Poll: Science as a Religion

[Kinguendo]

Do I have to preach...no. Do I want to? Yes. Do I gte heaven points for it? No. Why? "Because it is by faith that we are saved, not by works least any man should boast."

And yes, you have been deciding what is right and wrong for a long time and in general making a thougherly rubbish job of it. And by you I mean all other religions as well and all those that use Christianity as an excuse to do wrong. The problem being that humans are incredibly bad at doing "good" and very good at doing "bad". Human - only moral systems tend to relflect this. The Bible calls it indwelling sin and it's in me, you and everyone else.

So as deciders of good and bad we kind of suck.

Come on, you are saying people are bad at doing good because of what it says in the Bible... thats not exactly playing on the side of reason.

Laws generally keep people safe... there are laws that dont make sense and are redundant, however there are also alot of laws. It will take time to sort out all these stupid laws as we are only human and thus easily capable of making mistakes.

As I said, and will say again. The Bible is no moral compass, I would appreciate it if you stop quoting it as you are picking and choosing as ALL religious people do. You cant say one part of it is ridiculous and doesnt apply when apparently it is the word of something that is omniscient, so unless you are willing to vouch for "Gods" hate of homosexual people then please stop preaching.

 

[ben---neb]

Do I have to preach...no. Do I want to? Yes. Do I gte heaven points for it? No. Why? "Because it is by faith that we are saved, not by works least any man should boast."

And yes, you have been deciding what is right and wrong for a long time and in general making a thougherly rubbish job of it. And by you I mean all other religions as well and all those that use Christianity as an excuse to do wrong. The problem being that humans are incredibly bad at doing "good" and very good at doing "bad". Human - only moral systems tend to relflect this. The Bible calls it indwelling sin and it's in me, you and everyone else.

So as deciders of good and bad we kind of suck.

Come on, you are saying people are bad at doing good because of what it says in the Bible... thats not exactly playing on the side of reason.

Laws generally keep people safe... there are laws that dont make sense and are redundant, however there are also alot of laws. It will take time to sort out all these stupid laws as we are only human and thus easily capable of making mistakes.

As I said, and will say again. The Bible is no moral compass, I would appreciate it if you stop quoting it as you are picking and choosing as ALL religious people do. You cant say one part of it is ridiculous and doesnt apply when apparently it is the word of something that is omniscient, so unless you are willing to vouch for "Gods" hate of homosexual people then please stop preaching.

I fully understand your point which is why I take the entire Bible literally (taking into account that images, metaphors, parables and other such devices are used within it).

As for God's hatred of homosexuality it works like this.

Sex should only happen in a marriage. Marriage is decreed by God to be when a male and female join together. Any form of sex or lust outside of that is sinful. So what does this mean?

Well, the church should instead take in the broader picture and realise that sex outside of marriage, adultery and homosexuality are all the same type of sin and should be treated as such. Christians have been guilty of singling out homosexuals when actually a large majority of the world are in the same boat of having broken the sanctity or marriage.

Also you are correct in saying that God hates homosexuality. But it is the sin of homosexuality he hates just as he hates ALL sins. But the wonderful thing is he forgives all our sins no matter what we have done. He sent his Jesus his sin to take our place, God's righteous wrath against sin was poured out on Jesus not us. Which is totally amazing!

I hope you at least appreciate that I can morally disapprove of homosexuality without hating those that practise it. Indeed, I should (i don't always) feel love (non sexual love obviosuly) for all sinners. Because I myself was a sinner and still am although by the grace of God I have been saved.

Sorry for once again preaching to you but God gets a lot of bad press and it vexes me that there is no Christian public leader to stand up for him. Although God I'm sure can stand up for himself.

 

[Kinguendo]

I fully understand your point which is why I take the entire Bible literally (taking into account that images, metaphors, parables and other such devices are used within it).

As for God's hatred of homosexuality it works like this.

Sex should only happen in a marriage. Marriage is decreed by God to be when a male and female join together. Any form of sex or lust outside of that is sinful. So what does this mean?

Well, the church should instead take in the broader picture and realise that sex outside of marriage, adultery and homosexuality are all the same type of sin and should be treated as such. Christians have been guilty of singling out homosexuals when actually a large majority of the world are in the same boat of having broken the sanctity or marriage.

Also you are correct in saying that God hates homosexuality. But it is the sin of homosexuality he hates just as he hates ALL sins. But the wonderful thing is he forgives all our sins no matter what we have done. He sent his Jesus his sin to take our place, God's righteous wrath against sin was poured out on Jesus not us. Which is totally amazing!

I hope you at least appreciate that I can morally disapprove of homosexuality without hating those that practise it. Indeed, I should (i don't always) feel love (non sexual love obviosuly) for all sinners. Because I myself was a sinner and still am although by the grace of God I have been saved.

Sorry for once again preaching to you but God gets a lot of bad press and it vexes me that there is no Christian public leader to stand up for him. Although God I'm sure can stand up for himself.

Your religion incites hatred... thats what religion does... makes you believe you are fundementally bad and there is nothing you can do about it except follow their religion, then through its teachings makes you passively hate others. As you said:
"I hope you at least appreciate that I can morally disapprove of homosexuality without hating those that practise it. Indeed, I should (i don't always) feel love (non sexual love obviosuly) for all sinners."

Its ridiculous, you use "God" as your sword and "God" as your sheild. You attack whoever you want and then say "Its not me, its God."

People are far to lenient with the religious and STILL they claim to be under attack, the only people who attack you do so in self defense OR are themselves preaching another form of religion!

There is nothing wrong with being gay, its perfectly natural.

EDIT: And it isnt the same as adultery, no one is harmed by homosexuality.

 

[Mray3460]

Ever heard of Scientology? oh and DON'T START RELIGION THREADS TROLL!!!!!

Scientology has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Also: I'm not a troll, it's a genuine question that was on my mind and I wanted other people's opinions.

 

[ben---neb]

SNIPPY SNAP

Your religion incites hatred... thats what religion does... makes you believe you are fundementally bad and there is nothing you can do about it except follow their religion, then through its teachings makes you passively hate others. As you said:
"I hope you at least appreciate that I can morally disapprove of homosexuality without hating those that practise it. Indeed, I should (i don't always) feel love (non sexual love obviosuly) for all sinners."

Its ridiculous, you use "God" as your sword and "God" as your sheild. You attack whoever you want and then say "Its not me, its God."

People are far to lenient with the religious and STILL they claim to be under attack, the only people who attack you do so in self defense OR are themselves preaching another form of religion!

There is nothing wrong with being gay, its perfectly natural.

EDIT: And it isnt the same as adultery, no one is harmed by homosexuality.

Yes, homosexuality is perfectly natural but like I've said before humans in their natural state are sinnners. Just because something is "natual" (whatever that word means) does not mean it is right. Naturally a person could feel voilent/hateful urges but as you've pointed out voilence is wrong.

Secondly, you lump all religions together as one which never works as each one is different from the other. Yes, religion has been used throughout history as an excuse for war, voilence or destruction. So has athestism (communism). The point is you can't judge Christianity by the behaviour of its believers because its believers (myself included) are flawed, sinful and imperfect.

You call Christianity a religion of hate when Jesus commands us all to:
"Love your enemy as ourself."
"Do to others what you would have done to yourself"

And then you confuse the spiritual imagery the Bible uses with rea life. Again and again the Bible mentions that we are all in a Spiritual war. God against Satan. The world against christians. BUT in the Bible in actually says that we should never ever use physical weapons or voilence. My sword and shield is the Lord my God. Not a real weapon but a spiritual one.

Also you're protesting like you have some sort of choice. God has commanded us not to engage in homosexuality. We therefore have to obey because He created us, formed us and sustains us. We owe him our obediance. In saying "homoseuality is fine" you are placing yourself above God, you are telling God that his laws are wrong! Instead, I ask that you might consider reading the Bible, going to church, praying and seeking God in your life. For if you do then you might see that God is not a God of hate but of love, love to sinners despite what they have done, love to this world that rejects him still and love to you. Yes, even though you defy God he loves you and calls out to you.

And you can choose not to answer, you can ignore God and go your own way. But your life will always have something missing, a void that can't be filled, pleasures will dull, sin will overtake you. And if you die then I'm afraid you will have to face God's judgement, his wrath against sin and all that in unholy.

 

[Jamous]

Religion is Faith, Science is Evidence. They're not the same and never will be. Science reasons, Religion doesn't (If it did it would realize how silly it was being.). Read the God Delusion. All explained in there.

The God Delusion is about as scientific as creationism unfortunately, and equally dogmatic. Read the review [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775] by Professor H. Allen Orr [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Allen_Orr] to see exactly why.

I think what the op is describing here is more a worship of man rather than a worship of science. To many anti-theists, science represents something more than just repeatable experimentation, it represents something deeper and more important - a destination for mankind. This is something that all fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, atheist) have in common. They do not think of humanity as a large number of individuals with different lives and beliefs all rubbing shoulders and having different needs and ultimate destinations, they think that somehow the whole of humanity needs to get somewhere and they are the people to lead us to that destination. For the Christian fundamentalist it is choirs and angels, for the atheist fundamentalist it is the test tube and lab coat.

But there is nothing in human nature or in human history that points to the idea that we are moving anywhere. Technology and science, though they are cumulative and have improved, in many ways, the lives of people within the industrialized nations, have also unleashed the most horrific forms of violence and death, and let's not forget, environmental degradation, in human history. So, there's nothing intrinsically moral about science. Science is morally neutral. It serves the good and the bad. Industrial killing is a product of technological advance, just as is penicillin and modern medicine. I find the faith that these kinds of people place in science and reason as a route toward human salvation to be as delusional as the faith the Christian right places in miracles and angels.

Have you read The God Delusion? It's a good book; reasoned and logical book, admittedly, some of the things in the review are correct, and I still don't believe as strongly as he does, yet the review criticises what I believe is more than deserved. Most of the things the review claims are negative are explained in a way I believe is perfectly acceptable. Now all I was saying is that the book explains how Science and Religion differs. I believe it does, if you don't then fine, but simply saying a book explains something doesn't mean you have to ramble on about how rubbish it is. (Yes, I realize that's probably hypocritical.)

 

[Kinguendo]

Yes, homosexuality is perfectly natural but like I've said before humans in their natural state are sinnners. Just because something is "natual" (whatever that word means) does not mean it is right. Naturally a person could feel voilent/hateful urges but as you've pointed out voilence is wrong.

Secondly, you lump all religions together as one which never works as each one is different from the other. Yes, religion has been used throughout history as an excuse for war, voilence or destruction. So has athestism (communism). The point is you can't judge Christianity by the behaviour of its believers because its believers (myself included) are flawed, sinful and imperfect.

You call Christianity a religion of hate when Jesus commands us all to:
"Love your enemy as ourself."
"Do to others what you would have done to yourself"

And then you confuse the spiritual imagery the Bible uses with rea life. Again and again the Bible mentions that we are all in a Spiritual war. God against Satan. The world against christians. BUT in the Bible in actually says that we should never ever use physical weapons or voilence. My sword and shield is the Lord my God. Not a real weapon but a spiritual one.

Also you're protesting like you have some sort of choice. God has commanded us not to engage in homosexuality. We therefore have to obey because He created us, formed us and sustains us. We owe him our obediance. In saying "homoseuality is fine" you are placing yourself above God, you are telling God that his laws are wrong! Instead, I ask that you might consider reading the Bible, going to church, praying and seeking God in your life. For if you do then you might see that God is not a God of hate but of love, love to sinners despite what they have done, love to this world that rejects him still and love to you. Yes, even though you defy God he loves you and calls out to you.

And you can choose not to answer, you can ignore God and go your own way. But your life will always have something missing, a void that can't be filled, pleasures will dull, sin will overtake you. And if you die then I'm afraid you will have to face God's judgement, his wrath against sin and all that in unholy.

Once again, picking and choosing which parts of your holy book to be guided by... its all "Gods" word.

After all, this road goes both way.

Heres your "God" endorsing the murder of children:

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son ... Then shall his father and his mother ... bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.
-- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Heres your "God" not only condoning rape, but saying its marriage worthy:

If a man [meets] a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her ... He must marry the girl ... He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
-- Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Heres a piece by the big JC:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother...
-- Matthew 10:34-35



Also, no. Atheism has never had anything done in its name and please dont say "Stalin was Atheist" which is true... but he was also as mad as a box of frogs!

And of course I am putting myself above "God", any one of them! I put myself and every other person, animal and object above any "God" because, in case you have figured it out yet, I am an Atheist and saying "God simply is." doesnt cut it for me.

Also, I think you will find that pleasure dulls because eventually things get boring... I am not mentally retarded so sitting in a corner with a piece of string isnt going to rock my boat! And sin will take me over? I think you will find that given the amount of stuff I do for others... much more than I do for myself... that I cannot be proclaimed to be any more sinful than your average saint! I was going to say "priest" as saint seemed a bit too egotistical, however I realised that "priest" implies a chance that I touch little boys wilkins which of course I dont... So saint will have to suffice.

 

[ben---neb]

SNIP

Once again, picking and choosing which parts of your holy book to be guided by... its all "Gods" word.

After all, this road goes both way.

Heres your "God" endorsing the murder of children:

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son ... Then shall his father and his mother ... bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.
-- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Heres your "God" not only condoning rape, but saying its marriage worthy:

If a man [meets] a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her ... He must marry the girl ... He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
-- Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Heres a piece by the big JC:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother...
-- Matthew 10:34-35



Also, no. Atheism has never had anything done in its name and please dont say "Stalin was Atheist" which is true... but he was also as mad as a box of frogs!

And of course I am putting myself above "God", any one of them! I put myself and every other person, animal and object above any "God" because, in case you have figured it out yet, I am an Atheist and saying "God simply is." doesnt cut it for me.

Also, I think you will find that pleasure dulls because eventually things get boring... I am not mentally retarded so sitting in a corner with a piece of string isnt going to rock my boat! And sin will take me over? I think you will find that given the amount of stuff I do for others... much more than I do for myself... that I cannot be proclaimed to be any more sinful than your average saint! I was going to say "priest" as saint seemed a bit too egotistical, however I realised that "priest" implies a chance that I touch little boys wilkins which of course I dont... So saint will have to suffice.

Verses first of all. Deuteronomy 21:18-21. If you read a bit further it says that the son is a profligate and a drunkard. (vs 20). In addition in says that the son should have been punished before (vs 18). Therefore this stoning was a last resort for what you could call the "lout" of that day's society. This would be the type of youth that wanders the street, mugging, knifing and generally being a foul human being. I look at that passage and see a loving God who is concerned for his People so gives them strong rules and punishments so that they can "purge evil from amoung you" (vs 21).

The next one. Deuteronomy 22:28-29. I'm afraid that at this point the term "rape" means something different. Actual violent rape would be given the punishment of death. In this context it means to seduce a women and sleep with her (see Exodus 22:16 & 17)

And the Matthew reference is again about SPIRITUAL warefare not physical warefare.

EDIT: Back now, yeah, Jesus is saying how becoming a Christian can turn family members away from you. He is certainly not saying that a son should take up a physical sword against his Father. We are all fighting in a spiritual battle and Jesus came to EArth to bring a spiritual war against the devil. And through his death on the cross for our sins and through his resurrection he conquored Satan and thus Christians are fighting a spiritual war they have already won.

Indeed you are no more sinful than your average saint. Why? Because even the saints deserve to go to Hell. Even saints were terrible sinners. It says in the Bible that "All our good works are like filthy rags to the Lord" (actually the translation better reads menstural rags (tampons!)). "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", "There is no one righteous, no not one." You are a sinner. I am a sinner. No matter what good deeds we both do we will still be sinners. We cannot make ourselves right with God by works. "It is not by works that we are saved but through faith least any man should boast" And that is what men do: they boast of their good deeds, they are self righetous and proclaim their works to other men. Before God your works mean nothing. Why? Because you still rebel against him. You do not acknowledge that he is Lord and greatly to be praised. You, I and everyone that ever has or ever will life all deserve to go to Hell. But by God's mercy, his grace, his love, he sent his son Jesus to die on the cross to take the punishsment we should get. And whoever believes in him, repents of their sin and turns from darkness they will be given the gift of eternal life.

So I ask you: where do you stand with God? Where will you spend eternity?

 

[Nick Bounty]

Recently, I've had a lot of time to be left alone with my thoughts (Which are generally not pleasant things to be left alone with) and it crossed about how many people claim that science can serve as a religion. Personally, I disagree, but I suppose I should explain my definition of a religion.

Religion is the combination of:
1. morals concerning behavior within the physical world.
2. beliefs considering the nature of the physical and spiritual worlds, and
3. perspectives upon the purpose of existence.

As to why science does not, and cannot, while remaining science, serve as a religion, quite simply, it doesn't meet any of those requirements. First, religion has no concept of morals (Not no morals, as the concept of no morals is still a moral ["Rule #1, there are no rules"]), it is objective concerning all phenomena and actions, with no concept of good or evil.

Second, science has no standpoint on the nature of the physical of spiritual worlds (Believing that neither or both of the worlds does not exist is still a standpoint on their natures). I.E. are we the shadows of a more perfect world (Plato), is the world random or predetermined by some higher being (Free Will vs. Predetermination), does the universe even exist at all, or are we simply a thought in some greater being's sick mind (Various). Science cannot answer these questions, as answers to them can neither be proved nor disproved by scientific methods (that, and all of the questions, and their answers, are ultimately irrelevant).

Third, finally, and probably most importantly, science cannot give purpose to anything. It can tell us what something is, how it works, what it does, and why it does it (as in, what caused the action), but it cannot define the purpose for any of those (the why on the scale of, what does this contribute to the universe, if anything. Again, believing that nothing has any purpose is still a perspective on purpose).

Anyway, that's why I disagree with the statement that science can serve as a religion, and I suppose this also explains why I disagree when people say that science and religion conflict with each other. With the exposition out of the way, here are my questions:

Do you believe that science can serve as a religion? Why?

Note: I did a search and found nothing on this specific topic. If this has been done before, please post a link to the original thread.

I don´t see how you can say that science has no input on the purpose of existence. First science can tell purpose of different lifeforms. We know that trees and plants are purposed to grow through water and sunlight to produce oxygene to support life of other living creatures.

Also the view on the spiritual world is really just a point of view and isn´t in any way defining a religion. Look on buddhism for example. Buddhism doesn´t believe in heaven or any spiritual existence, but just enlightment. The main purpose there is to receive understanding on how everything works and how it´s connected. Sure buddhism has its moral standards, but they were actually invented long after the religion was founded.

Also science can for sure be religion. Have you never heard of DPX (Dimensional-Progressive Xenogenesis)? That´s a scientificly based religion which actually preaches evolution as the highest, yet an undivine force. This is an accepted religion and it´s all based on scientific breakthroughs and evaluations.

Also purpose in itself is really just a very stupid term. Religions could say that their god created life, thus giving it and all its components purpose, science could say Big Bang created life, thus gave it purpose, but what if purpose is said to be nothing? Technicly a stone is a dead object, which would suggest it has no purpose, simply as it lacks the ability to change its own course of existence, based on the fact that it has no self-awereness or ability in itself to change its future.

I think the problem is that we take purpose and destiny for the same thing. Just take this example: it has been proven that if an succesful elite athlete gets a child, the chance is greater for this child to inherit some of the genes, making them slightly more capable of rising into elite athletes themselves, than a child not inheriting the genes of an elite athlete. Thus you could say that the child is destined to become an ahlete as it has already got some of the genes laid up for him/her (meaning that if the child becomes an elite athlete as well, he/she would use the greatest part of his/her potential).

Purpose in itself is rather a way for us to believe that we are set for something different (greater) than just dying, this is why I quote: nihil verum nisil mors , nothing is true but death. I think that purpose in itself is just a human term created to ease humanities fear for death as our last time of existence.

Also science has opinions on the spiritual world (which can be described as physical-bound energy). Some scientists suggests that humans could survive as energy, without a physical form (the body) as long as we have a life-source to supply that energy. Think of it like connecting any electronic device to an electric terminal to reload the batteries. The only problem is that this haven´t been proven yet!

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Religion is Faith, Science is Evidence. They're not the same and never will be. Science reasons, Religion doesn't (If it did it would realize how silly it was being.). Read the God Delusion. All explained in there.

The God Delusion is about as scientific as creationism unfortunately, and equally dogmatic. Read the review [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775] by Professor H. Allen Orr [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Allen_Orr] to see exactly why.

I think what the op is describing here is more a worship of man rather than a worship of science. To many anti-theists, science represents something more than just repeatable experimentation, it represents something deeper and more important - a destination for mankind. This is something that all fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, atheist) have in common. They do not think of humanity as a large number of individuals with different lives and beliefs all rubbing shoulders and having different needs and ultimate destinations, they think that somehow the whole of humanity needs to get somewhere and they are the people to lead us to that destination. For the Christian fundamentalist it is choirs and angels, for the atheist fundamentalist it is the test tube and lab coat.

But there is nothing in human nature or in human history that points to the idea that we are moving anywhere. Technology and science, though they are cumulative and have improved, in many ways, the lives of people within the industrialized nations, have also unleashed the most horrific forms of violence and death, and let's not forget, environmental degradation, in human history. So, there's nothing intrinsically moral about science. Science is morally neutral. It serves the good and the bad. Industrial killing is a product of technological advance, just as is penicillin and modern medicine. I find the faith that these kinds of people place in science and reason as a route toward human salvation to be as delusional as the faith the Christian right places in miracles and angels.

Have you read The God Delusion? It's a good book; reasoned and logical book, admittedly, some of the things in the review are correct, and I still don't believe as strongly as he does, yet the review criticises what I believe is more than deserved. Most of the things the review claims are negative are explained in a way I believe is perfectly acceptable. Now all I was saying is that the book explains how Science and Religion differs. I believe it does, if you don't then fine, but simply saying a book explains something doesn't mean you have to ramble on about how rubbish it is. (Yes, I realize that's probably hypocritical.)

Actually it is the other way around. I believe that science and religion have nothing to do with each other.

There are serious issues with The God Delusion. I am not asking you to take my words at face value, not at all. All I am asking you to do is to look beyond Dawkins and apply what you know and have experienced yourself in the real world.

 

[Mray3460]

Recently, I've had a lot of time to be left alone with my thoughts (Which are generally not pleasant things to be left alone with) and it crossed about how many people claim that science can serve as a religion. Personally, I disagree, but I suppose I should explain my definition of a religion.

Religion is the combination of:
1. morals concerning behavior within the physical world.
2. beliefs considering the nature of the physical and spiritual worlds, and
3. perspectives upon the purpose of existence.

As to why science does not, and cannot, while remaining science, serve as a religion, quite simply, it doesn't meet any of those requirements. First, religion has no concept of morals (Not no morals, as the concept of no morals is still a moral ["Rule #1, there are no rules"]), it is objective concerning all phenomena and actions, with no concept of good or evil.

Second, science has no standpoint on the nature of the physical of spiritual worlds (Believing that neither or both of the worlds does not exist is still a standpoint on their natures). I.E. are we the shadows of a more perfect world (Plato), is the world random or predetermined by some higher being (Free Will vs. Predetermination), does the universe even exist at all, or are we simply a thought in some greater being's sick mind (Various). Science cannot answer these questions, as answers to them can neither be proved nor disproved by scientific methods (that, and all of the questions, and their answers, are ultimately irrelevant).

Third, finally, and probably most importantly, science cannot give purpose to anything. It can tell us what something is, how it works, what it does, and why it does it (as in, what caused the action), but it cannot define the purpose for any of those (the why on the scale of, what does this contribute to the universe, if anything. Again, believing that nothing has any purpose is still a perspective on purpose).

Anyway, that's why I disagree with the statement that science can serve as a religion, and I suppose this also explains why I disagree when people say that science and religion conflict with each other. With the exposition out of the way, here are my questions:

Do you believe that science can serve as a religion? Why?

Note: I did a search and found nothing on this specific topic. If this has been done before, please post a link to the original thread.

I don´t see how you can say that science has no input on the purpose of existence. First science can tell purpose of different lifeforms. We know that trees and plants are purposed to grow through water and sunlight to produce oxygen to support life of other living creatures.

What you're describing here is an object's purpose WITHIN existence (I.E. in the context of other objects), which science can define. What I meant by "purpose" in the original post was a greater or "cosmic" purpose, a purpose that goes beyond the physical world, the very reason that an object and the system of objects that it exists in was brought into being.

Also the view on the spiritual world is really just a point of view and isn´t in any way defining a religion. Look on Buddhism for example. Buddhism doesn´t believe in heaven or any spiritual existence, but just enlightenment. The main purpose there is to receive understanding on how everything works and how it´s connected. Sure Buddhism has its moral standards, but they were actually invented long after the religion was founded.

Buddhism believes in reincarnation until enlightenment is reached, and that the spiritual world is a short stage of judgment between death and rebirth.

Also science can for sure be religion. Have you never heard of DPX (Dimensional-Progressive Xenogenesis)? That´s a scientifically based religion which actually preaches evolution as the highest, yet an undivine force. This is an accepted religion and it´s all based on scientific breakthroughs and evaluations.

I googled "Dimensional-Progressive Xenogenesis" and didn't find anything, but I'll take your word for it that it's a religion. However, there is one particular part of the above quote from you that I need to point out.

...scientifically BASED religion...

I concede that a religion can be BASED off of science, I know for a fact that that cannot be disputed, but science itself, while still remaining purely science, cannot serve as a religion, as it does not fulfill any of the three requirements of a religion. Quite simply, the instant that science becomes a religion, it ceases to remain science.

Technically a stone is a dead object, which would suggest it has no purpose, simply as it lacks the ability to change its own course of existence, based on the fact that it has no self-awareness or ability in itself to change its future.

As I said in the Original Post

believing that nothing (Addendum, or in this case, a single object) has any purpose is still a perspective on purpose.

Also science has opinions on the spiritual world (which can be described as physical-bound energy). Some scientists suggests that humans could survive as energy, without a physical form (the body) as long as we have a life-source to supply that energy. Think of it like connecting any electronic device to an electric terminal to reload the batteries. The only problem is that this haven´t been proven yet!

If it is not testable (I.E. able to be proven or disproven) then it is not science. While the explanation you gave does make scene on a logical or thought driven basis, that does not make it science, it has to be tested in the physical world, so that it can be proven or disproven.

 

[Jamous]

Religion is Faith, Science is Evidence. They're not the same and never will be. Science reasons, Religion doesn't (If it did it would realize how silly it was being.). Read the God Delusion. All explained in there.

The God Delusion is about as scientific as creationism unfortunately, and equally dogmatic. Read the review [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775] by Professor H. Allen Orr [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Allen_Orr] to see exactly why.

I think what the op is describing here is more a worship of man rather than a worship of science. To many anti-theists, science represents something more than just repeatable experimentation, it represents something deeper and more important - a destination for mankind. This is something that all fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, atheist) have in common. They do not think of humanity as a large number of individuals with different lives and beliefs all rubbing shoulders and having different needs and ultimate destinations, they think that somehow the whole of humanity needs to get somewhere and they are the people to lead us to that destination. For the Christian fundamentalist it is choirs and angels, for the atheist fundamentalist it is the test tube and lab coat.

But there is nothing in human nature or in human history that points to the idea that we are moving anywhere. Technology and science, though they are cumulative and have improved, in many ways, the lives of people within the industrialized nations, have also unleashed the most horrific forms of violence and death, and let's not forget, environmental degradation, in human history. So, there's nothing intrinsically moral about science. Science is morally neutral. It serves the good and the bad. Industrial killing is a product of technological advance, just as is penicillin and modern medicine. I find the faith that these kinds of people place in science and reason as a route toward human salvation to be as delusional as the faith the Christian right places in miracles and angels.

Have you read The God Delusion? It's a good book; reasoned and logical book, admittedly, some of the things in the review are correct, and I still don't believe as strongly as he does, yet the review criticises what I believe is more than deserved. Most of the things the review claims are negative are explained in a way I believe is perfectly acceptable. Now all I was saying is that the book explains how Science and Religion differs. I believe it does, if you don't then fine, but simply saying a book explains something doesn't mean you have to ramble on about how rubbish it is. (Yes, I realize that's probably hypocritical.)

Actually it is the other way around. I believe that science and religion have nothing to do with each other.

There are serious issues with The God Delusion. I am not asking you to take my words at face value, not at all. All I am asking you to do is to look beyond Dawkins and apply what you know and have experienced yourself in the real world.

... I do. Strangely enough, I can think for myself. ^_^ Shall we just agree to disagree? We're both competent people, aren't we? We don't need to continue this.

 

[Kinguendo]

Verses first of all. Deuteronomy 21:18-21. If you read a bit further it says that the son is a profligate and a drunkard. (vs 20). In addition in says that the son should have been punished before (vs 18). Therefore this stoning was a last resort for what you could call the "lout" of that day's society. This would be the type of youth that wanders the street, mugging, knifing and generally being a foul human being. I look at that passage and see a loving God who is concerned for his People so gives them strong rules and punishments so that they can "purge evil from amoung you" (vs 21).

The next one. Deuteronomy 22:28-29. I'm afraid that at this point the term "rape" means something different. Actual violent rape would be given the punishment of death. In this context it means to seduce a women and sleep with her (see Exodus 22:16 & 17)

And the Matthew reference is again about SPIRITUAL warefare not physical warefare.

EDIT: Back now, yeah, Jesus is saying how becoming a Christian can turn family members away from you. He is certainly not saying that a son should take up a physical sword against his Father. We are all fighting in a spiritual battle and Jesus came to EArth to bring a spiritual war against the devil. And through his death on the cross for our sins and through his resurrection he conquored Satan and thus Christians are fighting a spiritual war they have already won.

Indeed you are no more sinful than your average saint. Why? Because even the saints deserve to go to Hell. Even saints were terrible sinners. It says in the Bible that "All our good works are like filthy rags to the Lord" (actually the translation better reads menstural rags (tampons!)). "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", "There is no one righteous, no not one." You are a sinner. I am a sinner. No matter what good deeds we both do we will still be sinners. We cannot make ourselves right with God by works. "It is not by works that we are saved but through faith least any man should boast" And that is what men do: they boast of their good deeds, they are self righetous and proclaim their works to other men. Before God your works mean nothing. Why? Because you still rebel against him. You do not acknowledge that he is Lord and greatly to be praised. You, I and everyone that ever has or ever will life all deserve to go to Hell. But by God's mercy, his grace, his love, he sent his son Jesus to die on the cross to take the punishsment we should get. And whoever believes in him, repents of their sin and turns from darkness they will be given the gift of eternal life.

So I ask you: where do you stand with God? Where will you spend eternity?

Thats a huge assumption, as though all the children that would fit into the catagorie of being stoned until death were deserving of it... which of course they arent. Oh and shockingly enough, murdering children in any context cannot be defined as "love".

Please, if anyone else made such bold assumptions about something widely discredited and unproven they would be kicked out of whatever establishment they were and given stares that can only be described as "not exactly nice".

Oh and no, "God" condones murder... Jesus said, as I quoted, that he was not here to bring peace... If you believe the word of the Bible then those are the exact words of Jesus... that he was not here to bring peace... you can continue saying that "it was spiritual"... Oh wait, what else is "spiritual"... EVERY SINGLE OTHER RELIGION! So its either you believe he wasnt here to bring general peace OR he was here to bring religious wars! And as you keep on jumping on the "spiritual" bandwagon then I shall go with religious wars. Dont try to say that your religion is a peaceful one... NO RELIGION is a peaceful one... Even Buddhism makes people punish themselves and sacrifice.

Oh so it isnt about being good... its about "Gods" b*tch. So everything that Jesus said about being nice to people (even though he was still not nice himself) is quite irrelevant as you can be an evil b*stard but as long as you bend over for "God" its all okay. And no, it isnt by his mercy, grace or love... if you believe he created everything then guess what... he created hell! If he didnt want you to go there he wouldnt have created the place!

I am an Atheist, absolutely no proof of any "God" or afterlife. And eternity doesnt apply to me, only the span of my life... once that ends that is it for me... as it was before I was born... I didnt feel the time passing as I simply wasnt and it will be the same once I am dead... there would be no difference between death and before conception for me, that actually makes sense.

 

[ben---neb]

SNIP

Thats a huge assumption, as though all the children that would fit into the catagorie of being stoned until death were deserving of it... which of course they arent. Oh and shockingly enough, murdering children in any context cannot be defined as "love".

Please, if anyone else made such bold assumptions about something widely discredited and unproven they would be kicked out of whatever establishment they were and given stares that can only be described as "not exactly nice".

Oh and no, "God" condones murder... Jesus said, as I quoted, that he was not here to bring peace... If you believe the word of the Bible then those are the exact words of Jesus... that he was not here to bring peace... you can continue saying that "it was spiritual"... Oh wait, what else is "spiritual"... EVERY SINGLE OTHER RELIGION! So its either you believe he wasnt here to bring general peace OR he was here to bring religious wars! And as you keep on jumping on the "spiritual" bandwagon then I shall go with religious wars. Dont try to say that your religion is a peaceful one... NO RELIGION is a peaceful one... Even Buddhism makes people punish themselves and sacrifice.

Oh so it isnt about being good... its about "Gods" b*tch. So everything that Jesus said about being nice to people (even though he was still not nice himself) is quite irrelevant as you can be an evil b*stard but as long as you bend over for "God" its all okay. And no, it isnt by his mercy, grace or love... if you believe he created everything then guess what... he created hell! If he didnt want you to go there he wouldnt have created the place!

I am an Atheist, absolutely no proof of any "God" or afterlife. And eternity doesnt apply to me, only the span of my life... once that ends that is it for me... as it was before I was born... I didnt feel the time passing as I simply wasnt and it will be the same once I am dead... there would be no difference between death and before conception for me, that actually makes sense.

"For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6). Jesus = Prince of Peace.

Like I said before Christianity is just one excuse of many that will be used when nations go to war. Spiritual war does not refer to a war between various different religions. It refers to the ongoing battle of God against Satan. A battle that we will are fighting in. But it is not fought with physical weapons, through violence or coersion. It is fought through prayer, mediation of God's way, preaching the gospel and trying to live more and more like Christ. To be filled with the fruits of the spirit which are: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness and self control, against such things there is no law. That is how Christians should fight, often we don't, we fail, we fail short, we use physical weapons where none should ever be used. But Christians are still sinners, they still mess up but the wonderful thing is that God forgives, no matter how many times I sin God will always forgive me. Does that mean I sin more? No, how can I? I love God and want to please him and with God's support, through prayer and Bible reading, I improve, gradually, slowly, but its there.

Yes, God created hell. How could he not? He is a holy God, perfect, righteous, blameless. He cannot stand sin in any form. What sort of God would allow evil to go unpunished? Having set mankind his law what sort of God would just stand back and ignore us when we break it? Mankind deserves to go to hell, every single human deserves it.

But here is the amazing part. God gave us a way out, he created Hell and created a path to salvation from it. Through Jesus dying on the cross for mankinds sin all those that repent and believe in him are saved from hell. Isn't that great? Isn't it wonderful to see God as both a Judge and as a loving merciful Father?

And you speak as if your unbelief in eternity will somehow make you exempt. I'm sorry but that is not the case. When you die you will face judgement for your life on earth. We all will. And you have to give account of yourself and you will be found guilty because every human is guilty and deserves to be punished. But Christians have an assurance, that because we believe, becuse we have put our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the truth of the Bible, the Trinity and that it is by grace we are saved not works then God will look upon us and not see all the vile, sinful filth that he should see but see a son, a daughter in Christ and will take us to the place that Jesus has prepared for all those that believe.

 

[Nick Bounty]

-edited-

All I am saying is that the only tenent of science is the fact that the scientific method works out pretty well, and you're welcome to propose a process that explains more than it and produces more accurate explainations of the universe.

Apart from that, it doesn't really compare to religion. Its just a tool and it prescribes nothing in the form of morals or answers to silly 'why?' questions the religions claim to answer. Modern 'liberalized culture' that is made up of the billions of people that crudely adhere to it in an unspoken social contract usually find science an adequate tool to examine various social phenomeon to produce objective truths and decide what is moral as a result, and science is just one of the tools that increases the likihood that a given conclusion is accurate, fair, and applicable enough

 

[Kinguendo]

"For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6). Jesus = Prince of Peace.

Like I said before Christianity is just one excuse of many that will be used when nations go to war. Spiritual war does not refer to a war between various different religions. It refers to the ongoing battle of God against Satan. A battle that we will are fighting in. But it is not fought with physical weapons, through violence or coersion. It is fought through prayer, mediation of God's way, preaching the gospel and trying to live more and more like Christ. To be filled with the fruits of the spirit which are: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness and self control, against such things there is no law. That is how Christians should fight, often we don't, we fail, we fail short, we use physical weapons where none should ever be used. But Christians are still sinners, they still mess up but the wonderful thing is that God forgives, no matter how many times I sin God will always forgive me. Does that mean I sin more? No, how can I? I love God and want to please him and with God's support, through prayer and Bible reading, I improve, gradually, slowly, but its there.

Yes, God created hell. How could he not? He is a holy God, perfect, righteous, blameless. He cannot stand sin in any form. What sort of God would allow evil to go unpunished? Having set mankind his law what sort of God would just stand back and ignore us when we break it? Mankind deserves to go to hell, every single human deserves it.

But here is the amazing part. God gave us a way out, he created Hell and created a path to salvation from it. Through Jesus dying on the cross for mankinds sin all those that repent and believe in him are saved from hell. Isn't that great? Isn't it wonderful to see God as both a Judge and as a loving merciful Father?

And you speak as if your unbelief in eternity will somehow make you exempt. I'm sorry but that is not the case. When you die you will face judgement for your life on earth. We all will. And you have to give account of yourself and you will be found guilty because every human is guilty and deserves to be punished. But Christians have an assurance, that because we believe, becuse we have put our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the truth of the Bible, the Trinity and that it is by grace we are saved not works then God will look upon us and not see all the vile, sinful filth that he should see but see a son, a daughter in Christ and will take us to the place that Jesus has prepared for all those that believe.

Sorry but quoting the Bible is weak at best, it doesnt prove anything... all you are proving is that someone wrote it... I can do that by reading a Spider-Man comic.

And as I have said, I dont appreciate the constant quotes AND I dont like religion for their sexist and homophobic... and often racist beliefs.

But I will say this, a "God" that is perfect and loves his "humans" and doesnt want them to go to "Hell"... yet he created them imperfect... created "Hell"... all disease... all temptation... all sin... and then placed them in a world that is constantly kiling them and can be a very hostile place naturally... and IF you do screw up by "Gods" rules you can just say sorry and all is well... thats weak, as "God" is. Jealous and angry... very human personality traits that even humans have gotten over.

 

[Mray3460]

-edited-

All I am saying is that the only tenet of science is the fact that the scientific method works out pretty well, and you're welcome to propose a process that explains more than it and produces more accurate explanations of the universe.

Apart from that, it doesn't really compare to religion. Its just a tool and it prescribes nothing in the form of morals or answers to silly 'why?' questions the religions claim to answer. Modern 'liberalized culture' that is made up of the billions of people that crudely adhere to it in an unspoken social contract usually find science an adequate tool to examine various social phenomenon to produce objective truths and decide what is moral as a result, and science is just one of the tools that increases the likelihood that a given conclusion is accurate, fair, and applicable enough

I'm sorry, I'm not sure which part(s) of your or my argument you are countering or supporting. I'd appreciate it if you made a new post that quoted my or your previous posts directly, so that continuity can be maintained in the discussion. By simply replacing the quote with "-edited-," you've in effect rendered it impossible for me to put this new post into proper context, which could lead to a misunderstanding. Also, for the record, all I am saying is that science cannot serve as a religion, and then backing it up with my own reasoning.