Science-Religion. Which wins?

[gedion9324]

<p>@MosbyMarion When I asked you about why you believe in the Christian faith, I was asking you about how you made the leap from believing that a higher power exists to believing in the Christian God.</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

How exactly can you judge if its the “Truth itself”?

</p>

<p>As you so tactfully put it, blind faith. People don’t just wake up and decide to become religious. It’s a process for many people. It’s something from birth for many others. But those who make a conscious choice to believe generally have reason for doing so. There is not a unique reason that applies to all.</p>

<p>

Even you can’t deny the astounding similarities between Jesus and other “sons of Gods” who PRE-DATE him. What is your explanation for this?

</p>

<p>Again, it could be coincidence – the similarities are not that striking (born of a virgin is NOT that uncommon in religion and mythology). Forgiving one’s enemies? Hardly rare. Consider the omnipresent nature of the Golden Rule, Jesus’ Commandment, whatever you want to call it. Again, it’s not such an unbelievable similarity to suggest anything in particular. And again, the account of Jesus’ life was hardly plagiarized from other religions, to which the authors of the Gospels would have likely had no exposure whatsoever. One arguing from a purely religious perspective could argue that it’s an incomplete understanding of the Truth, etc. </p>

<p>

Why did the whole of the Bible get written if you can disregard some of it? Pointless isn’t it? You again rambled vague explanations of the complexity of Christian Theology, but to me some parts of the Bible like Leviticus were pretty explicit.

</p>

<p>You’re missing the entire point. It’s not rambling. It’s simply the case. It’s not disregarding the Bible. It’s regarding the Bible correctly in the context of divine revelation. This is a losing battle.</p>

<p>Here:</p>

<p>[Interpretation</a> of the Bible](<a href=“http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htm]Interpretation”>http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htm)
[Catholic</a> Church Documents related to Biblical Studies](<a href=“http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/]Catholic”>Catholic Church Documents related to Biblical Studies)</p>

<p>There. Full explanations for everything. I mention the Church because I am Catholic and the Church is the most prominent example of non-literal interpretation of the Bible. Go nuts.</p>

<p>

By the way about Europe, I think we can find instances in America were “immorality” and “disorder” are rampant

</p>

<p>So? That’s irrelevant. I only care about your claims about Europe. I agree, we can indeed find such instances.</p>

<p>

And Carla Bruno- well you have that idiotic Sarah Palin, an ardent believer in your faith, who almost became Vice-President and probably would have become President- a far more influential position than First Lady

</p>

<p>Her name is Bruni. Palin is evangelical Christian. I am Catholic. So we believe in the same God, and she is closer to my faith than, say, a Muslim (who also believes in my God), but we do not have the exact same faith.</p>

<p>And remember that Palin is NOT the Vice President. What is matters, not what could be. Bruni (as delightful a singer as she is) IS the First Lady of France. But I digress.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>@gedion: I was raised Christian all my life. When I was younger I just accepted what I was taught like any young child, but as I grew older I was able to think things out thoroughly. A lot of my philosophy has been influenced by C. S. Lewis. His Mere Christianity, Miracles, and The Abolition of Man state a lot of my views much more eloquently than I ever could.</p>

[gedion9324]

<p>Thanks MosbyMarion
Baelor, you said yourself that in the end it is all about faith , something that I cannot destroy with reason no matter how much I try. Also the similarities between Jesus and the other Sons of Gods I have mentioned is not just about the fact that they were born from virgins, their miracles (raising people from the dead, curing blindness etc),the fact that they started their teaching started at age 30, and even some specific passages in the Bible are identical (again read it carefully). Although there are lot of points on your post that I disagree with, I think I won’t change your mind and you probably won’t change mine. So its been good debating with both of you. This thread has gone on long enough. Good bye and Good Luck!</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

Baelor, you said yourself that in the end it is all about faith , something that I cannot destroy with reason no matter how much I try.

</p>

<p>Agreed. So it’s not worth trying.</p>

<p>

Also the similarities between Jesus and the other Sons of Gods I have mentioned is not just about the fact that they were born from virgins, their miracles (raising people from the dead, curing blindness etc),the fact that they started their teaching started at age 30, and even some specific passages in the Bible are identical (again read it carefully).

</p>

<p>Read WHAT carefully? What you posted? Give me citations and I’ll have something to work with. Again, all I have here are statements that are worthless. Guess what? Many mythologies included anthropomorphic deities, and Jesus was a man and a God! OMG SAME THING. They…performed miracles of some sort! NOOO WAIII! Refer me to something more definitive or let it drop.</p>

[mifune]

<p>

@meadow36

Yes, basically. The separation of church and state has become a fantastic political achievement.

</p>

<p>Expand on that please. I don’t believe it’s possible.

</p>

<p>Recognizing the fundamental error in religious foundation and abandoning belief in that domain of thought is not the equivalent of discarding any sense of universal charity or a desire to conduct oneself honorably. </p>

<p>For instance, would you perform the most despicable crime conceivable if you knew “God” did not exist? I scarcely believe that anyone would respond affirmatively.</p>

<p>

@MosbyMarion

1. Christianity says the world was 5000-6000 years old but radioactive dating begs to differ.

</p>

<p>There’s a lot of debate on that, but it’s true that it’s mostly the “fundamentalists” (read: people who believe the bible is true). I’m one of those, but not so much because of faith as because I’m not satisfied with the evidence, considering the considerable flaws of the methods used.

</p>

<p>Are you seriously attempting to argue that the Earth is 6,000 years old? That’s not a topic for intellectual debate.</p>

<p>

@MosbyMarion

And evolution is a bunch of nonsense. Again, if there were valid evidence for it I’d accept it. I’ve thus far assumed Genesis to be largely literal, but god didn’t tell me that, that’s just my guess based on the evidence I see.

</p>

<p>Of anything that I have ever read on this website, I have never been rendered more speechless in response to the degree of stupefaction you display above – particularly in regard to your second sentence. I am not quite positive where to begin precisely.</p>

<p>Regarding your universal origins argument, there are indeed conjectures as to what unique combination of events created the universe; however, we have not yet been technologically capable of accurately determining these occurrences. </p>

<p>Please answer this question: what created this “God” and what functional power was endowed to it to create the universe? </p>

<p>

@ksarmand

Evolution actually strengthens the argument of creation or intelligent design, as it would have been more than reasonable for an all-powerful being to create all organisms, which then evolved into the multiplicity of life forms we have today.

</p>

<p>Hogwash. The gradual ascension in biological complexity is well-documented by the fossil record and the conducted experiments regarding abiogenesis. Amino acids – the essential foundation of living organisms – are formed via chemical reactions that are virtually unrelated to organic processes, as demonstrated most famously by the Miller-Urey experiment.</p>

<p>

@MosbyMarion

I am epicly unconvinced that all organisms evolved from random molecules. Virtually all the evidence I am aware of points towards a world created with a massively diverse gene pool, that has since been subdivided by Natural Selection.

</p>

<p>Again, your intransigence is absolutely mortifying. If science has any certitude in its assertions, evolution and the process of natural selection are certainly among the very most worthy candidates.</p>

<p>

@itenex

How does religion still prevail in the 21st century? That is what boggles me.</p>

<p>And to reply to someone who posted earlier (3rd page, I believe), yes, I do wholeheartedly believe that society can function in an orderly and moral fashion without religion. We already do, to a large extent in many places (e.g. Europe).

</p>

<p>Thank you, itenex; finally, a voice of reason.</p>

<p>

@hahalolk

God is a belief, and as such, can not be proven or disproven with science.

</p>

<p>The concept certainly can be invalidated, particularly if what is dictated runs counter to empirical reality – which precisely holds for any other hypothesis. Also, since many religious beliefs are intrinsically contradictory, which of these “Gods” exists? The notion of such merely exists to indiscriminately promote belief without evidence. We are our own highest power.</p>

<p>

@AeroEngineer3141

Not to mention the countless other figures of countless other religions who have made far more contributions to science than the average militant atheist.

</p>

<p>Of course, how else would humanity make the transition from a subjective to an objective means of intellectual fulfillment? Atheism – or the possibility of – did indeed exist prior to Darwin, but how was it possible to manifest a sense of cognitive or intellectual self-actualization? Darwin provided the framework for liberating ourselves from these anthropomorphic fallacies without the previous sense of unsuitable cerebral tension.</p>

<p>

@MosbyMarion

I’m arguing against Atheism here.

</p>

<p>Why? You are essentially an atheist towards the thousands of other distinct methods of religious thought. You are merely receptive towards the one in which you were initially taught and the one that you ultimately fixated within your psychology.</p>

<p>You know fully well that if you had been born in Saudi Arabia, for instance, that you would adhere to Islam rather than some form of Christianity. In essence, you are fundamentally confined to your religion due to its peremptory childhood influence. What qualities renders one indiscriminate non-empirical belief superior to a similar jumble of fabricated assertions?</p>

<p>

@MosbyMarion

Arguing Christianity vs. other faiths is another discussion, and not my specialty.

</p>

<p>I feel that doing so is highly pertinent to this discussion, particularly in regard to addressing the ideological inconsistencies – including the disparities in the belief of a higher moral authority.</p>

<p>Errors universally exist within the scope of supernatural thought or presumptuous belief and must be overcome solely by the force of rationality and empiricism. The effect of good judgment – to progressively achieve its most beneficial intentions – must substantiate one truth of higher thrust after another, until, to the minds of comprehensive and rational thought, only empirically derived findings may be logically expressed and rationally effected in standard practice. For such juxtaposes truth and error before the public. Whenever the two are fairly exhibited together, truth, rationality, and reason must prevail over the cognitive nescience that leads to feeble, worthless, and non-demonstrable conclusions.</p>

<p>Regardless of this thread, I am fundamentally participating in something that I should not be. The basic act of arguing demonstrates to creationists that their thoughts still receive some degree of unwarranted respect and recognition. Dawkins provides a very good point regarding this issue:</p>

<p>

Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where’s the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism.

</p>

<p>I certainly appreciate the positive values and morals that accompany many religious beliefs, but I cannot tolerate the presumptuous suppositions that religion serves as the ultimate truth.</p>

[teaberry]

<p>It’s pretty simple for me; God is the creator of the universe and he loves me unconditionally :).</p>

[HarveyLewis]

<p>

September 11th changed all that.

Lulz, Dawkins fails at history even more than I do.</p>

[gedion9324]

<p>[10</a> Christ-like Figures Who Pre-Date Jesus - Listverse](<a href=“http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/]10”>10 Christ-like Figures Who Pre-Date Jesus - Listverse)</p>

<p>For the last time, read it carefully. It includes, specific quotes from the Bible, how the Sons of Gods were born (the local dictator tried to kill some of them in additon to Jesus, they were born from a carpenter, visited by sheperds guided by stars etc) and similarity in life story. Focus on Krishna- he probably has the closest life story to Jesus. If you’re not convinced then read the whole thing. If you’re still not convinced, then you’ll probably not believe and other evidence I’ll give you, so again-GOOD BYE.</p>

[Putturani]

<p>^ Woah, woah what that link says about Krishna is mostly nonsense.</p>

<ol>
<li>Krishna’s mom did not have a virgin birth - he was her eighth son</li>
<li>He was never called “the Son of God” in the same way as Jesus was</li>
<li>Krishna’s adoptive father was a cowherd and not a carpenter</li>
<li>Krishna’s actual father was a king, Vasudeva, who was very much human</li>
<li>No wise men or shepherds came to visit Krishna, no one was guided by a star</li>
<li>Both were identified as “the seed of the woman bruising the serpent’s head.” - Krishna danced on a serpants head but he was never identified this way</li>
<li>Krishna belonged to the Yadava, not Saki tribe</li>
<li>Krishna never claimed he was the resurrection </li>
<li>Far from being without sin, Krishna enjoyed pulling naughty pranks as a child!</li>
<li>Krishna did not especially try to heal disease. His first miracle was killing a demon</li>
<li>Krishna never had a last supper and was never crucified or resurrected</li>
</ol>

<p>This whole article is a piece of BS. The only significant similarity between the two was that they were both of royal descent and that angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination.</p>

[shsblu527]

<p>Well…
religion has its own merits, like what the second post said. it keeps people sane, and gives people something to believe in and trust.
I believe that science can contradict a lot of things that religion claims, though, and as a non-believer, i think that a lot of what religious books claim are unrealistic, and while the values of religion (except for really wacky ones like thou shalt have more than one wife) can be beneficial to society, science brings us back to reality.</p>

<p>And yes, that’s just what i think. :P</p>

[Putturani]

<p>Religion has also given us some of the most interesting stories and epics. :)</p>

[shsblu527]

<p>^hmm true… but do interesting stories and epics help out society as much as science does?</p>

<p>oh nvm, here i go again lol</p>

[Putturani]

<p>^they help provide stories for countless parents to put their screaming kids to sleep so in the eyes of these parents, I suppose so ;)</p>

[CelaPlusAimaple]

<p>

Atheism – or the possibility of – did indeed exist prior to Darwin

lolwut?</p>

<p>

September 11th changed all that.

Lulz, Dawkins fails at history even more than I do.

hey guise. Christianity caused the Holocaust <_<</p>

<p>If religious and spiritual matters were meant to be this or that decision, man wouldn’t have free will. That’s why I’m a Confucian-Averroist-Spinozan-Romantic-Humanist. There should be no reason to reject science because it violates the Bible so long as you have the freedom of mind to interpret it for its spiritual message rather than as a comprehensive history of Earth, and no reason to reject religion just because they don’t explain certain things in the same way that science does</p>

[CelaPlusAimaple]

<p>amg I forgot something else:</p>

<p>Studies show that CCists are 46.2813852% more likely to have an IQ over 120 than any other stratum of religious beliefs, including atheism, scientology, and agnosticism.</p>

[Adenine]

<p>A surprising lot of religious folks here. I’m agnostic personally - religion, pseudoscience, etc is a hoax in my opinion.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Regarding your universal origins argument, there are indeed conjectures as to what unique combination of events created the universe; however, we have not yet been technologically capable of accurately determining these occurrences.

</p>

<p>Indeed. And yet you mock us for our lack of “empirical proof”.</p>

<p>

Please answer this question: what created this “God” and what functional power was endowed to it to create the universe?

</p>

<p>The same thing that created the Big Bang, if that’s what you believe. No philosophy can explain what the start of everything was.</p>

<p>

Again, your intransigence is absolutely mortifying. If science has any certitude in its assertions, evolution and the process of natural selection are certainly among the very most worthy candidates.

</p>

<p>Natural selection yes, evolution no. List your processes that you claim cause upward evolution.</p>

<p>

Why? You are essentially an atheist towards the thousands of other distinct methods of religious thought.

</p>

<p>Atheism: “the doctrine or belief that there is no God”</p>

<p>You can’t be an atheist towards a certain religion. I believe that there is a god (which is rejecting atheism in favor of theism). I also believe that the Christian faith is the true one, which is comparative philosophy.</p>

<p>

You are merely receptive towards the one in which you were initially taught and the one that you ultimately fixated within your psychology.</p>

<p>You know fully well that if you had been born in Saudi Arabia, for instance, that you would adhere to Islam rather than some form of Christianity. In essence, you are fundamentally confined to your religion due to its peremptory childhood influence. What qualities renders one indiscriminate non-empirical belief superior to a similar jumble of fabricated assertions?

</p>

<p>What qualities render Atheism superior? By your argument, it is also just another set of views that people have because of their childhood experiences. I can argue for mine, can you?</p>

<p>

I certainly appreciate the positive values and morals that accompany many religious beliefs, but I cannot tolerate the presumptuous suppositions that religion serves as the ultimate truth.

</p>

<p>And yet you make the presumptuous supposition that your worldview serves as the ultimate truth.</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>

@ksarmand

Evolution actually strengthens the argument of creation or intelligent design, as it would have been more than reasonable for an all-powerful being to create all organisms, which then evolved into the multiplicity of life forms we have today.

@mifune

Hogwash. The gradual ascension in biological complexity is well-documented by the fossil record and the conducted experiments regarding abiogenesis. Amino acids – the essential foundation of living organisms – are formed via chemical reactions that are virtually unrelated to organic processes, as demonstrated most famously by the Miller-Urey experiment.

</p>

<p>As you would clearly be able to tell if you read my sentence, I nowhere indicated that natural selection was false. Furthermore, what conclusive evidence exists contrary to my belief in an original gene pool that, through natural selection, provided us with the multiplicity of organisms we have today? One could take an even more non-literal interpretation of the Bible, with the gradual ascension of biological complexity following the order of Creation.</p>

<p>

Recognizing the fundamental error in religious foundation and abandoning belief in that domain of thought is not the equivalent of discarding any sense of universal charity or a desire to conduct oneself honorably.

</p>

<p>Not ascribing to any particular religion does not mean one has recognized a “fundamental error in religious foundation,” only that one cannot make the mental leap required to accept faith.</p>

<p>

I do wholeheartedly believe that society can function in an orderly and moral fashion without religion. We already do, to a large extent in many places (e.g. Europe).

</p>

<p>As it has been pointed out already, Europe is not the epitome of a moral and orderly society. Have you all forgotten about [url=<a href=“http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/father-locks-up-daughter-for-24-years/2008/04/28/1209234687847.html]this[/url”>Father 'locks up daughter for 24 years']this[/url</a>] man?</p>

<p>At any rate, no one here - as far as I can tell - has postulated that religion is necessary for societies to remain intact and functional. That statement, or any permutation thereof, is not anywhere in the Bible; rather, it is an extrapolation by strong-willed, erroneous, and wrongheaded disseminators of false information.</p>

<p>

The concept certainly can be invalidated, particularly if what is dictated runs counter to empirical reality – which precisely holds for any other hypothesis.

</p>

<p>But what empirical reality directly disproves the existence of God?</p>

<p>

@MosbyMarion

1. Christianity says the world was 5000-6000 years old but radioactive dating begs to differ.

There’s a lot of debate on that, but it’s true that it’s mostly the “fundamentalists” (read: people who believe the bible is true). I’m one of those, but not so much because of faith as because I’m not satisfied with the evidence, considering the considerable flaws of the methods used.

@mifune

Are you seriously attempting to argue that the Earth is 6,000 years old? That’s not a topic for intellectual debate.

</p>

<p>While I am not in accord with MosbyMarion’s position, it is worth noting that there is no exact date provided by the Bible with regards to the age of the Earth. Generally, I find radioactive dating - both in its method and results - to be acceptable barometers of time periods.</p>

<p>

You are essentially an atheist towards the thousands of other distinct methods of religious thought.

</p>

<p>Not true. Atheism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Belief in any god means that one is is disqualified from satisfying the above situation.</p>

<p>

Of course, how else would humanity make the transition from a subjective to an objective means of intellectual fulfillment?

</p>

<p>Objective means of intellectual fulfillment do not exist within the sphere of religious belief? :rolleyes: Poor, poor Pythagoras. He must’ve had it wrong all along.</p>

<p>

Atheism – or the possibility of – did indeed exist prior to Darwin, but how was it possible to manifest a sense of cognitive or intellectual self-actualization?

</p>

<p>One need not disbelieve something in order to achieve enlightenment in outside fields.</p>

<p>

Darwin provided the framework for liberating ourselves from these anthropomorphic fallacies without the previous sense of unsuitable cerebral tension.

</p>

<p>If there was to be difficulty in casting off a belief system, it is only because humans intrinsically require something to believe in: for you, perhaps, it is what you believe to be quantifiable and therefore unquestionable knowledge, for others, it is religion.</p>

<p>

You know fully well that if you had been born in Saudi Arabia, for instance, that you would adhere to Islam rather than some form of Christianity.

</p>

<p>The likelihood would be higher, but Christians do live - perhaps survive would be a better term - within that nation. If MosbyMarion were born to Filipino migrant parents, then there is a 90% chance s/he would be Christian.</p>

<p>

I cannot tolerate the presumptuous suppositions that religion serves as the ultimate truth.

Your self-contradiction amuses me.</p>

<p>

Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where’s the harm? September 11th changed all that.

</p>

<p>The individual you quoted positively oozes with putrid self-puffery. Religion, in this case, was in a horribly mutated form that wreaked havoc upon the lives of thousands. To say that religion, and religion alone, was the cause of that disaster is condemnable, and ignores the confluence of influences leading up to the attack.</p>

<p>

Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness.

</p>

<p>Which, of course, an undying belief in empiricism and so-called rationalism does not.</p>

<p>

Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition.

</p>

<p>Religion is not the only arbiter of such beliefs. You’ve never seen a World Cup match?</p>

<p>

And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism.

Religion is subject to plenty of criticism; the only problem is that it is from people equally presumptuous and self-assured as religion’s most fervent promoters.</p>

[Baelor]

<p>Gedion, I read it carefully. Again, the similarities are not even worth mentioning – Odysseus was a carpenter? Yeah, and pretty much every profession was represented in the Iliad/Odyssey/Aeneid. He had ignorant companions, like Jesus? You have got to be kidding me.</p>

<p>The appellations of Dionysus are perversions of the Greek, and most are absolutely fabricated anyway.</p>

<p>As pointed out, the article is bunk.</p>

<p>And it’s all irrelevant unless you can prove that the authors of the Gospels were aware of each figure.</p>