secular vs religous

Life, the universe, and everything.
Forum rules
- No personal attacks against players or staff members - please be civil!
- No posting of mature images/links, keep content SFW. If it's NSFW, don't post it on these forums.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

secular vs religous

Postby kiryan » Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:14 pm

I heard a contrived argument the other day that I found interesting. It went somethign like this.

If religious ideas are from god then they should get special treatment. If religious are ideas are man made, then they should get the same treatment as other man made ideas.

Would some religious ideas be ok if they were just "man made" ideas like other secular ideas? If you buy into this, then the question is why do we label some ideas as religious and others as secular. So that we can discriminate against them... generally in the media and in government. Society is teaching that anyhting "religious" is inherently flawed and doesn't belong in public, and other ideas from environmentalism to femiminish to the homosexual agenda do need to be enshrined everywhere including in school.

When I first started studying Christianity, I wasn't sure that I believed in God, but at the very least I felt that the code of conduct and lifestyle strived for by Christians makes the world a better place.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: secular vs religous

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:18 pm

It's called fashion. They're the latest trends, your religious duds just make you uncool, bro.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Sarvis » Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:38 pm

kiryan wrote:I heard a contrived argument the other day that I found interesting. It went somethign like this.

If religious ideas are from god then they should get special treatment.


That's a pretty big "if." It starts with whether there even IS a God, and continues with questioning whether anything in the current translation of the Bible is what God originally "wrote." Even that gets tricky, since it was entirely written by men who claimed God was speaking through them.

So yeah. BIG if. I've got about as much faith in the Bible as I do in women right now.

If religious are ideas are man made, then they should get the same treatment as other man made ideas.


Fair enough.

Would some religious ideas be ok if they were just "man made" ideas like other secular ideas?


Many religious ideas are good ideas, but many of them are unnecessary and outdated at best. Most people follow the good ones instinctively anyway (e.g. Though Shalt Not Kill) and those that DON'T never seem to be deterred by their belief in invisible sky wizards, zombie carpenters or flying spaghetti monsters anyway.

If you buy into this, then the question is why do we label some ideas as religious and others as secular. So that we can discriminate against them... generally in the media and in government. Society is teaching that anyhting "religious" is inherently flawed and doesn't belong in public,


Umm.. no. Just. No. First and foremost, our society is still heavily, HEAVILY Christian. We try to keep religion out of public spaces in order to enforce Freedom of Religion. Try to think like a non-mainstream sect for a minute. Would you want Mormon values taught in school? Judaism? Flying Spaghetti Monster? How about your son coming home one day saying he was going to be Buddhist because today they said some Buddhist prayers?

THAT'S why we protest it. I want to raise my kids (haha, yeah right) with my beliefs... not yours, not his teachers.

and other ideas from environmentalism to femiminish to the homosexual agenda do need to be enshrined everywhere including in school.


femiminish? Is that one of those eastern religions?

I don't even know what to say here seriously. You're arguing against teaching our kids not to destroy the planet we need to live, and teaching them to treat people equally. Those aren't ideas, or beliefs... they are the way we should live. Hell, it's what your Bible says isn't it?

When I first started studying Christianity, I wasn't sure that I believed in God, but at the very least I felt that the code of conduct and lifestyle strived for by Christians makes the world a better place.


Some aspects of it do, some are simply unnecessary. In any case, the world would be a MUCH better place if Christians would FOLLOW that code of conduct AND stop trying to force others to do the same.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Ragorn » Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:59 pm

I have two responses.

1) There is no god, so any idea you have is man-made. Thanks for coming.

2) Because Christians are so wont to pick and choose which "words of god" they want to live by that such a blanket statement is meaningless at its face. You guys can't even decide amongst yourself which words in the bible are literal instructions, which are merely metaphoric parables, and which are inapplicable to today's society. Do you eat shellfish? Talk to women on their periods? Do work on Sunday afternoons? Then you are violating god's law. Why don't you give those ideas the same merit that you give the anti-homosexual and anti-abortion movements?
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Raiwen
Sojourner
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, Ga USA
Contact:

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Raiwen » Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:10 pm

Ragorn wrote:I have two responses.

The problem with at least one response is:

You could be wrong, and there is nothing you can do prove or disprove any of it.

You may be able to disprove one particular instance of a religion.

This is one discussion where it will serve you well to be more objective.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Ragorn » Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:30 pm

Raiwen wrote:This is one discussion where it will serve you well to be more objective.

I'm being as objective as I can possibly be via the scientific method of observation. If you can introduce evidence that might indicate a flaw in my hypothesis, I'm perfectly willing to entertain it.

Until then, the only evidence I have that any word ever spoken was spoken by "god" is the fact that you told me so.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Raiwen
Sojourner
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, Ga USA
Contact:

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Raiwen » Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:08 am

Science is evolving just as much as anything else. Science tells you the how things happen - not the why.

Dinosaurs - what we think we know changes:
10 years ago we believed that big dinosaurs with long necks used them to reach up to eat in high trees.
Today, we're starting to believe that they kept their necks down to reach broader arcs of food while conserving energy.
15 years ago we believed that dinosaurs drug their tails behind them.
Today, we believe that dinosaurs used their tails as balance and kept them up or level with their body.
We have no idea how they sounded, nor how they communicated, or what their colours where. We don't know their tactics for hunting or foraging.

Different Evolutionary paths:
5 years ago, we believed that common traits, or rather the same family of mammals with common evolutionary traits had to evolve together or with a common ancestor. Recently, scientists have reclassified a type of finch bird as a different species of finch, because for years they had thought it to be a distant cousin of another finch due to their unique bill shape and foraging style. The new finch, they found had been evolutionary separated from it's "cousin" for thousands of years due to being on an island. It's DNA is quite distinct, and yet they both evolved independently the same trait via similar expressed genes.

Language:
They have found that our languages alter the way we think. Languages without certain concepts prevent those speaking those languages from expressing those absent concepts within their own minds. There are many languages which share common roots, yet there are many other languages with no other common roots. With all these differences, we're still finding great similarities between these cultures religious beliefs. One example is a south american culture with no words for counting, nor words for time. They think in the "now", with no concept of past or future. They understand the concepts of: none, few and many - that's it. You can't ask them to go out and pick up 10 fruits. It's either few or many fruits. Nor can you ask them what they accomplished last week. Last week holds no meaning. Yet, they pray to a god, and have a similar religion to other native cultures. Their gods hold similar roles to mayan, greek, or norse gods.

Religion:
Therefore, since we can define a language, a culture, the physics, and chemical processes behind a being, there is no proof that either of those things manifested themselves out of thin air, nor that they were designed by a 3rd party. Since, different beings can evolve physically to share similar traits via different paths, it goes to reason that mentally, religiously, and linguisticly different beings/cultures could also evolve to be similar via different, separate paths. Is this similarity by darwin-esque forces? Divinely inspired? Chemically driven? Who's to say? Can you prove it either way?

The Recipe:
Well, actually, maybe someone can prove it, or at least in some round about way. [1]. Some smart math guys have figured out that perhaps our amino acids (at least 10 of them) are thermodynamically destined to join together in the unique ways that create DNA. They're just wired that way. They just join up. The probability of any random pool of the these chemicals forming up these 10 amino acids whenever and whereever they can, is equal to the same concentration of these types of amino acids we find in meteorites. These numbers also matched up to previous simulations that other old math guys ran a couple of years ago via some new, big computers. While, there's not enough data here to flip science on it's head - it's still interesting none-the-less. (btw, there's a link under [1] after the 1st sentence.)

Is that evidence of a god? Of a designer? Of a big ol' computer somewhere? Who knows? I don't. I doubt anyone could prove it either way at this point. Maybe the universe is this big ol' sentient being where it's thoughts occur at time scales of millions of years, and we're just a bunch of microbes living in it's guts. Who knows. The point is, you don't.

You can apply the scientific method to how the universe was born, how the stars, planets, people and bugs were made. You can apply scientific methods to how this will all ultimately die. Yet with all our science, we still can't answer: why.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Ragorn » Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:09 am

Raiwen wrote:Is that evidence of a god? Of a designer? Of a big ol' computer somewhere? Who knows? I don't. I doubt anyone could prove it either way at this point. Maybe the universe is this big ol' sentient being where it's thoughts occur at time scales of millions of years, and we're just a bunch of microbes living in it's guts. Who knows. The point is, you don't.

Stop saying "can you prove it either way?".

What you're driving towards is the philosophical ideal of Skepticism. Skepticism simply states that there can be no proof of anything, and thus all ideas are irrelevant. Every first-year Philosophy student understands the notion of Skepticism, and every first-year Philosophy student patently disregards it because it isn't a useful mode of thinking.

Yet with all our science, we still can't answer: why.

Sure we can. Life exists to reproduce itself and carry on its genetic code to the next generation. I wish I had a more glamorous and romantic notion for you than that, but that's a pattern evident in every living creature on earth, from the smallest single-celled organism to the human race. That is, to all ends, the purpose of life. That's why you're here... to have kids.

Enjoy :)
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:55 pm

Ragorn wrote:Life exists to reproduce itself and carry on its genetic code to the next generation.


Why?
"There is one big rule in life - the things you worry about never happen, and the things that happen are never the ones you expect." - John Bellairs
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: secular vs religous

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:27 pm

Sarvis wrote:I've got about as much faith in the Bible as I do in women right now.


Now, I'm putting some words in your mouth right now, but what makes you think that women are that much worse than men?
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: secular vs religous

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:29 pm

Ragorn wrote:Until then, the only evidence I have that any word ever spoken was spoken by "god" is the fact that you told me so.


Ah, the lazy (ignorant) scientist syndrome:

Because I have no evidence, no evidence exists.

Brilliant conclusion, genius.

Raiwen wrote:Science tells you the how things happen


Correction: Science can't tell you how things happen.

The truth is, science can tell you through repeat observation that something is likely to occur again (and give you the observations and conclusions of such observation). Science can't even explain why most forces exist.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Sarvis » Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:34 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:I've got about as much faith in the Bible as I do in women right now.


Now, I'm putting some words in your mouth right now, but what makes you think that women are that much worse than men?


Yes, you are. I never said women were worse. Men suck too, I just don't care about sleeping with them.

The thing is, I used to think women were better for some reason.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: secular vs religous

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:37 pm

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:I've got about as much faith in the Bible as I do in women right now.


Now, I'm putting some words in your mouth right now, but what makes you think that women are that much worse than men?


Yes, you are. I never said women were worse. Men suck too, I just don't care about sleeping with them.

The thing is, I used to think women were better for some reason.

Ok, what made you think that women were better than men?
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Ragorn » Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:42 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:
Ragorn wrote:Life exists to reproduce itself and carry on its genetic code to the next generation.


Why?

Because ability and desire to reproduce are selectionary traits. Individuals who have both the ability to reproduce and the desire to do so are the ones who create the offspring for the next generation. And because characteristic traits are largely either hereditary, or learned at the very early stages of development (due to common brain physiology inherited from our common ancestors), those traits are very often passed from the reproducing parents to their offspring.

We can carry this line of conversation to its inevitable conclusion... you can keep asking why, why, why, and somewhere down the chain, the answer you're going to get is "there is no further reason." If that's what you're waiting for, let's just skip to the chase, eh?

There is no greater purpose for life. No divine plan, no mystical or romantic reason for being.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:59 pm

Ragorn wrote:There is no greater purpose for life. No divine plan, no mystical or romantic reason for being...


...you believe.
"There is one big rule in life - the things you worry about never happen, and the things that happen are never the ones you expect." - John Bellairs
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Sarvis » Thu Apr 16, 2009 7:12 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:
Ragorn wrote:There is no greater purpose for life. No divine plan, no mystical or romantic reason for being...


...you believe.


I believe the world is a disc carried on the back of four elephants who are walking in circles on the back of an even more giant space turtle.

That belief is just as valid as yours.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Kifle » Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:56 pm

The Bible was actually written by a gigantic purple monkey, and the last book of the bible was stricken by the first council of Nicea which read, "Lolz, I'm just joking."

^^ That statement is just as provable, reliable, and valid as any religious statement ever made. Do you also believe it's true?
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:07 pm

Sarvis wrote:I believe the world is a disc carried on the back of four elephants who are walking in circles on the back of an even more giant space turtle.

That belief is just as valid as yours.


We know that not to be the case.

Kifle wrote:The Bible was actually written by a gigantic purple monkey, and the last book of the bible was stricken by the first council of Nicea which read, "Lolz, I'm just joking."

^^ That statement is just as provable, reliable, and valid as any religious statement ever made. Do you also believe it's true?


We know who the writers of the Bible were.
"There is one big rule in life - the things you worry about never happen, and the things that happen are never the ones you expect." - John Bellairs
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: secular vs religous

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:02 am

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Great, Adriorn, those aren't common names or anything :P We'll never find them now.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: secular vs religous

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:08 am

Ragorn wrote:Stop saying "can you prove it either way?".

What you're driving towards is the philosophical ideal of Skepticism. Skepticism simply states that there can be no proof of anything, and thus all ideas are irrelevant. Every first-year Philosophy student understands the notion of Skepticism, and every first-year Philosophy student patently disregards it because it isn't a useful mode of thinking.

Says you, but we know by now that you're hardly reliable on logical grounds.

Academic truth lends us the inherent inability to prove something that both exists and does not exist as a part of its inherent abilities that are conceptually and through all other means infinite. It is not skepticism to say that you cannot prove it either way when it comes to the idea of God, because this is the definition. Agnosticism correctly suspends belief of the existence or non-existence of the embodied concept of God.

The only useless mode of thinking is yours, to believe that something does not exist despite having done so little experimentation and/or observation that you couldn't write half a paper on it. Rather, one should suspend belief and disbelief with the acknowledgment that enough observation and experimentation to even indicate that there is a God or is not a God is most likely well outside of the ability of a single person in one lifetime, as well as to acknowledge that in the current body of human knowledge, not enough experimentation or observation has been done yet to draw a conclusion either way.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Ragorn » Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:38 am

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:We know who the writers of the Bible were.

...you believe.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Kifle » Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:35 am

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:
Kifle wrote:The Bible was actually written by a gigantic purple monkey, and the last book of the bible was stricken by the first council of Nicea which read, "Lolz, I'm just joking."

^^ That statement is just as provable, reliable, and valid as any religious statement ever made. Do you also believe it's true?


We know who the writers of the Bible were.


Actually, no, no you don't. Or are you the type of person who believes "Mark" wrote the book of Mark and "Luke" wrote the book of Luke?
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:09 am

Ragorn wrote:...you believe.


Kifle wrote:Actually, no, no you don't. Or are you the type of person who believes "Mark" wrote the book of Mark and "Luke" wrote the book of Luke?


Why, yes, Kifle. Since there are historical records, witnesses and proof that these men existed, some from as early as the late 1st Century, yes. What evidence are you basing your contradictory (and possibly ignorant) beliefs on?
"There is one big rule in life - the things you worry about never happen, and the things that happen are never the ones you expect." - John Bellairs
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Sarvis » Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:55 am

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:
Ragorn wrote:...you believe.


Kifle wrote:Actually, no, no you don't. Or are you the type of person who believes "Mark" wrote the book of Mark and "Luke" wrote the book of Luke?


Why, yes, Kifle. Since there are historical records, witnesses and proof that these men existed, some from as early as the late 1st Century, yes. What evidence are you basing your contradictory (and possibly ignorant) beliefs on?


Frankly, it doesn't matter if you know who wrote the Bible. There is no proof they were writing what God said, even if God was actually speaking to them. Which, again, is a big if, considering He hasn't been on speaking terms with any non-serial-killers for the last 2000 years!

Honestly, I'm open to the idea that there is a powerful entity that created the universe. I just don't believe he gives a shit about us, what we do or how we do it. Even if he does, it's the absolute height of arrogance to believe that you have the one and only correct belief system... a system that espouses a perfectly compassionate being who will never let me into Heaven because I didn't undergo some silly ritual when I was an infant.

Any being who created the universe, in it's unimaginable size and complexity, is probably as unable to perceive us as we are to perceive... umm... one of those really small particles that physicists think exist but can't measure yet. Yeah.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Re: secular vs religous

Postby oteb » Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:44 pm

Adriorn you are trying to wage a war here that even catholic church gave up on. Belief in god is not matter of facts or knowledge that god exists. Its based entirely on faith. No proof or evidence of god can be given or shown. Hell you can (and as religious person should) have faith even despite the facts.
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'
A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Sat Apr 18, 2009 2:44 pm

Sarvis wrote:There is no proof they were writing what God said, even if God was actually speaking to them.


There you are correct Sarvis. That's when faith comes into the equation. Oteb/Sarvis, my point wasn't about that though. It was just about the fact that proof exists that these guys existed and wrote what they did. The rest is up to faith, yeah.

P.S. If bored, look up the Marian apparitions at Lourdes, Fatima and Medjugorje. I think they have some video of the Medjugorje apparitions.
"There is one big rule in life - the things you worry about never happen, and the things that happen are never the ones you expect." - John Bellairs
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Kifle » Sat Apr 18, 2009 2:55 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:
Ragorn wrote:...you believe.


Kifle wrote:Actually, no, no you don't. Or are you the type of person who believes "Mark" wrote the book of Mark and "Luke" wrote the book of Luke?


Why, yes, Kifle. Since there are historical records, witnesses and proof that these men existed, some from as early as the late 1st Century, yes. What evidence are you basing your contradictory (and possibly ignorant) beliefs on?


Actually, nobody knows who wrote the books, Adriorn. There is a truckload of wonderful literature discussing the topic. There are no witnesses who saw the books written. There are theories as to what tribes the books came out of. There are theories as to the material they used to write the books (such as "Q"), but there are no records, accounts, witnesses, or anything to that effect which shows who (or what for that matter) wrote the books of the bible. It would be odd for there to be such records as writing among these people in that time period was a rare activity and these stories were largely oral traditions up until the writing of Mathew (or Mark) which happend roughly 60 years after "jesus" died. I'm sorry, but you are absolutely wrong. We have no proof, only ideas, as to who wrote the majority of the bible -- save for the letters written by paul and a handful of other books. But, if you'd like to prove me wrong, let me know who wrote the first four books of the New Testement. Please. Me and the rest of the world are very curious.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Sarvis » Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:33 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:
Sarvis wrote:There is no proof they were writing what God said, even if God was actually speaking to them.


There you are correct Sarvis. That's when faith comes into the equation. Oteb/Sarvis, my point wasn't about that though. It was just about the fact that proof exists that these guys existed and wrote what they did. The rest is up to faith, yeah.

P.S. If bored, look up the Marian apparitions at Lourdes, Fatima and Medjugorje. I think they have some video of the Medjugorje apparitions.



Apparitions eh? What does this look like to you?

Image
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:01 pm

Mathew wrote Mathew
Mark wrote Mark
Luke wrote Luke
John wrote John

Some say Luke and Mathew (if I remember) might have used the "Q document" as a basis for some of their material, thus the similarities between the two. There is no proof the Q document existed, however. Think about it from a different perspective Kifle. These things have been studied for generations upon generations. Styles, content, variations between them, all led theologians to the conclusion as to who the authors were. Other "gospels" present helped triangulate the authors of the books, as did some of the letters of Paul, like you mentioned.

You have to think also Kifle that these people knew each other, and many of the other tribes got to know them also. Anything false would have immediately been identified or whatnot. If they knew John wasn't at x-location, instant dismissal. Likewise, many of these same men were willing to die (and many did) for what they had written and were preaching.

Kifle wrote:But, if you'd like to prove me wrong, let me know who wrote the first four books of the New Testement. Please. Me and the rest of the world are very curious.


No, I think the majority of the world has a pretty good grasp on this.

Sarvis, I'll continue discussing the matter with you when you learn how to discuss.
Last edited by Adriorn Darkcloak on Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"There is one big rule in life - the things you worry about never happen, and the things that happen are never the ones you expect." - John Bellairs
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Sarvis » Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:10 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Sarvis, I'll continue discussing the matter with you when you learn how to discuss.


Wow. Biggest. Cop out. Ever.

There IS a point behind my question, you know.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:30 pm

It's kind of ironic (and I'll add people like myself to the irony as well) that there are so many people who want to discredit the factual events in the Bible, and everything surrounding the Bible as false, because there isn't enough proof or because they don't think there is enough proof. Yet these very people, for the most part, are the same ones willing to accept willy-nilly the dictates of Global Warming, etc., mainly because their side is for it. At the same time, you have those of us who do believe in the Bible, etc., saying that there's isn't enough scientific proof out there yet to believe in Global Warming as anything but a con to make money and gain control.

Funny. I don't think this is really about science versus religion as it is about something much larger or personal.
"There is one big rule in life - the things you worry about never happen, and the things that happen are never the ones you expect." - John Bellairs
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Sarvis » Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:40 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:It's kind of ironic (and I'll add people like myself to the irony as well) that there are so many people who want to discredit the factual events in the Bible, and everything surrounding the Bible as false, because there isn't enough proof or because they don't think there is enough proof. Yet these very people, for the most part, are the same ones willing to accept willy-nilly the dictates of Global Warming, etc., mainly because their side is for it. At the same time, you have those of us who do believe in the Bible, etc., saying that there's isn't enough scientific proof out there yet to believe in Global Warming as anything but a con to make money and gain control.

Funny. I don't think this is really about science versus religion as it is about something much larger or personal.


Trying to change the topic now? Can't even answer a simple question, and you have to go ranting about a completely separate topic.

Yeah, I'm the one who doesn't know how to discuss. :roll:
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Ambar » Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:44 pm

"When a child is born, so is a grandmother."

-Italian Proverb
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Kifle » Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:52 am

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Mathew wrote Mathew
Mark wrote Mark
Luke wrote Luke
John wrote John

Some say Luke and Mathew (if I remember) might have used the "Q document" as a basis for some of their material, thus the similarities between the two. There is no proof the Q document existed, however. Think about it from a different perspective Kifle. These things have been studied for generations upon generations. Styles, content, variations between them, all led theologians to the conclusion as to who the authors were. Other "gospels" present helped triangulate the authors of the books, as did some of the letters of Paul, like you mentioned.

You have to think also Kifle that these people knew each other, and many of the other tribes got to know them also. Anything false would have immediately been identified or whatnot. If they knew John wasn't at x-location, instant dismissal. Likewise, many of these same men were willing to die (and many did) for what they had written and were preaching.

Kifle wrote:But, if you'd like to prove me wrong, let me know who wrote the first four books of the New Testement. Please. Me and the rest of the world are very curious.


No, I think the majority of the world has a pretty good grasp on this.

Sarvis, I'll continue discussing the matter with you when you learn how to discuss.


These people knew each other? Are you serious? Are you aware of the dates of some of these books? The first four weren't even written in the same century, let alone the same place. And do you seriously think the person that wrote Mark was named "Mark"? And do you seriously believe that the academic community would agree that some guy named Mark wrote Mark? You have a serious deficiency on the history of the Bible, and I am honestly confused as to how you can seem so confident when you are at an almost complete loss with respect to accuracy -- or common sense in some cases for that matter.

While I enjoy discussing biblical history, I think it is pointless when one half assumes knowledge and denies actual knowledge.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
amena wolfsnarl
Sojourner
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:14 pm
Location: grande prairie alberta canada

Re: secular vs religous

Postby amena wolfsnarl » Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:57 am

religion isnt about history or fact, its about something that makes you feel better about your existence its about something that you turn too when things are getting really hard in your life. Religion is something that is different to everyone and thier individual religious beliefs are just as valid as any beliefs you have, no matter if they do not have scientific merit behind them. To them its not about science its something that they feel they know and understand to be the truth.
Dugmaren tells you 'Welcome to Canada, don't blame us if you're stupid enough to get eaten by the wild life'
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:15 am

Kifle wrote:I think it is pointless when one half assumes knowledge and denies actual knowledge.


I agree Kifle! :)


BTW, by complete chance (or maybe not...) I ran across a link to this interview Colbert did on his show. Enjoy!
"There is one big rule in life - the things you worry about never happen, and the things that happen are never the ones you expect." - John Bellairs
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Ashiwi » Sun Apr 19, 2009 5:32 pm

If you say Luke wrote the book of Luke, I don't think that's so much saying "This dude, Luke, kept a radical diary, and here it is," as it is saying "The name "Luke" is the emobodiment of the personality behind the writing of this testament.

When my daughter got to an age where she asked me if Santa Clause really existed, I sat her down and explained to her that Santa Clause exists as long as there is a parent alive who wants their children to experience the wonder of believing in Santa Clause, that Santa might not have a physical body, but he was a spirit of giving and anticipation that gave parents as much joy as he did children.

There may not be an actual dude named "Luke," who wrote each paragraph specifically, but "Luke" can be representative of the concept of the person or people who created the testament. Sorry, but after the church started revising the "Word of God" to fit their needs, it's not like you can take everything in the Bible completely literally, now can you?

Isn't that part of what faith is where the Bible is concerned? Trying to recognize and accept the intent behind the misrepresentation?
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Sarvis » Sun Apr 19, 2009 6:55 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:
Kifle wrote:I think it is pointless when one half assumes knowledge and denies actual knowledge.


I agree Kifle! :)


BTW, by complete chance (or maybe not...) I ran across a link to this interview Colbert did on his show. Enjoy!


"Actual knowledge" like interpreting apparitions or salt stains as the Virgin Mary?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Ragorn » Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:13 am

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:At the same time, you have those of us who do believe in the Bible, etc., saying that there's isn't enough scientific proof out there yet to believe in Global Warming as anything but a con to make money and gain control.

Funny. I don't think this is really about science versus religion as it is about something much larger or personal.

The wonderous thing about science is that I can review the claims made by both sides for myself. There is n amount of data out there both supporting and decrying global warming, and it's up to me to sift through the data and reports and make my own decision. If someone makes a claim I find dubious, I can ask for their source, and I can investigate it myself.

None of this is true for the bible. You have no sources... you have no data. All you have is reports, and when someone questions their validity, all you can do is shrug and say "look dude, this is how it is, take it or leave it."

And I personally don't see much value in arguing about the historical accuracy of the events found in the bible. Whether or not the book of Mark was written by a man named Mark isn't terribly important to me. There's so much more hypocrisy and moral ambiguity in the bible that the historical facts are more or less incidental anyway.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:46 pm

Ashiwi wrote:Sorry, but after the church started revising the "Word of God" to fit their needs, it's not like you can take everything in the Bible completely literally, now can you?

Isn't that part of what faith is where the Bible is concerned? Trying to recognize and accept the intent behind the misrepresentation?


Ash, I can understand how some people can see it as misrepresentation or revising. But after studying the history of the Church, I think you realize it wasn't revision as much as it was clarification; understanding something that at the time wasn't fully grasped. Cynics might see it then as revivisionism instead. Hey, just like many early followers didn't truly grasp who He was, but more the innocent idea of what He was. Hmm...I'm not too thrilled with how I phrased my previous sentence, feh.

Ragorn wrote:The wonderous thing about science is that I can review the claims made by both sides for myself. There is n amount of data out there both supporting and decrying global warming, and it's up to me to sift through the data and reports and make my own decision.


Ragorn, don't you think that being scientific should be something much more certain, something that would mean not having to sift through "research" "studies" to see if the evidence presented is true or not? Doesn't that hint at a greater problem present?

As for the second part, if it's up to you to make your own decision, that's not science; it's more personal beliefs or opinions on something scientific, rather than actual proof. It's like making my own decision, given the evidence, of whether or not eggs are healthy or not. The amount of "scientific" data is so varied that you can't end up calling it "scientific" at all. It ends up being the same thing in the end, just like you said yourself: personal (your own decisions and beliefs).

Ragorn wrote:And I personally don't see much value in arguing about the historical accuracy of the events found in the bible. Whether or not the book of Mark was written by a man named Mark isn't terribly important to me. There's so much more hypocrisy and moral ambiguity in the bible that the historical facts are more or less incidental anyway.


Old testament I can understand Ragorn, not the Gospels. And I agree, the important part isn't the name of the writer. I think Colbert in that little clip I attached earlier hit it perfectly.
"There is one big rule in life - the things you worry about never happen, and the things that happen are never the ones you expect." - John Bellairs
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Sarvis » Mon Apr 20, 2009 6:14 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote: Hmm...I'm not too thrilled with how I phrased my previous sentence, feh.


That's ok, in 1000 years the Gospel of Adriorn will read "Thusly many early followers didn't truly grasp who He was, and were justly smote."

Then WWVI will be kicked off by Adriornites trying to cleanse the world of the Shintoists. Or something.

Ragorn, don't you think that being scientific should be something much more certain


No. That's not what science is. At. All. You completely misrepresent science when you present it as a method for obtaining absolute answers. It's a method of gathering evidence to interpret, and testing it for veracity. That's why science is filled with so many theories. There are many things we simply can't prove, but the theory has worked well enough as an explanation to lead to... well, things like us talking to one another across hundreds of miles.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:42 pm

Sarvis wrote:No. That's not what science is. At. All. You completely misrepresent science when you present it as a method for obtaining absolute answers. It's a method of gathering evidence to interpret, and testing it for veracity. That's why science is filled with so many theories.


Science: a science is characterized by the possibility of making precise statements which are susceptible of some sort of check or proof.

Science: Known facts, ideas, and skill that have been imparted.

Science: the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

3 quick searches. The method of gathering evidence and testing it is called the scientific method, Sarvis. Science. Method. Different than just Science. You completely misrepresented science. HI5.
"There is one big rule in life - the things you worry about never happen, and the things that happen are never the ones you expect." - John Bellairs
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Sarvis » Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:52 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:
Sarvis wrote:No. That's not what science is. At. All. You completely misrepresent science when you present it as a method for obtaining absolute answers. It's a method of gathering evidence to interpret, and testing it for veracity. That's why science is filled with so many theories.


Science: a science is characterized by the possibility of making precise statements which are susceptible of some sort of check or proof.

Science: Known facts, ideas, and skill that have been imparted.

Science: the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

3 quick searches. The method of gathering evidence and testing it is called the scientific method, Sarvis. Science. Method. Different than just Science. You completely misrepresented science. HI5.



Read those again a few times, and you might eventually realize that none of them say science gives you absolute truths. In fact, by bolding "known facts" you're ignoring the part about ideas which are included in science, such as the many, MANY theories we utilize to both explain our world and create tools which improve our lives. Precise merely means precise, not absolute. I can precisely state that it is 102.1909 degrees for instance... which is why that definition continues to explain that these precise statements must be something you can test and disprove.

Science is about the scientific method, religion is about believing any old thing because someone wrote it down. That's why you believe you were created from dirt while John Travolta believes he was created when aliens who were dropped into a volcano possessed some monkeys. Both beliefs are just as valid.

I believe we evolved from monkeys not because some guy wrote it down, but because a bunch of independent researchers have found evidence of such. They found evidence which I can go look at myself, study myself and interpret myself.

There is a difference between:

"Some guys wrote something down so I believe it."

And

"Some guys wrote something down, and I can see what they were working with, study their notes and published papers, see that other people did their own testing and came to the same conclusions, and look at the data myself and see if I think their conclusions make sense... AND if I think they don't, I can come up with alternative hypotheses and test THOSE as well. MEANWHILE few are going to say with absolute certainty that it is the one true theory and anyone who doesn't believe it should be burned at the stake."

Get it yet?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Ragorn » Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:10 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Ragorn, don't you think that being scientific should be something much more certain, something that would mean not having to sift through "research" "studies" to see if the evidence presented is true or not? Doesn't that hint at a greater problem present?

No, I think that something being scientific means that it MUST be open to constant revision. Science is never "certain" about anything; we just make the best educated guesses we can based on the data available, and as new observations are made, we narrow and refine our beliefs. Chemistry in the 60s was scientific, but the quality of the equipment they had at the time severely limited what they could observe at the atomic level. We have better technology now, so we know that atoms are not the smallest component of matter, but that they are made up of subatomic particles. Atomic microscopes didn't OMG DISPROVE SCIENCE, they just allowed us to refine our previous assumptions about the nature of matter.

I'd put this back on you... don't you think that it's unreasonable to be so "certain" about something that you'd never be willing to change your mind, even when confronted with observable proof to the contrary?

As for the second part, if it's up to you to make your own decision, that's not science; it's more personal beliefs or opinions on something scientific, rather than actual proof. It's like making my own decision, given the evidence, of whether or not eggs are healthy or not. The amount of "scientific" data is so varied that you can't end up calling it "scientific" at all. It ends up being the same thing in the end, just like you said yourself: personal (your own decisions and beliefs).

Eggs are neither "healthy" nor "unhealthy." They contribute necessary enzymes and nutrients, and they also introduce cholesterol compounds that are difficult for your body to handle. If you are predisposed to certain medical conditions, like high blood pressure, eggs can exacerbate those conditions. If not... enjoy.

I don't believe the world is ever black and white. Religion in general promotes a relatively polarized way of thinking... you're either going to Heaven, or you're going to Hell. Actions are Right or Wrong. Good and Evil are real, tangible concepts. I don't believe in any of that. I believe that life exists is a gradiant scale, with shades of grey. You can even put beliefs on a scale like that... on one side is Global Warming, and on the other side is Global Warming is Stupid and Wrong. My belief is somewhere in the middle, and as new evidence is presented, it might sway me slightly in one direction or another.

Yes, even Religion and Atheism are a sliding scale for me. I used to be far to the Religious side. Now I'm not... but the shift was gradual, over time.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Kifle » Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:18 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:
Sarvis wrote:No. That's not what science is. At. All. You completely misrepresent science when you present it as a method for obtaining absolute answers. It's a method of gathering evidence to interpret, and testing it for veracity. That's why science is filled with so many theories.


Science: a science is characterized by the possibility of making precise statements which are susceptible of some sort of check or proof.

Science: Known facts, ideas, and skill that have been imparted.

Science: the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

3 quick searches. The method of gathering evidence and testing it is called the scientific method, Sarvis. Science. Method. Different than just Science. You completely misrepresented science. HI5.


Adriorn, that's a huge can of worms that you shouldn't open. The demarcation of science has been a long-standing debate since its creation. If you want to brush up on what science is or may be, read some popper, quine, or feyerabend to name a few more contemporary contributers. None of those points you just made are even close to accurate.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:50 am

They came from dictionaries Kifle, I didn't just make them up.
"There is one big rule in life - the things you worry about never happen, and the things that happen are never the ones you expect." - John Bellairs
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Sarvis » Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:54 am

You did take the extra step to misinterpret them though! :)
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:58 am

I'll nod at your 2nd comment. That represents, in my opinion, a different view, but a respectable, rational view on things. I think you are mistaken with regards to religion, but shrug.

As far as Science goes, however, I'll go back to my original statement Rags. If people want to put so much emphasis, so much trust (faith) in Science, then it should adhere to the dictionary definitions I posted previously. If people are constantly using it as the anti-religion excuse, then shouldn't it be? Going with the definitions you provided, there doesn't seem to be much proof, much accuracy in it at all. It's a toss-up based on the technology available in any given time.

All these wacknuts using almighty Science as the anti-Creationism, the Global Warming God, etc, etc, etc...are going by as much faith as any religious person has towards his own religion. I'm not happy with that sentence, but I'll use it. I.e. there exists no real proof then of much of what is claimed, just "highly possible" results based on analysis (no real observations or experimentation really since...well...).

Am I getting my point across or too jumbled? If one hypocritically criticizes religion for not having any "proof", what true "proof" is there in Science to make that claim? Science could be wrong right now.
Last edited by Adriorn Darkcloak on Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
"There is one big rule in life - the things you worry about never happen, and the things that happen are never the ones you expect." - John Bellairs
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:59 am

Nope, Sarvis. I'll stand by those definitions.
"There is one big rule in life - the things you worry about never happen, and the things that happen are never the ones you expect." - John Bellairs
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: secular vs religous

Postby Sarvis » Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:01 am

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Nope, Sarvis. I'll stand by those definitions.


I didn't say the definitions were wrong... go ahead and stand by them. Like I said previously though, reread them until you actually understand what they say.

This even ties in, actually. After all aren't there tons of sects of Christianity because you can't all agree on what the Bible actually says?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire

Return to “T2 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest