, you did ask for a detailed and intelligent discussion, so that is what I have to contribute, with a smattering of examples.

I read it. And I would like to talk about it. I never said religion should be criticized, but I would prefer it if people used a form of criticism that didn't consist of just "religious people are stupid/retarded. Yay Atheism." That I've come to see as the common practice on most of the threads.

Two: All those bad things you've mentioned, I could argue that it's not the religious principles themselves that cause those things to arise and it's the stupidity of people or the manipulation of religious principles by PEOPLE for their own means. Which if you've read any of the previous discussion, we've already argued this out to a very fine degree.

The Old Testament is relevent, in that it provides a history and a contrast between the Old Covenent and the New Covenent. There are major changes between these two things. Old Testament isn't meant to be taken literally as many Christians try to, because Jesus comes with a new kind of message. And the Old Testament is definitely not supposed to be used for another agenda than this. Again, this is a problem with people, not the text.

Plus, slavery existed pre-Christianity, and I'd go so far as to say pre-religion. So it's not just Christianity that should be criticized here, but also...people.

Hmm..I could go into the rest of what you've written, but I think I should stop here with these holes I've shot.

 

[RexoftheFord]

Why is every second thread on this website about religion? Why is everyone SO OBSESSED with talking about it? I don't really see what the point of these threads are - they never seem to accomplish anything, and they all descend into another pointless flame war between those who are so positive that they are right about how religion is bullshit, and those that are offended by such accusations.

Does anybody really think that by peddling off their stupid little theories as to why religion is/is not viable, they're going to change anybody's opinion? Fuck no. ALL it's going to accomplish is garner responses such as "oh yeah, right on, I totally agree" or "hey fuck off, you're an idiot for agreeing/not agreeing with me".

And whatever happened to the whole "search bar" complaint. Sure, the title of the thread is different, but this EXACT SAME FUCKING CONCEPT has been done over and over and over and over again. If it were up to me, religious threads would get banned. They add absoloutely nothing to the Escapist as a community. This is a fucking GAMING website - if you want to talk about religion, please go somewhere else. If it were up to me, religious threads would get banned from this site. They serve no purpose whatsoever, and they never generate any worthwhile debate or discussion. Why? Becuase literally NOBODY is "on the fence" about religion - they either ARE religious (at least to some extent - and nothing anyone says will change that), or they AREN'T religious (once again, people who's opinions will never change). So I say stop these silly threads. They're so painfully redundant - these same points have been made countless times before in threads that talk about the EXACT SAME THING.

Religion is a personal choice. If you're religious, keep it to yourself. If you aren't religious, once again, keep it to yourself.

Uhh..are you trying to start a flame war? Have you not been here for about 170 messages? Have you not even read the discussions?

You must've breezed over the OP as well. This isn't a place to discuss to change people's opinions, or at least that's not its intention. And if you don't like it, take your advice..keep it to yourself. As you can see, most of us have been civil up until a few posts ago.

You look more like a pointless flamer here than anyone arguing out their views or points. This is place of trying to get a better understanding of the other view. That's why the thread was created. Not to bash Atheism or Religion. But to get both sides together to truly understand why the other believes their view.

Religious threads shouldn't be banned, because then they'd take away that whole Free Speech aspect. Control of the media is the first step to removing human rights. So you can go off and think 1984 is the way to go if you'd like, and I hope you reported this thread if you found it offensive to your delicate sensibilities. I like your sweeping generalizations though, like those aren't going to start a flame war.

This is a free speech thread, in an off-gaming topic forum. This may be tough for you to comprehend, but if you think the Escapist wants only gaming discussion going around, why would they even create this forum in the first place. But thanks for posting anyway.

 

[Calatar]

Two: All those bad things you've mentioned, I could argue that it's not the religious principles themselves that cause those things to arise and it's the stupidity of people or the manipulation of religious principles by PEOPLE for their own means. Which if you've read any of the previous discussion, we've already argued this out to a very fine degree.

I tried to read through everything, but as it is quite late and I am quite tired, I probably ended up skimming through and mostly forgetting what I just read.
Regardless, I thought I might try to respond to this before I go to sleep, as bad an idea as that is right now.
OF COURSE an ideology without people acting on it is mute. That doesn't mean that bad ideologies are not bad. Religion is so easy to manipulate with, because it is INCREDIBLY subjective. Every person who comes to a religion thinks about it in a different way, from the vague deists to the literalist evangelical creationists. The Bible can and does JUSTIFY innumerable wrongs. A religion BASED on a source which JUSTIFIES WRONGS is BAD when it does not redact those instances of immense immorality, but rather claims that from it stems the one and only source of morality and virtue.

(sorry for this section, but it is the easiest and most agreeably "bad" ideology identifiable)
Nazis perpetrated great wrongs in the name of their ideology. They were misguided people, with their own intents and purposes. Nevertheless, their guiding ideology is not freed from being morally wrong, because it was followed by fallible people.

The Old Testament is relevent, in that it provides a history and a contrast between the Old Covenent and the New Covenent. There are major changes between these two things. Old Testament isn't meant to be taken literally as many Christians try to, because Jesus comes with a new kind of message. And the Old Testament is definitely not supposed to be used for another agenda than this. Again, this is a problem with people, not the text.

Plus, slavery existed pre-Christianity, and I'd go so far as to say pre-religion. So it's not just Christianity that should be criticized here, but also...people.

A problem is that your view of the Old Testament is subjective and not widely held (at least in America, land of the biblical literalists). What evidence do you have that your subjective view is the RIGHT one for the religion? Because it happens to be a viewpoint that justifies fewer injustices? (the New Testament is by no means free of such things, though it is a significant improvement) And if the "wrong" viewpoint in your perspective ends up promoting atrocities, does that make the ideology blameless?

Regarding slavery, just because it predates the ideology does not excuse that ideology from embracing it. Christianity says nothing ill of this crime against humanity. Jesus, Son of God the Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth and responsible for All Things Good, didn't think to mention that this was a bad thing. I guess there was a limit to how much he was willing to go against the status quo.
Again there is no doubt that people are responsible for slavery. But again, since their religion justifies their actions as moral, it must also take some of the blame.

 

[RexoftheFord]

Two: All those bad things you've mentioned, I could argue that it's not the religious principles themselves that cause those things to arise and it's the stupidity of people or the manipulation of religious principles by PEOPLE for their own means. Which if you've read any of the previous discussion, we've already argued this out to a very fine degree.

I tried to read through everything, but as it is quite late and I am quite tired, I probably ended up skimming through and mostly forgetting what I just read.
Regardless, I thought I might try to respond to this before I go to sleep, as bad an idea as that is right now.
OF COURSE an ideology without people acting on it is mute. That doesn't mean that bad ideologies are not bad. Religion is so easy to manipulate with, because it is INCREDIBLY subjective. Every person who comes to a religion thinks about it in a different way, from the vague deists to the literalist evangelical creationists. The Bible can and does JUSTIFY innumerable wrongs. A religion BASED on a source which JUSTIFIES WRONGS is BAD when it does not redact those instances of immense immorality, but rather claims that from it stems the one and only source of morality and virtue.

(sorry for this section, but it is the easiest and most agreeably "bad" ideology identifiable)
Nazis perpetrated great wrongs in the name of their ideology. They were misguided people, with their own intents and purposes. Nevertheless, their guiding ideology is not freed from being morally wrong, because it was followed by fallible people.

The Old Testament is relevent, in that it provides a history and a contrast between the Old Covenent and the New Covenent. There are major changes between these two things. Old Testament isn't meant to be taken literally as many Christians try to, because Jesus comes with a new kind of message. And the Old Testament is definitely not supposed to be used for another agenda than this. Again, this is a problem with people, not the text.

Plus, slavery existed pre-Christianity, and I'd go so far as to say pre-religion. So it's not just Christianity that should be criticized here, but also...people.

A problem is that your view of the Old Testament is subjective and not widely held (at least in America, land of the biblical literalists). What evidence do you have that your subjective view is the RIGHT one for the religion? Because it happens to be a viewpoint that justifies fewer injustices? (the New Testament is by no means free of such things, though it is a significant improvement) And if the "wrong" viewpoint in your perspective ends up promoting atrocities, does that make the ideology blameless?

Regarding slavery, just because it predates the ideology does not excuse that ideology from embracing it. Christianity says nothing ill of this crime against humanity. Jesus, Son of God the Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth and responsible for All Things Good, didn't think to mention that this was a bad thing. I guess there was a limit to how much he was willing to go against the status quo.
Again there is no doubt that people are responsible for slavery. But again, since their religion justifies their actions as moral, it must also take some of the blame.

I'll give you all of that, but wouldn't that just mean that your view is equally subjective on the matter? This is an issue with most of the world's problems. People can't seem to agree on how science or religion should be conducted or viewed. Morality is a sticky issue.

Everyday I encounter more and more the realization that I'm completely uncertain as to what's right, wrong, knowledge, or ignorance. Relativity itself (or at least some of the things Einstein said about Light) seem to be completely thrown out now that you introduce Quantum Mechanics and Multiverse theory.

I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, I'm just trying to explore all aspects of this argument without all the bullshit certainty people claim to have.

 

[Calatar]

I'll give you all of that, but wouldn't that just mean that your view is equally subjective on the matter? This is an issue with most of the world's problems. People can't seem to agree on how science or religion should be conducted or viewed. Morality is a sticky issue.

Everyday I encounter more and more the realization that I'm completely uncertain as to what's right, wrong, knowledge, or ignorance. Relativity itself (or at least some of the things Einstein said about Light) seem to be completely thrown out now that you introduce Quantum Mechanics and Multiverse theory.

I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, I'm just trying to explore all aspects of this argument without all the bullshit certainty people claim to have.

Science unlike religion, is designed to be as objective as possible, as opposed to just claiming it is objective. It is designed to be arranged as a consensus of opinions from those who have studied and have great knowledge of the subject matter. That scientific method is oh-so-important here, it is a valid method of determining objective truths.

My subjective view that "slavery is bad" is one shared by the majority of the humans in the world, as far as I know. Morals do change with time and culture, yes at the time slavery was all fine and cool with everybody (including Jesus)(excluding slaves). Yes, in order for my last argument to be sound, you'd have to agree on the premise that slavery is bad. Usually people don't have a problem with that. Usually the religious people arguing for Christianity are moral objectivists, as that is what Christianity necessitates and demands. However by that metric, Christianity fails its own test, unless you acknowledge that slavery is fine.

Regardless, by my standards: if somebody tells me that slavery is okay, I tell them they're wrong. Christianity tells me that slavery is okay (and lays out rules for the proper way to do it).
I say Christianity is wrong.


Ragh, tired. More words some other time.

 

[Kinguendo]

Haha, you said "But please provide some solid evidence"... Was that intentional? Did you do that on purpose? Sneaky, sneaky.

It's intentional. I don't want a pointless flame war. I want intelligent discussion, which I know is a long shot on the internet

Are you sure? You seem to have misunderstood... you said "But please provide some solid evidence" in a thread about Religion... See?

Even religion has evidence to support it that is scientific. Again, this is a stretch to try to get people to actually think.

On both sides of the spectrum.

No, no there isnt. Lets take Christianity. Founded 2000 years ago... thats 1200 years before the conception of what people could call "Modern Science".

They arent connected.

Even a relatively new Religion, Scientology, really struggles to have ANY scientific proof. It has some "Hey look, famous people follow this religion" proof...

But modern scientific principles can be used to explain possible phenomena that occur in scientific doctrine. Also, there is the evidence of historical doctrine. I also understand that all these things can be biased.

But yes, there can be evidence presented with religion despite where a religion was started y'know. But ok.

Often the scientific explanation for something in religious documents undercuts the entire "religious" aspect of it all... thats why ALOT of religious people arent strictly "fans" of science.

Oh and there is a reason they call it faith.