A religious scientist

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If God is not real, you have lost nothing in the venture.

In "The God delusion", Richard Dawkins argues that religion is generally harmful and I am inclined to agree with him. The following are some major reasons:
1. Moderate religion provides an environment for extremists to flourish. Extremists, as we all know are undesirable.
2. Religion in general, though to different degrees, tends to discourage scientific inquiry especially when such inquiry is perceived to be threatening. This is clearly a very very bad thing.
3. Religion can lead people to act in illogical ways that can be detrimental to themselves or others. For example the Catholic Churches stance on condoms has lead to an increase in the spread of HIV.
4. The amount of time / money wasted in prayer and other religious activities could be better spent.
5. Religion as a major cause of divisions between groups of people resulting in conflicts and the perpetuation of conflicts. A very significant proportion of conflicts are a direct result of or are perpetuated or exaggerated due to religious differences between the groups involved.

Keep in mind when reading the above that the assumption is that God is not real.

Originally posted by serigado
If God is not real, you have lost nothing in the venture.

Yes, you have. You have lost all the time worshiping, devoting yourself, and more importantly, having a completely wrong vision of the world during your whole lifetime.
Accept the beautiful vision of a world without God and you will never be deluded. You only have to answer to yourself, you k ...[text shortened]... obligation, because YOU are your own GOD. Is there anything more beautiful then this freedom???[/b]

Yes, you have. You have lost all the time worshiping, devoting yourself, and more importantly, having a completely wrong vision of the world during your whole lifetime.
Your argument totally shreds a statement that wasn't made. Re-read what statement I did make, and then apply the test of 'good use of time.'

You only have to answer to yourself, you know everything you do is without a superior obligation, because YOU are your own GOD. Is there anything more beautiful then this freedom???
Contrast your promise with the following passage from Genesis:
[i]"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.
"For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."[/b]
How in the world does a text from ancient times become so prescient as to anticipate a viewpoint as advanced as yours?

Originally posted by twhitehead
In "The God delusion", Richard Dawkins argues that religion is generally harmful and I am inclined to agree with him. The following are some major reasons:
1. Moderate religion provides an environment for extremists to flourish. Extremists, as we all know are undesirable.
2. Religion in general, though to different degrees, tends to discourage scientifi ...[text shortened]... ed.

Keep in mind when reading the above that the assumption is that God is [b]not real.[/b]

In "The God delusion", Richard Dawkins argues that religion is generally harmful and I am inclined to agree with him.
If delusion is the litmus test, then surely we need look no further than Dawkins himself for such a one as to avoid. Only one with an axe to grind could ever so dismissively turn a blind eye to the advancements made possible only by means of faith.

2. Religion in general, though to different degrees, tends to discourage scientific inquiry especially when such inquiry is perceived to be threatening. This is clearly a very very bad thing.
If ever a sentiment was wrought with all manner of wrong-thinking and false premise, this is it.

3. Religion can lead people to act in illogical ways that can be detrimental to themselves or others. For example the Catholic Churches stance on condoms has lead to an increase in the spread of HIV.
See above comments.

4. The amount of time / money wasted in prayer and other religious activities could be better spent.
Of course, beginning with an assumption of no God. If there were a contest for biggest leap of faith, this makes all others look miniscule.

5. Religion as a major cause of divisions between groups of people resulting in conflicts and the perpetuation of conflicts.
Are you serious? That statement shows an absolute and abject indifference to realty. People are the major cause of division between groups of people. They just happen to need (and subsequently find) something to glom onto in order to justify the same. That religion is used proves nothing other than that people find it a useful rallying point. No more, no less.

Keep in mind when reading the above that the assumption is that God is not real.
A reaction position posing as a default. How positively sneaky of it.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]In "The God delusion", Richard Dawkins argues that religion is generally harmful and I am inclined to agree with him.
If delusion is the litmus test, then surely we need look no further than Dawkins himself for such a one as to avoid. Only one with an axe to grind could ever so dismissively turn a blind eye to the advancements made possible only b ...[text shortened]... s not real.[/b]
A reaction position posing as a default. How positively sneaky of it.[/b]

Well FreakyKBH, would you care to actually argue any of the points? I can't seem to understand most of your comments and I suspect that that was your intention. Maybe you actually have no defense.
Pick any point and see if you can make a valid argument against it instead of an unqualified dismissal. If you do not understand any of them, I would be happy to expand on them. For example point 5: The conflict in northern Ireland was undeniably exacerbated by the fact that two distinct denominations exist there. You are claiming that if nobody in northern Ireland was religious in any way then the conflict would have still existed and still been as bad. Surely you are not that stupid?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Yes, you have. You have lost all the time worshiping, devoting yourself, and more importantly, having a completely wrong vision of the world during your whole lifetime.
Your argument totally shreds a statement that wasn't made. Re-read what statement I did make, and then apply the test of 'good use of time.'

You only have to answer to yourse from ancient times become so prescient as to anticipate a viewpoint as advanced as yours?

[/b]
1) I re-read it and I don't understand how it doesn't apply to your statement.

2) It must be the prophetic power of the Bible. With proper interpretation, it can fit anything you want.
More, even if your God exists and it's existence is proven, I would prefer to keep my ideals then to submit to him and his stupid viewpoints. That's how strong my ideals are. Submission: NEVER.

Blasphemy, he said.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well FreakyKBH, would you care to actually argue any of the points? I can't seem to understand most of your comments and I suspect that that was your intention. Maybe you actually have no defense.
Pick any point and see if you can make a valid argument against it instead of an unqualified dismissal. If you do not understand any of them, I would be happy ...[text shortened]... en the conflict would have still existed and still been as bad. Surely you are not that stupid?

For example point 5: The conflict in northern Ireland was undeniably exacerbated by the fact that two distinct denominations exist there. You are claiming that if nobody in northern Ireland was religious in any way then the conflict would have still existed and still been as bad. Surely you are not that stupid?
As stupid as I might be, I can somehow see clear enough to understand that those warring factions in Ireland could just as readily be informed by any distinction, real or imagined. Do the brutal lessons learned in Rwanda or Hitler's Germany ring any bells?

The fact that the lines are drawn along denominational differences should also tell you something of human nature, but you are either glossing over the same purposely or in ignorance, hopefully the latter.

Otherwise, the dismissals were not unqualified. The original statements themselves are absurd and uninformed by reality.

Originally posted by serigado

1) I re-read it and I don't understand how it doesn't apply to your statement.

2) It must be the prophetic power of the Bible. With proper interpretation, it can fit anything you want.
More, even if your God exists and it's existence is proven, I would prefer to keep my ideals then to submit to him and his stupid viewpoints. That's how strong my ideals are. Submission: NEVER.

Blasphemy, he said.

1) I re-read it and I don't understand how it doesn't apply to your statement.
I'll spell it out for you, then. You make a claim for my declaration that the declaration does not make for itself. Namely, you assert that salvation is contingent upon a person's fulfillment of devotion, adoration and etc. This is simply not so. Biblcially, salvation is dependent upon faith alone in Christ alone.

Therefore, no time is "wasted."

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]
1) I re-read it and I don't understand how it doesn't apply to your statement.
I'll spell it out for you, then. You make a claim for my declaration that the declaration does not make for itself. Namely, you assert that salvation is contingent upon a person's fulfillment of devotion, adoration and etc. This is simply not so. Biblcially, salvation is dependent upon faith alone in Christ alone.

Therefore, no time is "wasted."[/b]

I got it. I thought it all came in the same package, sorry.

Ok, so having faith goes against my deepest principles of not believing in anything without proof. How can I believe in what the Bible says when there are so many things that don't make sense with everyday reality?
Don't you think it's a lot more possible that Jesus was only a great speaker, with a great charisma, that could move thousands with his beautiful philosophy, and that the Bible just got a bit exaggerated in its descriptions?

Originally posted by serigado
I got it. I thought it all came in the same package, sorry.

Ok, so having faith goes against my deepest principles of not believing in anything without proof. How can I believe in what the Bible says when there are so many things that don't make sense with everyday reality?
Don't you think it's a lot more possible that Jesus was only a great speaker, wi ...[text shortened]... his beautiful philosophy, and that the Bible just got a bit exaggerated in its descriptions?

When it comes down to it, what can you really "prove". For example, can you prove that you really exist? Sure you percieve that you do through the five senses but do you really? As we all know the five senses are prone to illusory deception such as optical illusions. Therefore, to what extent can we rely on them? It seems to me that belief comes when one is persuaded that they have stumbled upon a reality rather than being 100% sure about the details about the reality that they percieve.

Originally posted by serigado
I got it. I thought it all came in the same package, sorry.

Ok, so having faith goes against my deepest principles of not believing in anything without proof. How can I believe in what the Bible says when there are so many things that don't make sense with everyday reality?
Don't you think it's a lot more possible that Jesus was only a great speaker, wi ...[text shortened]... his beautiful philosophy, and that the Bible just got a bit exaggerated in its descriptions?

You look around and see contradiction; I look around and see emphatic confirmation. There are only a few scenarios possible. Either we're both wrong, or one of us is wrong. Since the entirety of human history has faced the question, likely the error is to be found in the latter part of the sentence: one of us is wrong.

That being said, we can be wrong in what we take the Bible to mean, we are wrong in what we take the physical world to mean, or wrong in applying the one to the other.

I believe the error here is the difference in what we take the Bible to mean. What say you?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You look around and see contradiction; I look around and see emphatic confirmation. There are only a few scenarios possible. Either we're both wrong, or one of us is wrong. Since the entirety of human history has faced the question, likely the error is to be found in the latter part of the sentence: one of us is wrong.

That being said, we can be wron ...[text shortened]...

I believe the error here is the difference in what we take the Bible to mean. What say you?

Now we're talking. Good reasoning.

I think the error resides exactly in the interpretation of the Bible and the assumptions many make of it. But isn't the Bible (and what people made of if) the entire foundation of Christianity? ( I say christianity as a religion, not as a philosophy).
Because in the Bible are some strong affirmations about impossible (assuming interpretation of the real world -aka science- is right) phenomena.
So where can we stand? Saying somethings are wrong, and what suits us best is right? That would make the Bible lose it's Holy and Absolute value.

Originally posted by serigado
Now we're talking. Good reasoning.

I think the error resides exactly in the interpretation of the Bible and the assumptions many make of it. But isn't the Bible (and what people made of if) the entire foundation of Christianity? ( I say christianity as a religion, not as a philosophy).
Because in the Bible are some strong affirmations about impossible ( ...[text shortened]... and what suits us best is right? That would make the Bible lose it's Holy and Absolute value.

Because in the Bible are some strong affirmations about impossible (assuming interpretation of the real world -aka science- is right) phenomena.
Let's start there. We all have pretty much accepted that evolutionary thought does not concern itself with how matter came to be, only with how matter came to be what it is now. I think we can all agree also that we have not seen any creation or (self-creation) of matter. Is not matter an impossibility that we nonetheless accept?

Originally posted by Penguin
[b]Fortunately, the condition for salvation has nothing to do even with the spiritual-sounding "devotion." God has not made salvation contingent upon one's devotion to Him.

So you believe, with no evidence or possibility of discovering until too late whether you are wrong. I could just as easily state that the FSM will consign non-believers such as y
I'm on lecture 8 of 'Science Wars'. I'll start a new thread when I've finished it.[/b]

Still waiting for a decent explanation of why Christianity is not a religion but Freaky seems to have diverted the discussion down a back alley. Maybe he's hoping that if he stalls and digresses for long enough the'll all forget that he ever made that claim...

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
Still waiting for a decent explanation of why Christianity is not a religion but Freaky seems to have diverted the discussion down a back alley. Maybe he's hoping that if he stalls and digresses for long enough the'll all forget that he ever made that claim...

--- Penguin.

You won't have one. Christianity IS a religion...

Originally posted by twhitehead
In "The God delusion", Richard Dawkins argues that religion is generally harmful and I am inclined to agree with him. The following are some major reasons:
1. Moderate religion provides an environment for extremists to flourish. Extremists, as we all know are undesirable.
2. Religion in general, though to different degrees, tends to discourage scientifi ...[text shortened]... ed.

Keep in mind when reading the above that the assumption is that God is [b]not real.[/b]

Anyone who disagrees with any of this has no common sense.
1. If everyone realised there was no God it would be insane to be religious, and really insane to be a religious fanatic
2. Now we're getting crazy "christian science" which is totally based on justifying things in the bible seeking legitimacy by tagging science at the end. Terrible.
3. Condoms was a perfect example and thousands if not millions of people have AIDS because of the Catholic Church and other religious institutions not giving birth control to third world countries.
4. You can watch the grass grow and it's a better way to spend your time than praying. And it doesn't come with the threat of going to hell
5. Religion is a major cause of war. Obviously it's peopel fighting the war, not the religions per se, but if there were less differences between us only then would it be possible to transcend the aggression in human nature and have some type of peace. Religion has existed during every war in human history, and even if it wasn't the direct cause it did NOTHING to stop it.

I can't believe there are people who do not understand this simple piece of common sense. There is no god, and religion is useless. Get over it.