Okay here you go, take note that nowhere in that address is there a bash of scientific pursuit.
It's one thing to speak nice, it's another to spin tales to Africans about how Condoms increase the chance of getting AIDS. That's an attack not only on Science, but on Humanity. Defend them if you want, but I know that, morally, I couldn't.
As for discrimination, call me whatever you want, it doesn't change the facts.
Okay here you go, take note that nowhere in that address is there a bash of scientific pursuit.
It's one thing to speak nice, it's another to spin tales to Africans about how Condoms increase the chance of getting AIDS. That's an attack not only on Science, but on Humanity. Defend them if you want, but I know that, morally, I couldn't.
As for discrimination, call me whatever you want, it doesn't change the facts.
Again, any religion, like anything in this world, is subject to change, including Christianity.
Sure the Christian faith isn't perfect (reason why I don't choose myself to be part of it), but neither is science, nor anything really. I believe that even the Christian faith can evolve and be more adequate as society progresses and if two and two can come together, well then we'll be at more pleasant and progressive times rather the current uncertain and chaotic one we are living today, no?
AnathemicOne, you are making lengthy posts to pointlessly give us the definition of discrimination and you're arguing that we are discriminating against Christianity when we should be talking about religion in general? This is a waste of time. How aboutn you save your energy to instead address the real issues at hand, and stop this quibbling nonsense that has obviously "struck a nerve".
It doesn't matter what I THINK because you clearly already KNOW the truth. Which is quite remarkable.
We are going by what sounds most logical at this point. The probability of the son of Christ walking the Earth and some people scribing the tale of him (in a time when war thrived) versus it being all a hoax in order to change people's ways and to do what other religions have not yet done, give some form of evidence to their god actually existing - since we all know that the tales of gods have come and gone, and Christianity wouldn't stand out from the crowd otherwise.
It's not a matter of knowing or not knowing the truth. It's about putting a bandage over the gaps in the knowledge and pretending like it's the truth. You can believe whatever you want, but don't stop science because of a belief in ghosts.
Exactly.
Religion has been a crutch on scientific pursuit throughout the ages, and still continues today.
And just as a side note, all of us have put our names down in the poll under scientific while AnathemicOne and a few others haven't put their names down for religious. If you have a strong faith in what you believe in, you wouldn't be afraid to put your name down in its support. Unless you notice the striking differences in popularity of each option and don't want to be a part of the outcast group...
AnathemicOne, you are making lengthy posts to pointlessly give us the definition of discrimination and you're arguing that we are discriminating against Christianity when we should be talking about religion in general? This is a waste of time. How aboutn you save your energy to instead address the real issues at hand, and stop this quibbling nonsense that has obviously "struck a nerve".
It doesn't matter what I THINK because you clearly already KNOW the truth. Which is quite remarkable.
We are going by what sounds most logical at this point. The probability of the son of Christ walking the Earth and some people scribing the tale of him (in a time when war thrived) versus it being all a hoax in order to change people's ways and to do what other religions have not yet done, give some form of evidence to their god actually existing - since we all know that the tales of gods have come and gone, and Christianity wouldn't stand out from the crowd otherwise.
It's not a matter of knowing or not knowing the truth. It's about putting a bandage over the gaps in the knowledge and pretending like it's the truth. You can believe whatever you want, but don't stop science because of a belief in ghosts.
Exactly.
Religion has been a crutch on scientific pursuit throughout the ages, and still continues today.
And just as a side note, all of us have put our names down in the poll under scientific while AnathemicOne and a few others haven't put their names down for religious. If you have a strong faith in what you believe in, you wouldn't be afraid to put your name down in its support. Unless you notice the striking differences in popularity of each option and don't want to be a part of the outcast group...
Errr, I have been sticking to the topic, the lengthy post about the definitions is to counter Link's stance on my improper word usage, but note on the same post (particularly at the beginning) I've quoted an actual (and recent, not even a month's time) source on how Christianity not only welcomes but encourages scientific pursuit.
And I haven't put my vote/opinion down on said poll because I believe I'm both (wow shocker), is it now impossible and taboo to support both religion and science now? I mean honestly, for most of the thread I've been arguing on both sides until recently.
Edit: Anyways Puttah, what a poor way to discredit me by bringing the poll into this, hypocritical much in saying for me to stick to the issues while you attempted to side-track the conversation?
Well I don't think it's improper word usage, but rather necessary on our behalf to talk specifically about one religion, since all religions as a whole are very broad. And so why not talk about the most popular religion in the world, since it has made the greatest impact and counters science (since this is a science vs religion thread) most of all.
Christianity only welcomes and encourages scientific pursuit in the present because science is finally starting to make major breakthroughs in fields which contradicts what the bible says, which wasn't answerable hundreds of years. Christianity needs to adapt in order to not look like a fool, because the guys at the vatican aren't dumb, they understand that the Earth is way more than 6000 years old and denying this strongly supported fact would be very ignorant indeed.
One of the first occurrences when science managed to refute the bible and Christianity with it with logical evidence was with Galileo and the idea of the Heliocentric model. Well I'm sure you know how that turned out, and you say religion hasn't hindered science, but is supporting it instead?
No I never said it's impossible to support both. On the contrary, I already said many pages ago that since science will probably never be able to answer those final questions of "how" such as how did the universe start, god will always be the answer for those that wish to fill in the gaps. But you're right, the OP should've added that option into the poll.
Well I don't think it's improper word usage, but rather necessary on our behalf to talk specifically about one religion, since all religions as a whole are very broad. And so why not talk about the most popular religion in the world, since it has made the greatest impact and counters science (since this is a science vs religion thread) most of all.
Christianity only welcomes and encourages scientific pursuit in the present because science is finally starting to make major breakthroughs in fields which contradicts what the bible says, which wasn't answerable hundreds of years. Christianity needs to adapt in order to not look like a fool, because the guys at the vatican aren't dumb, they understand that the Earth is way more than 6000 years old and denying this strongly supported fact would be very ignorant indeed.
One of the first occurrences when science managed to refute the bible and Christianity with it with logical evidence was with Galileo and the idea of the Heliocentric model. Well I'm sure you know how that turned out, and you say religion hasn't hindered science, but is supporting it instead?
No I never said it's impossible to support both. On the contrary, I already said many pages ago that since science will probably never be able to answer those final questions of "how" such as how did the universe start, god will always be the answer for those that wish to fill in the gaps. But you're right, the OP should've added that option into the poll.
And it's a good accomplishment for the faith organization (even though forced it may be). As society progress, so too does religion need to, for religion is indeed created by man and cannot be the rigid staple of how one is to live life. Every religion is subject to change, Christianity is just one of the most-recognized ones who is having a hard time to adapt.
Yes, this particular faith has done many wrongs in the past and I don't blame people for having stigma against them (when they don't transcend being more than a century's time), but one must learn from the past not dwell on it.
Anathemic... I'm sorry but I have to say this, even though I'm not really part of this thread anymore.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and I mean this in the nicest of ways. The Vatican only supports what it wants to support, yet its stance on gay marriage, evolution, etc have not changed. They only follow science to improve their image since the pope so wisely said that "Condoms should not be used in Africa!"
Science is proven. Science is measurable. Deities are not. They are simply the imagination of a human mind. How can you not prove the rain isn't a God crying? Yes you have the water cycle and the complex phase changes water goes through, but how do you not know that God isn't crying then? Every thing might add up to it, but the reason why we don't believe in it is because it is human imagination, and it doesn't get us anywhere. It is simply just an idea.
And let me say this, just because you cannot prove does not exist DOES NOT mean it doesn't exist.
Also cut the crap with "discriminatory" everyone. This thread is really MY thread so people argue peacefully, or I'll call a mod and ask them to close this. People's religion will criticized here, so don't be surprised and offended if they are. It's just how debates work. People call it out, and people use the religion taboo to get attention and make people feel bad for them. Everything here is a troll and a flame if we really want to be like that.
Thank you.
I see I've struck a nerve, oh well :thumbsup:
Sure the Vatican supports what it wants to support, but now it supports scientific advancement and that's a pretty good accomplishment when looking at their abstinence for say, oh I dunno, 'round 2K years?
Did I say I'm proving deities exist? No, I didn't, stop jumping to conclusions please. I believe in my specific deity and I do not wish to convert anyone here, but I will make my stance if someone says that I'm mentally retarded and wrong in my beliefs.
Anyways, if you paid attention to the conversation for the last couple of pages, the conversation was to end this whole Christianity-is-the-face-of-all-religions thing. It has been continuing for over a decent number of pages and every time it always transforms into it despite our consensus.
And I'm pretty fairly sure I know what I'm talking about, so thank you for your concern. :sorcerer:
Um... No. If you see a kid trying to push a door that you're supposed to pull, and I call him out on it, does that mean he struck a nerve? No. It simply means that the kid is confused...
Anyways, the Vatican supporting science is actually a bad thing because the Vatican supports what a lot of people like to call "Christian" science, a branch of imagination that combines creationism and 3rd grade science. If you don't know what I'm talking about, listen to Kent Hovind. That guy will make you want to stab someone.
And no you don't.... You don't know what you're talking about. I've listened to some of the stuff you're saying and I need to say that some of the stuff you talk about it just wrong. Like you try to prove your point using wiktionary stuff on Christian discrimination yet you don't see the taboo that is set on all religions nowadays. How you don't argue your point at all, you just like to use big words that you found in the thesaurus to sound smart. How your view on religion and science are self-contradictory (or whatever the word is).
Anathemic... I'm sorry but I have to say this, even though I'm not really part of this thread anymore.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and I mean this in the nicest of ways. The Vatican only supports what it wants to support, yet its stance on gay marriage, evolution, etc have not changed. They only follow science to improve their image since the pope so wisely said that "Condoms should not be used in Africa!"
Science is proven. Science is measurable. Deities are not. They are simply the imagination of a human mind. How can you not prove the rain isn't a God crying? Yes you have the water cycle and the complex phase changes water goes through, but how do you not know that God isn't crying then? Every thing might add up to it, but the reason why we don't believe in it is because it is human imagination, and it doesn't get us anywhere. It is simply just an idea.
And let me say this, just because you cannot prove does not exist DOES NOT mean it doesn't exist.
Also cut the crap with "discriminatory" everyone. This thread is really MY thread so people argue peacefully, or I'll call a mod and ask them to close this. People's religion will criticized here, so don't be surprised and offended if they are. It's just how debates work. People call it out, and people use the religion taboo to get attention and make people feel bad for them. Everything here is a troll and a flame if we really want to be like that.
Thank you.
I see I've struck a nerve, oh well :thumbsup:
Sure the Vatican supports what it wants to support, but now it supports scientific advancement and that's a pretty good accomplishment when looking at their abstinence for say, oh I dunno, 'round 2K years?
Did I say I'm proving deities exist? No, I didn't, stop jumping to conclusions please. I believe in my specific deity and I do not wish to convert anyone here, but I will make my stance if someone says that I'm mentally retarded and wrong in my beliefs.
Anyways, if you paid attention to the conversation for the last couple of pages, the conversation was to end this whole Christianity-is-the-face-of-all-religions thing. It has been continuing for over a decent number of pages and every time it always transforms into it despite our consensus.
And I'm pretty fairly sure I know what I'm talking about, so thank you for your concern. :sorcerer:
Um... No. If you see a kid trying to push a door that you're supposed to pull, and I call him out on it, does that mean he struck a nerve? No. It simply means that the kid is confused...
Anyways, the Vatican supporting science is actually a bad thing because the Vatican supports what a lot of people like to call "Christian" science, a branch of imagination that combines creationism and 3rd grade science. If you don't know what I'm talking about, listen to Kent Hovind. That guy will make you want to stab someone.
And no you don't.... You don't know what you're talking about. I've listened to some of the stuff you're saying and I need to say that some of the stuff you talk about it just wrong. Like you try to prove your point using wiktionary stuff on Christian discrimination yet you don't see the taboo that is set on all religions nowadays. How you don't argue your point at all, you just like to use big words that you found in the thesaurus to sound smart. How your view on religion and science are self-contradictory (or whatever the word is).
And I just called you out on it
Hmmm? The definitions I brought up was to counter Link's assumption of my improper word usage on the term 'discrimination', it was purely off-topic (which Puttah promptly signaled me out on, though I still stuck with the topic).
And I do see the taboo of religion, and the taboo of science, and I have been arguing my point throughout all my posts, now they might be vague and whatnot, but the point is still seen there.
Now I would like some points of me that you have come across that seem contradictory to you, because I can assure you, the are not. It is not impossible to believe in both science and religion you know.
And it's a good accomplishment for the faith organization (even though forced it may be). As society progress, so too does religion need to
Why does religion need to progress? Since it was apparently from the word of god, it must be final. Seems like science called Christianity out on that one, but rather than accepting defeat, they took another more modernized approach to it all - by slowly pushing away some of the false predictions about how the Earth was created in the bible into the dark. I'm sorry, but if god's word is final, and we now have very strong evidence to counter it, isn't this a stab to the heart of Christianity and everything it is based on?
Every religion is subject to change, Christianity is just one of the most-recognized ones who is having a hard time to adapt.
Because Christianity wanted to become well known and stand out from the crowd. It went ahead and explained the unexplainable (some of which weren't answerable 2000 years ago but are today) as an act of god, and tried to seal the deal with proof, which is where jesus fits into it all.
Yes, this particular faith has done many wrongs in the past and I don't blame people for having stigma against them (when they don't transcend being more than a century's time), but one must learn from the past not dwell on it.
I have learnt from the past. Religion used to have power and it used this power for wrong-doing, it crucified non-believers. But with science's quick growth within the past few centuries, it too has become a religion of its own. The only difference is that this time it is based on logical reasoning and evidence beyond that of some stories that were scribed by a few men (and I honestly don't care what they claim that their inspiration came from. Lying wasn't invented yesterday).
Religion is outdated, and the only reason it still lives is mainly because not everyone can afford or has the intellectual ability to get a proper education in science.
Hmmm? The definitions I brought up was to counter Link's assumption of my improper word usage on the term 'discrimination', it was purely off-topic (which Puttah promptly signaled me out on, though I still stuck with the topic).
I signalled you out because I made a comment and rather than addressing my points, you started fiddling around with a non-issue.
Hmmm? The definitions I brought up was to counter Link's assumption of my improper word usage on the term 'discrimination', it was purely off-topic (which Puttah promptly signaled me out on, though I still stuck with the topic).
And I do see the taboo of religion, and the taboo of science, and I have been arguing my point throughout all my posts, now they might be vague and whatnot, but the point is still seen there.
Now I would like some points of me that you have come across that seem contradictory to you, because I can assure you, the are not. It is not impossible to believe in both science and religion you know.
Taboo of science? Are you kidding me?
Religion and science cannot coexist. I honestly thought this was common sense but I would like to see you prove to me that they can.
Why does religion need to progress? Since it was apparently from the word of god, it must be final. Seems like science called Christianity out on that one, but rather than accepting defeat, they took another more modernized approach to it all - by slowly pushing away some of the false predictions about how the Earth was created in the bible into the dark. I'm sorry, but if god's word is final, and we now have very strong evidence to counter it, isn't this a stab to the heart of Christianity and everything it is based on?
Even if it was from the word of God, it was copied, translated and put together by man, making it no longer perfect. However the way I see it is Christianity needs to progress because (I am just going to assume Christianity is correct and Jesus was all-knowing) if he talked about science, genetics, evolution and other things that no one back then knew about, Christianity would not have spread. I think God was hoping that people could use common sense to not interpret the bible literally and understand the the earth is older than 6000 years by now. This is just my belief.
Religion and science cannot coexist. I honestly thought this was common sense but I would like to see you prove to me that they can.
When making statements like this you should use a different word other than science. I am assuming you are talking about the scientific method and that nothing should be left up to faith alone, but the way it is worded right now it sounds like I could just go "I am religious, so I can fly. Gravity is science so I don't believe in it." Which is obviously not true, and most(I hope all) religious people don't believe that.
Even if it was from the word of God, it was copied, translated and put together by man, making it no longer perfect. However the way I see it is Christianity needs to progress because (I am just going to assume Christianity is correct and Jesus was all-knowing) if he talked about science, genetics, evolution and other things that no one back then knew about, Christianity would not have spread. I think God was hoping that people could use common sense to not interpret the bible literally and understand the the earth is older than 6000 years by now. This is just my belief.
You're trying to explain why the bible is wrong with some crackpot theory. No Christian ever confessed that the bible was wrong since man's translation of god's word is flawed and thus not perfect. There is actually a quote (which I don't remember exactly) but it mentioned something along the lines of "the prophets that wrote the bible did so through god/jesus' guidance".
By the way, the Earth being older than 6000 years was not common sense for a very long. And if this wasn't translated correctly, then who knows what else wasn't translated correctly either! Maybe Adam and Eve were translated incorrectly too and god just expected us to eventually use common sense to understand that evolution is the correct theory. Do we stop there? Why not just say the bible is wrong altogether.
You're trying to explain why the bible is wrong with some crackpot theory. No Christian ever confessed that the bible was wrong since man's translation of god's word is flawed and thus not perfect. There is actually a quote (which I don't remember exactly) but it mentioned something along the lines of "the prophets that wrote the bible did so through god/jesus' guidance".
By the way, the Earth being older than 6000 years was not common sense for a very long. And if this wasn't translated correctly, then who knows what else wasn't translated correctly either! Maybe Adam and Eve were translated incorrectly too and god just expected us to eventually use common sense to understand that evolution is the correct theory. Do we stop there? Why not just say the bible is wrong altogether.
Oh wait, we already are...
I am Christian, and I think the very fact that it was written by man means it is not perfect. Also the fact that the books have been altered and some have been removed by a council of priests makes it hard to believe that the bible is God's exact words.
As far as the earth being more than 6000 years old not being common sense, that applied to my point about if God said how old the earth actually is, I don't think Judaism would have spread because I highly doubt most people back then knew what a billion was and they would have sounded crazy talking about numbers that people don't understand. Therefore God said 6000 years and I think he wanted people to go with science when it was proved to be older.
I worded it pretty badly because I just woke up, but my point was that mistranslations would make the bible not perfect, but I think a majority of the the big contradictions with modern science (age of the earth, evolution and stuff like that) are due to the fact that if they were revealed back then, not only would people not understand but Judaism/Christianity would not have spread.
I highly doubt most people back then knew what a billion was and they would have sounded crazy talking about numbers that people don't understand. Therefore God said 6000 years and I think he wanted people to go with science when it was proved to be older.
lol omg this is classic. This would be an epic quote :thumbsup:
Yeah, I am full of stupid quotes. I suck at wording things, especially when I am tired, so when I try to explain my thoughts it always comes out weird.
But do you think that if some prophet who said he talked to god tried to explain the concept of billions of years or evolution or anything like that to somebody thousands of years ago they would believe him? The would be too confused to even know what it is going on. It would be so much simpler for prophets to say (or for God to tell the prophets) "God created 2 people, they made the rest." That is something that people could accept and understand.
This still sounds awful, but I will post it anyways because I spent time writing it. But forget this thread, I am going to go eat lunch. I am hungry and I like food.
Hmmm? The definitions I brought up was to counter Link's assumption of my improper word usage on the term 'discrimination', it was purely off-topic (which Puttah promptly signaled me out on, though I still stuck with the topic).
And I do see the taboo of religion, and the taboo of science, and I have been arguing my point throughout all my posts, now they might be vague and whatnot, but the point is still seen there.
Now I would like some points of me that you have come across that seem contradictory to you, because I can assure you, the are not. It is not impossible to believe in both science and religion you know.
Taboo of science? Are you kidding me?
Religion and science cannot coexist. I honestly thought this was common sense but I would like to see you prove to me that they can.
Well, actually, religion and science can coexist, I believed we have discussed this earlier in the thread with my religion of Deism?
And yes a taboo of science does exist (wow shocker) and you know what it is? Morals. Yes, morals. Science can only go so far without contradicting society's established morals (arguably the human moral system). It is this boundary that prevents the manslaughter of people for scientific study (like Da Vinci did when studying the human anatomy), the reason why we don't clone humans even though we have the technology too, and the reason why religion won't ever be extinguished, why? Because religion arguably is a worldwide reflection on our morals.
Take the Ten Commandments, the whole list of them (excluding like two) are what people follow on a daily basis without knowing it. Ying Yang, the balance of temeprance; how to not take too much or take to little, etc.
So yes, religion and science can coexist, proof? Well other than the examples I posted above, look at today, we are not waging war on terminating either concept, debating yes, but not actual conflict on grand scales. Can it evolve into war, sure can, if idiots keep holding onto the ideal that religion and science are poloar opposites when in fact they are the reflection of the human being, the eternal grasp for knowledge, and our morality.
And on a sidenote, I see you haven't brought any examples of my contradicting myself Irrational, which you claim I did. So either bring some up so I may assure you they are not, or don't bring ludicrous accusations into a debate which only serve to bring down credibility instead of discussing the topic at hand.
Yeah, I am full of stupid quotes. I suck at wording things, especially when I am tired, so when I try to explain my thoughts it always comes out weird.
It wasn't the way you wrote it, it's the idea that you brought to the table.
But do you think that if some prophet who said he talked to god tried to explain the concept of billions of years or evolution or anything like that to somebody thousands of years ago they would believe him? The would be too confused to even know what it is going on. It would be so much simpler for prophets to say (or for God to tell the prophets) "God created 2 people, they made the rest." That is something that people could accept and understand.
I'm studying for a Math and Physics major, and throughout my life I've learnt to understand and appreciate the intellectual power that humans possess. To say that no one would've understood what a billion is or to understand evolution is a mockery for all of mankind, since our intellectual capacity today has hardly changed since then. It's only a lack of education or a low IQ that would cause people to not understand such trivial things.
And it's a good argument you're posing. "Since humans were all dumb back then, the prophets went easy on them and turned the facts into nice little fairy tales that they could swallow". Humans were very dumb indeed, with their bows and arrows, iron and steel armors; infrastructure, agriculture, the math they knew that reached to an early college education today. Very dumb indeed.
Again, any religion, like anything in this world, is subject to change, including Christianity.
Sure the Christian faith isn't perfect (reason why I don't choose myself to be part of it), but neither is science, nor anything really. I believe that even the Christian faith can evolve and be more adequate as society progresses and if two and two can come together, well then we'll be at more pleasant and progressive times rather the current uncertain and chaotic one we are living today, no?
Alright, the Bible is the inherent word of Yahweh. Therefore, it would be a crime against Yahweh to change the Bible. Therefore, it cannot change.
Been sticking to the topic, the lengthy post about the definitions is to counter Link's stance on my improper word usage, but note on the same post (particularly at the beginning) I've quoted an actual (and recent, not even a month's time) source on how Christianity not only welcomes but encourages scientific pursuit.
And I pointed out that if you say one thing and do another, then that kinda destroys your credibility. And that's what happened with the Vatican. *Shrug.* Believe them if you want, but don't ask the Africans who got aids because of them to trust them - again.
One of the first occurrences when science managed to refute the bible and Christianity with it with logical evidence was with Galileo and the idea of the Heliocentric model. Well I'm sure you know how that turned out, and you say religion hasn't hindered science, but is supporting it instead?
Yes, this particular faith has done many wrongs in the past and I don't blame people for having stigma against them (when they don't transcend being more than a century's time), but one must learn from the past not dwell on it.
And exactly how old does an action have to be to be forgiven? The millions killed in the Crusades long enough? The million killed in the Inquisition long enough? Allying with the Nazi's who killed millions in the Holocaust long enough? The millions killed by aids in Africa long enough? Are these all forgivable, because they didn't happen today? How do you forgive an organization that commits these acts, or allies with others that commit these acts. Forgive me, but I cannot forgive such dark and evil organization, and I don't know how you can. Call me discriminatory if you want, call me discriminatory all day if you want, but I have morals I must stand by. I wish I could say the same of the Vatican.
And I do see the taboo of religion, and the "taboo" of science-
Stop. Stop right there. What "taboo" is there in Science? If your talking about how it's "wrong" to talk shit about Science, then perhaps you should back up scientific proof for your claims. Or is it also "taboo" to use scientific proof as well?
And yes, I added quotation marks around the "taboo" referencing Science, as there is no taboo.
I'm studying for a Math and Physics major, and throughout my life I've learnt to understand and appreciate the intellectual power that humans possess. To say that no one would've understood what a billion is or to understand evolution is a mockery for all of mankind, since our intellectual capacity today has hardly changed since then. It's only a lack of education or a low IQ that would cause people to not understand such trivial things.
And it's a good argument you're posing. "Since humans were all dumb back then, the prophets went easy on them and turned the facts into nice little fairy tales that they could swallow". Humans were very dumb indeed, with their bows and arrows, iron and steel armors; infrastructure, agriculture, the math they knew that reached to an early college education today. Very dumb indeed.
Mind you, they were the ones that created the number zero, the aqueducts, the chain and scale armors, the C-section, quick-dry cement, the calendar, indoor heating, socks, umbrellas, candles, magnifying glasses, etc., but yea, with all these inventions, they would not be able to swallow the idea that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and the universe is 12 billion years old, or that the Earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa.
Mind you, they were the ones that created the number zero, the aqueducts, the chain and scale armors, the C-section, quick-dry cement, the calendar, indoor heating, socks, umbrellas, candles, magnifying glasses, etc., but yea, with all these inventions, they would not be able to swallow the idea that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and the universe is 12 billion years old, or that the Earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa.
Jesus must've been sceptical even about using the number 6000 since that would take many minutes to count up to and people might lose count or grow bored of the challenge.
The people that invented all these things were the only ones that could conceive numbers so large, or think outside the box and question, even for a second, that maybe the universe doesn't revolve around us (Jesus must've been giving humans an ego-boost with this one).
The idea isn't so absurd as you may think though. Religious folk do tend to be the less educated and more narrow minded of the human populace, so conceiving numbers that big could have been out of their grasp. The prophets were smart though, they knew their target audience was huge, and still is today.
Until the day everyone gets an education right through to the end of college...
Alright, the Bible is the inherent word of Yahweh. Therefore, it would be a crime against Yahweh to change the Bible. Therefore, it cannot change.
Not really, Christianity has the potential to change, the pillars of said change are already set, the Vatican accepting scientific pursuit readily, modern issues challenging old Christian ideals, even the followers themselves, around 60-70% of the Christian followers believe in a God yes, but not truly the Christian God.
And exactly how old does an action have to be to be forgiven? The millions killed in the Crusades long enough? The million killed in the Inquisition long enough? Allying with the Nazi's who killed millions in the Holocaust long enough? The millions killed by aids in Africa long enough? Are these all forgivable, because they didn't happen today? How do you forgive an organization that commits these acts, or allies with others that commit these acts. Forgive me, but I cannot forgive such dark and evil organization, and I don't know how you can. Call me discriminatory if you want, call me discriminatory all day if you want, but I have morals I must stand by. I wish I could say the same of the Vatican.
Did I ever suggest forgive, no. Granted I don't really blame the current Catholic organization for atrocities commit around half a century ago, but note that I said learn from past mistakes. We learned from the Crusades that imperial conquest for the sake of religion = bad. We learned from the Holocaust that we must never remain isolationist in a world fileld with turmoil.
Stop. Stop right there. What "taboo" is there in Science? If your talking about how it's "wrong" to talk shit about Science, then perhaps you should back up scientific proof for your claims. Or is it also "taboo" to use scientific proof as well?
And yes, I added quotation marks around the "taboo" referencing Science, as there is no taboo.
Pay attention to explanation I gave in the same post, explaining the 'taboo' I speak of.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's one thing to speak nice, it's another to spin tales to Africans about how Condoms increase the chance of getting AIDS. That's an attack not only on Science, but on Humanity. Defend them if you want, but I know that, morally, I couldn't.
As for discrimination, call me whatever you want, it doesn't change the facts.
Again, any religion, like anything in this world, is subject to change, including Christianity.
Sure the Christian faith isn't perfect (reason why I don't choose myself to be part of it), but neither is science, nor anything really. I believe that even the Christian faith can evolve and be more adequate as society progresses and if two and two can come together, well then we'll be at more pleasant and progressive times rather the current uncertain and chaotic one we are living today, no?
We are going by what sounds most logical at this point. The probability of the son of Christ walking the Earth and some people scribing the tale of him (in a time when war thrived) versus it being all a hoax in order to change people's ways and to do what other religions have not yet done, give some form of evidence to their god actually existing - since we all know that the tales of gods have come and gone, and Christianity wouldn't stand out from the crowd otherwise.
Exactly.
Religion has been a crutch on scientific pursuit throughout the ages, and still continues today.
And just as a side note, all of us have put our names down in the poll under scientific while AnathemicOne and a few others haven't put their names down for religious. If you have a strong faith in what you believe in, you wouldn't be afraid to put your name down in its support. Unless you notice the striking differences in popularity of each option and don't want to be a part of the outcast group...
Errr, I have been sticking to the topic, the lengthy post about the definitions is to counter Link's stance on my improper word usage, but note on the same post (particularly at the beginning) I've quoted an actual (and recent, not even a month's time) source on how Christianity not only welcomes but encourages scientific pursuit.
And I haven't put my vote/opinion down on said poll because I believe I'm both (wow shocker), is it now impossible and taboo to support both religion and science now? I mean honestly, for most of the thread I've been arguing on both sides until recently.
Edit: Anyways Puttah, what a poor way to discredit me by bringing the poll into this, hypocritical much in saying for me to stick to the issues while you attempted to side-track the conversation?
Christianity only welcomes and encourages scientific pursuit in the present because science is finally starting to make major breakthroughs in fields which contradicts what the bible says, which wasn't answerable hundreds of years. Christianity needs to adapt in order to not look like a fool, because the guys at the vatican aren't dumb, they understand that the Earth is way more than 6000 years old and denying this strongly supported fact would be very ignorant indeed.
One of the first occurrences when science managed to refute the bible and Christianity with it with logical evidence was with Galileo and the idea of the Heliocentric model. Well I'm sure you know how that turned out, and you say religion hasn't hindered science, but is supporting it instead?
No I never said it's impossible to support both. On the contrary, I already said many pages ago that since science will probably never be able to answer those final questions of "how" such as how did the universe start, god will always be the answer for those that wish to fill in the gaps. But you're right, the OP should've added that option into the poll.
I hardly consider it side-tracking...
And it's a good accomplishment for the faith organization (even though forced it may be). As society progress, so too does religion need to, for religion is indeed created by man and cannot be the rigid staple of how one is to live life. Every religion is subject to change, Christianity is just one of the most-recognized ones who is having a hard time to adapt.
Yes, this particular faith has done many wrongs in the past and I don't blame people for having stigma against them (when they don't transcend being more than a century's time), but one must learn from the past not dwell on it.
Um... No. If you see a kid trying to push a door that you're supposed to pull, and I call him out on it, does that mean he struck a nerve? No. It simply means that the kid is confused...
Anyways, the Vatican supporting science is actually a bad thing because the Vatican supports what a lot of people like to call "Christian" science, a branch of imagination that combines creationism and 3rd grade science. If you don't know what I'm talking about, listen to Kent Hovind. That guy will make you want to stab someone.
And no you don't.... You don't know what you're talking about. I've listened to some of the stuff you're saying and I need to say that some of the stuff you talk about it just wrong. Like you try to prove your point using wiktionary stuff on Christian discrimination yet you don't see the taboo that is set on all religions nowadays. How you don't argue your point at all, you just like to use big words that you found in the thesaurus to sound smart. How your view on religion and science are self-contradictory (or whatever the word is).
And I just called you out on it
Hmmm? The definitions I brought up was to counter Link's assumption of my improper word usage on the term 'discrimination', it was purely off-topic (which Puttah promptly signaled me out on, though I still stuck with the topic).
And I do see the taboo of religion, and the taboo of science, and I have been arguing my point throughout all my posts, now they might be vague and whatnot, but the point is still seen there.
Now I would like some points of me that you have come across that seem contradictory to you, because I can assure you, the are not. It is not impossible to believe in both science and religion you know.
Well I commend you for realizing this, but sadly this isn't the case for many millions of others around the world.
Because Christianity wanted to become well known and stand out from the crowd. It went ahead and explained the unexplainable (some of which weren't answerable 2000 years ago but are today) as an act of god, and tried to seal the deal with proof, which is where jesus fits into it all.
I have learnt from the past. Religion used to have power and it used this power for wrong-doing, it crucified non-believers. But with science's quick growth within the past few centuries, it too has become a religion of its own. The only difference is that this time it is based on logical reasoning and evidence beyond that of some stories that were scribed by a few men (and I honestly don't care what they claim that their inspiration came from. Lying wasn't invented yesterday).
Religion is outdated, and the only reason it still lives is mainly because not everyone can afford or has the intellectual ability to get a proper education in science.
I signalled you out because I made a comment and rather than addressing my points, you started fiddling around with a non-issue.
Taboo of science? Are you kidding me?
Religion and science cannot coexist. I honestly thought this was common sense but I would like to see you prove to me that they can.
Even if it was from the word of God, it was copied, translated and put together by man, making it no longer perfect. However the way I see it is Christianity needs to progress because (I am just going to assume Christianity is correct and Jesus was all-knowing) if he talked about science, genetics, evolution and other things that no one back then knew about, Christianity would not have spread. I think God was hoping that people could use common sense to not interpret the bible literally and understand the the earth is older than 6000 years by now. This is just my belief.
When making statements like this you should use a different word other than science. I am assuming you are talking about the scientific method and that nothing should be left up to faith alone, but the way it is worded right now it sounds like I could just go "I am religious, so I can fly. Gravity is science so I don't believe in it." Which is obviously not true, and most(I hope all) religious people don't believe that.
By the way, the Earth being older than 6000 years was not common sense for a very long. And if this wasn't translated correctly, then who knows what else wasn't translated correctly either! Maybe Adam and Eve were translated incorrectly too and god just expected us to eventually use common sense to understand that evolution is the correct theory. Do we stop there? Why not just say the bible is wrong altogether.
Oh wait, we already are...
I am Christian, and I think the very fact that it was written by man means it is not perfect. Also the fact that the books have been altered and some have been removed by a council of priests makes it hard to believe that the bible is God's exact words.
As far as the earth being more than 6000 years old not being common sense, that applied to my point about if God said how old the earth actually is, I don't think Judaism would have spread because I highly doubt most people back then knew what a billion was and they would have sounded crazy talking about numbers that people don't understand. Therefore God said 6000 years and I think he wanted people to go with science when it was proved to be older.
I worded it pretty badly because I just woke up, but my point was that mistranslations would make the bible not perfect, but I think a majority of the the big contradictions with modern science (age of the earth, evolution and stuff like that) are due to the fact that if they were revealed back then, not only would people not understand but Judaism/Christianity would not have spread.
But do you think that if some prophet who said he talked to god tried to explain the concept of billions of years or evolution or anything like that to somebody thousands of years ago they would believe him? The would be too confused to even know what it is going on. It would be so much simpler for prophets to say (or for God to tell the prophets) "God created 2 people, they made the rest." That is something that people could accept and understand.
This still sounds awful, but I will post it anyways because I spent time writing it. But forget this thread, I am going to go eat lunch. I am hungry and I like food.
Well, actually, religion and science can coexist, I believed we have discussed this earlier in the thread with my religion of Deism?
And yes a taboo of science does exist (wow shocker) and you know what it is? Morals. Yes, morals. Science can only go so far without contradicting society's established morals (arguably the human moral system). It is this boundary that prevents the manslaughter of people for scientific study (like Da Vinci did when studying the human anatomy), the reason why we don't clone humans even though we have the technology too, and the reason why religion won't ever be extinguished, why? Because religion arguably is a worldwide reflection on our morals.
Take the Ten Commandments, the whole list of them (excluding like two) are what people follow on a daily basis without knowing it. Ying Yang, the balance of temeprance; how to not take too much or take to little, etc.
So yes, religion and science can coexist, proof? Well other than the examples I posted above, look at today, we are not waging war on terminating either concept, debating yes, but not actual conflict on grand scales. Can it evolve into war, sure can, if idiots keep holding onto the ideal that religion and science are poloar opposites when in fact they are the reflection of the human being, the eternal grasp for knowledge, and our morality.
And on a sidenote, I see you haven't brought any examples of my contradicting myself Irrational, which you claim I did. So either bring some up so I may assure you they are not, or don't bring ludicrous accusations into a debate which only serve to bring down credibility instead of discussing the topic at hand.
I'm studying for a Math and Physics major, and throughout my life I've learnt to understand and appreciate the intellectual power that humans possess. To say that no one would've understood what a billion is or to understand evolution is a mockery for all of mankind, since our intellectual capacity today has hardly changed since then. It's only a lack of education or a low IQ that would cause people to not understand such trivial things.
And it's a good argument you're posing. "Since humans were all dumb back then, the prophets went easy on them and turned the facts into nice little fairy tales that they could swallow". Humans were very dumb indeed, with their bows and arrows, iron and steel armors; infrastructure, agriculture, the math they knew that reached to an early college education today. Very dumb indeed.
Alright, the Bible is the inherent word of Yahweh. Therefore, it would be a crime against Yahweh to change the Bible. Therefore, it cannot change.
And I pointed out that if you say one thing and do another, then that kinda destroys your credibility. And that's what happened with the Vatican. *Shrug.* Believe them if you want, but don't ask the Africans who got aids because of them to trust them - again.
QFT
And exactly how old does an action have to be to be forgiven? The millions killed in the Crusades long enough? The million killed in the Inquisition long enough? Allying with the Nazi's who killed millions in the Holocaust long enough? The millions killed by aids in Africa long enough? Are these all forgivable, because they didn't happen today? How do you forgive an organization that commits these acts, or allies with others that commit these acts. Forgive me, but I cannot forgive such dark and evil organization, and I don't know how you can. Call me discriminatory if you want, call me discriminatory all day if you want, but I have morals I must stand by. I wish I could say the same of the Vatican.
Stop. Stop right there. What "taboo" is there in Science? If your talking about how it's "wrong" to talk shit about Science, then perhaps you should back up scientific proof for your claims. Or is it also "taboo" to use scientific proof as well?
And yes, I added quotation marks around the "taboo" referencing Science, as there is no taboo.
Mind you, they were the ones that created the number zero, the aqueducts, the chain and scale armors, the C-section, quick-dry cement, the calendar, indoor heating, socks, umbrellas, candles, magnifying glasses, etc., but yea, with all these inventions, they would not be able to swallow the idea that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and the universe is 12 billion years old, or that the Earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa.
The people that invented all these things were the only ones that could conceive numbers so large, or think outside the box and question, even for a second, that maybe the universe doesn't revolve around us (Jesus must've been giving humans an ego-boost with this one).
The idea isn't so absurd as you may think though. Religious folk do tend to be the less educated and more narrow minded of the human populace, so conceiving numbers that big could have been out of their grasp. The prophets were smart though, they knew their target audience was huge, and still is today.
Until the day everyone gets an education right through to the end of college...
Not really, Christianity has the potential to change, the pillars of said change are already set, the Vatican accepting scientific pursuit readily, modern issues challenging old Christian ideals, even the followers themselves, around 60-70% of the Christian followers believe in a God yes, but not truly the Christian God.
Did I ever suggest forgive, no. Granted I don't really blame the current Catholic organization for atrocities commit around half a century ago, but note that I said learn from past mistakes. We learned from the Crusades that imperial conquest for the sake of religion = bad. We learned from the Holocaust that we must never remain isolationist in a world fileld with turmoil.
Pay attention to explanation I gave in the same post, explaining the 'taboo' I speak of.