something like that. you know, something rooted in reality.
LAWL.

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/grea.../Pinker054.php
Over the past century, violent images from World War II concentration camps, Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur, Iraq, and many other times and places have been seared into our collective consciousness. These images have led to a common belief that technology, centralized nation-states, and modern values have brought about unprecedented violence.
Our seemingly troubled times are routinely contrasted with idyllic images of hunter-gatherer societies, which allegedly lived in a state of harmony with nature and each other. The doctrine of the noble savage—the idea that humans are peaceable by nature and corrupted by modern institutions—pops up frequently in the writing of public intellectuals like, for example, Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset, who argued that "war is not an instinct but an invention."
But now that social scientists have started to count bodies in different historical periods, they have discovered that the romantic theory gets it backward: Far from causing us to become more violent, something in modernity and its cultural institutions has made us nobler. In fact, our ancestors were far more violent than we are today. Indeed, violence has been in decline over long stretches of history, and today we are probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species' time on earth.

of course it is not unerring, but it is given to followers as absolute truth to be unquestioned and accepted, and in catholiscism for example, just one MAN has the ability to change dogma. nice huh>? in science any little kid with a science experiment can prove or disprove any theory.

Ok - look at the 10 commandments. Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with any of those commandments, as ethical precepts. I'd agree there's a lot that's iffy about, say, Leviticus, but I've just as much right to eschew that as you have the right to disprove String theory. The truth of both matters, of course, is that it's bigger men than you or I who make a difference. But you still get the odd Sri Ramakrishna or Andrew Wiles popping up here or there.

I'm not essentially arguing against science, I'm arguing about science as a mode of fostering spritual, ethical and moral 'rightness'.

i don't/never did understand why people get into arguments about this shit? live and let live. seriously. i have my beliefs and you have yours. if you like it, great, if not i don't know, go fuck yourself because i don't give a shit what you think so why should you care what i have to say? you don't? great. that's what i thought.

Tell that to the hundreds of millions of bodies which have piled up over the past hundred years of modern warfare. Tell that to the countless refugees and victims of war across the world. Regardless of the motivation for war, the technology used today was created by the callousness of science, cold facts often have no heart.


My point in this is blind following of anything, be it science or religion is dangerous. You should follow things in depth and substance, hence the purpose of this thread to discuss in substance the arguments back and forth. In this way, we can reason and understand each other with a higher degree of sophistication and preciseness..

And on a question posed before, "What good has religion given to the world?"

Interesting point about this false dichotomy, religion is the ORIGINAL SCIENCE. The origin of collection observation and data about natural phenomena comes from religious quests to understand the nature of the world, to mark a correct calendar, and to preserve knowledge from the past. Whether you are in East Asia, India, the Middle East, or especially Western Europe, the preservation of all the ancient writings which science is built upon including the very art of writing itself comes from religious institutions like monasteries..

Monks preserved the Latin and Greek writings of the ancient world, and these works on mathematics, natural sciences, architecture and history are the foundation of modern science and were the inspiration and practice of the early modern scientists, from Newton to Mendel, Francis Bacon to Darwin.

Without the continuity of the socio-political institutions of religion, Europe, the Middle East and Asia might never had risen to such great heights of civilization and modernity.

it's so something satan would say. well yr first post. [actually, and LAWL]

everyone seems to be drawing on their own experiences to fill in these answers

I view this entire debate or issue as a problem derived from the extremist viewpoints of both sides.

On one hand your have religious extremists who believe that what they are doing is appeasing their God(s). So, the ancient Israelites, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Asians, and later the Turks, Catholics, Christians etc all have at some point or another shed blood believing that they not only were justified but most of the time even divinely blessed. The notion that God(s) was/were on their side, is and should be considered bullshit. So if you choose to believe in a God or religion, one should understand that the truth is: men in power often abused their interpretation of whatever God they were worshipping, in order to fulfill their own selfish wishes. But, I believe at some point, long ago, there was purity and truth amongst all this confusion. Way too many things point to that.

Science. I like it, believe it and find most of it to be very explanatory and helpful in understanding our surroundings. But, like religion Science will try to have an answer for everything, EVERYTHING and that just doesn't add up. Science has discovered each individual uses different parts of his/her brain more than others. So, basically a long time ago you had some people who were more analytical than others, saw the hypocrasy in religion, and decided to study how and why things work the way they do. Essentially they wanted mankind to be their God, and that makes sense because you can change scientific reasoning, discover better methods, etc, a lot easier than applying a certain verse from the Koran or the Bible, written thousands of years ago to a current situation. In science's quest to penetrate all the mysteries of life and find meaning behind things, they have committed their fair share of blunders, call it ignorance or intention, they've fucked up a lot.

I think if more religous zealots embraced the fact that: there is a God and he did create all things, so be glad some men are studying God's inventions to try and better humankind, because obviously religion as a whoile has done a shit job of that.

Equally I'd suggest to scientist to realize some things will NEVER be explained or understood by human beings, ever. Not at the rate in which we are currently ''evolving'' anyways. Embrace the fact that maybe a God did design all these things but at the same time gave them the ability to adapt and change to the enviroment.

I remember in college studying biology within the human body and my professor saying: ''I once tried to understand how and why everything worked within our bodies down to the molecular level, and came to the conclusion that neither I nor most of the human population would ever truley figure it out. So I for the most part still think of the body as the field, functioning as the game, and our cells are simply the players. With that said, Creation to me is still a sham.''

In ending I would like to quote Glice: ''I'm not essentially arguing against science, I'm arguing about science as a mode of fostering spritual, ethical and moral 'rightness'.''

every time someone quotes glice, a child in africa dies. no joke

was the child already underfed, ill and suffering?

Africa is overpopulated due to scientific improvements in the field of medicine and the natives constant urge to copulate as part of their religious duty.

so are you therefore saying it's our duty to quote glice as often as we can so that we reduce the population in africa?

I'm saying that science points to that.

b-b-but arguments are what fuels the internet, Dark Mistress. You willed it Yrself.


quoting for effect.

----> deep in the heart of darkest thailand, a lady-boy is born.

DroneSlowly's unanticipated questioning of the Mistresses' logic left the other Drones cowering behind their spoons

I'm confused was that scientific or religious?

Ahh, carry on.

I'll pretend I did not hear that. Africa is by no means over populated, in fact with the exception of Egypt, Nigeria and Ethiopia most African countries are sparsely populated. And in a country like Ethiopia, food shortages and disease are caused by mad made disasters and unequal distribution of resources. Further, if anything scientific improvements in the field of medicine haven't even begun to properly affect or increase Africa's population. But that is off topic, this is a discussion about Science and Theology, not geopolitics.

it's more of a cult, you know.

GOD IS DEAD MOTHERFUCKERS

I was by no means being serious, 'twas a joke.

sjg may not have been the end all be all of this topic but

a) i never claimed he was the end all be all, i simply sided with his view and presented it in an internet-friendly manner-- your refutation is therefore inaccurate, if not specious. refute the actual argument or concede the point.

b) he absolutely knew a fuckload more than you on about the subject, so you can't get him on appeal to authority (yours). refute the actual argument or concede the point.

c) his argument as much as you may disagree was a far cry from "a bullshit response" to the problem-- the sucka wrote a whole book on it. ad-hominems won't fly. refute the argument or concede the point.

!@#$%! + stephen jay gould 3
robinstigator 0

ha ha haaaa

by the way man i despise relijuns as much as you do, just so you know, and i've made that obvious here plenty. for those who understand, science and religion they deal with a completely different set of issues. only ignorant people conflate them--that was my initial point-- so please don't be one of them.

I google imaged, 'religion serious business' and this came up.

i almost had a boner, but my response was cut off by their lack of lips

Yes,yes anime chicks often lack good dsl's.

no probs.

religions and spiritual prejudices killed TRILLIONS throughout history, and even modern wars have religious basis. the nazis did not try to exterminate the hebrew race from their lands for secular reasons.
the muslims do not kill their neighbors for secular reasons.

I just wanna say I never intended anything personal with my rantings. I love you all and would kill and die to preserve your right to worship whatever the hell you wish to worship.

:D

I'm sorry, but if at this point, anyone takes yr anti-religious rantings personally, they can fuck off.

it's pretty much a given fact that you drive the religi-threads.

The Passion of the Instigator

Repped, so hard

"A theistic universe may very well be compatible with an ontological uniformity, but is incompatible with any knowledge of ontology. In a theistic universe, there are no mental processes and therefore no will. Will comes from the human brain, which is too complex to exist in an indetermined universe. Imagine, for instance, a 747 flying through the air in a completely indetermined universe. Pressing a button may retract the wheels, but it may also crash the plane, or turn it into confetti. Not doing anything may keep the plane flying straight, or it may turn the plane upside down, or go into a nosedive. In such conditions, how would we know anything in regards to keeping the plane straight?
The human mind, likewise, could not have evolved its complex algorithms and functions if it did not exist in a deterministic universe, where the laws of nature apply uniformly in nerves and brain tissue.And if there is no uniformity of nature and no sovereign will, then there is no knowledge, no values, and therefore no purpose (which is nothing more than long-term values applied by the sovereign will of the individual)." from
Introduction To Materialist Apologetics

by Francois Tremblay


That is silly. How does the concept of biological evolution of the mind somehow negate the existence of divinity? His premise is that a Divine God above the rules of nature somehow negates nature because that divinity has the power to transcend the rules but.. that fails to consider the very simple fact that just because God can change the rules doesn't mean that this God has or necessarily wants to..

Further, if God is the rules themselves, then how does this contradict the rules of biological evolution? Can't God be the rules of natural selection, the mechanism behind the process, the prime selector, who creates the playing field, players, game and all the rules and is a sort of Cosmic refure?

On that note, here is some deep theology to ponder..

What makes the so-called Laws and Rules of the Universe complete and absolute? Why is there gravity? Why are there strong and weak nuclear forces or electro-magnetic energy? Why do these observed fundamental principles of the material universe stay the exact same in all events? There is not necessarily a scientific explanation for that as there is yet a Unified Theory. Theology easily fills in the blank, God is the force behind the rules, the Cosmic Enforcer of the Fundamental Rules of the Universe, the Divine Selector in the Process of Natural Selection. I have never understood why the observations of cosmic and biological evolution HAVE TO NECESSARILY negate the existence of God. Sure, they might discredit religions and holy books, particular customs or traditions, but that is not theology that is culture. Culture should not be confused with divinity. If science disproves the bible that is good and fine, but it is not a logical conclusion to say that scientific observations disprove the existence of Divine or Supernatural forces just because the current religious interpretations of these forces might be flawed. Science itself gets it wrong most of the time, so maybe science should start cutting religion a chance and giving it time to grow and advance, as it has for thousands of years. Religion is not stagnant, and science does not automatically negate religious experience by disproving holy texts.