But you can still argue the generality of sports, which in turn the concept can be brought into here; the generality of religion vs the generality of science.
But how do you argue the generality of Nascar and Football? Drive faster to get more touchdowns? Worship only Yahweh as well as worship a pantheon of gods and goddesses? All gods are equal as well as all gods besides Yahweh are demons? They are simply too different to place together.
I can argue that believing in deities is okay.
One can argue back that it is not okay.
And if we go with generic religion vs generic science, that's as far as we are going to go. Details matter. It matters what deity, what science, what this, what that. Otherwise, one person says religion is good, another says religion is bad, and that's the end of the thread.
Disregard my previous post, I realize now it was utterly pointless.
-----
The thread is titled 'Religion vs Science' and we must abide to that theme. I will not teach and/or explain how to argue, if you cannot then you lose credibility.
Anyways, I still stand beside my point that religion is perfectly fine to coexist with the science.
Certain religions can coexist with science, but certain religions cannot. As per your request, I cannot say what religions can and what religions cannot, because, well, I don't know why we are not allowed.
I like how religion is both good and bad. I would explain why, but that would be talking about specific religions, and you guys don't want to do that.
Certain religions can coexist with science, but certain religions cannot. As per your request, I cannot say what religions can and what religions cannot, because, well, I don't know why we are not allowed.
I like how religion is both good and bad. I would explain why, but that would be talking about specific religions, and you guys don't want to do that.
Why must you discriminate against certain religions? Isn't religion, all religions, an evolving concept? If it were not, bombing such as 9/11 would be daily-weekly basis and slavery would probably still exist.
So since religion is ever-evolving it is suspect to reform. So instead of outright discriminating it why not slowly change it to fit current society's need?
(And yes you can use specific religions and discuss them, I [and others] just don't want a specific religion brought up and the conversation slowly evolves into a debate on said religion).
Well X religion and Y religion bases themselves on knowing exactly what Z deity wants. Just because we don't have 9/11's all the time doesn't mean X and Y religion are changing. It does, however, give further evidence to the fact that followers of X and Y religion do not know anything about their faith.
Also, exactly what do you call discrimination? I have yet to see any discrimination from the non-religious side.
Right there is discriminatory, you are signaling out the certain religions that don't fit your view of things.
Religion A says the world is X years old. Science says it's Y years old. That's not discrimination, unless you are calling simple facts discriminatory.
If I may butt in, we can only go so far as to talk about the generality of religion in the sense that they are all based on faiths with something. If you want to be more detailed, you need to pinpoint exactly which religion you're talking about.
As LinkX has already said, Buddhism and Christianity are completely different, and if you want to avoid "discrimination" (if that is even a relevant here) then this thread would have been exhausted 20 pages ago.
I myself don't find faith to be bad at all. It explains the unexplainable, which can have positive impacts on many people's state of mind. The idea of heaven and hell can be enough incentive for people to change their ways, thus religion in this sense is a reward on society. Buddhism takes another approach, but for the same cause. To reach enlightenment can be their reward of heaven in some sense.
What I do find to be ignorant by many though is that while Buddhism stops there, Christianity has taken it a step further. They give evidence of god really existing with the story of Jesus. Many people take this as proof beyond a doubt (by this point already, it's obvious that these people don't have a good knowledge of the scientific method) and thus believe the bible to the very last detail.
They imagine any reason possible to try dispute the solid evidence to suggest the Earth is much, much older than 6000 years as one example. They are being brainwashed honestly.
Well, it isn't so much the end result, being peace and love for one another, that I have a problem with. It's the process that is taken to get to it. By placing religion as a road block to scientific advancement, it is, in a sense, attacking Humanity. Some religions do not place themselves as a road block, others do.
Also, I'm waiting for Puttah to be labeled a discriminator too. Lol.
And what is particularly wrong with a religion trying to get a hold/prove a deity's existence? I personally have no trouble believing Jesus existed for I know the Bible was written after his time.
As for religion halting scientific pursuit, well I'll bring Christianity into this. It is true that this religion and its followers have done grievances in the past, but that's over. If you pay attention to current events the Vatican is actually in league with scientific pursuit, allowing to have an open mind with them.
Yes it is true that some people follow Christianity fanatically, but like all religions it is subject to change and evolution, the problem we are facing is the transition to change (look at the response we had for health-care in America) and not only that but anti-religious folk attack Christianity for past wrongs, which is like someone attacking modern Britain for unreasonable taxes on the original 13 colonies.
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.
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
It doesn't matter what I THINK because you clearly already KNOW the truth. Which is quite remarkable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
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:
As for religion halting scientific pursuit, well I'll bring Christianity into this. It is true that this religion and its followers have done grievances in the past, but that's over. If you pay attention to current events the Vatican is actually in league with scientific pursuit, allowing to have an open mind with them.
Alright, give some proof. What has the Vatican done to push forward science and knowledge? If I remember correctly, It was the Catholics who were the most upset about the Large Hadron Collider, and about CERN in general. Granted, it was the Vatican that stated the Earth was flat, the Sun revolves around the Earth, and in fact the entire world revolves around the Earth, which science later disproved. So, if you have something the Vatican has done to help Science instead of Hindering it, please, I want to know.
Yes it is true that some people follow Christianity fanatically, but like all religions it is subject to change and evolution, the problem we are facing is the transition to change (look at the response we had for health-care in America) and not only that but anti-religious folk attack Christianity for past wrongs, which is like someone attacking modern Britain for unreasonable taxes on the original 13 colonies.
Well, I do agree. If Christian X and Christian Y did not perpetrate the crimes of Christian Z, then Christian X and Christian Y should not be held accountable. However, if it is in the holy book, the religion should be held accountable.(Not saying the people, but the religion.) Thus, if you take beating disobedient children, promoting slavery, stoning those of other faiths as well as those who are homosexual, then yes, it should be held accountable for those beliefs. Just because current day Christians don't follow the Bible (Which is a good thing) doesn't mean the Bible is not bad.
It doesn't matter what I THINK because you clearly already KNOW the truth. Which is quite remarkable.
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.
One last thing, to nobody imparticular, I want to say that I am glad that there are people that actually understand what the word Discriminate means. When people use it wrong, like it was used in this thread, it isn't just an insult to me, but also an insult to people who actually work hard every day to be a discriminating douche bag.
As for religion halting scientific pursuit, well I'll bring Christianity into this. It is true that this religion and its followers have done grievances in the past, but that's over. If you pay attention to current events the Vatican is actually in league with scientific pursuit, allowing to have an open mind with them.
Alright, give some proof. What has the Vatican done to push forward science and knowledge? If I remember correctly, It was the Catholics who were the most upset about the Large Hadron Collider, and about CERN in general. Granted, it was the Vatican that stated the Earth was flat, the Sun revolves around the Earth, and in fact the entire world revolves around the Earth, which science later disproved. So, if you have something the Vatican has done to help Science instead of Hindering it, please, I want to know.
Yes it is true that some people follow Christianity fanatically, but like all religions it is subject to change and evolution, the problem we are facing is the transition to change (look at the response we had for health-care in America) and not only that but anti-religious folk attack Christianity for past wrongs, which is like someone attacking modern Britain for unreasonable taxes on the original 13 colonies.
Well, I do agree. If Christian X and Christian Y did not perpetrate the crimes of Christian Z, then Christian X and Christian Y should not be held accountable. However, if it is in the holy book, the religion should be held accountable.(Not saying the people, but the religion.) Thus, if you take beating disobedient children, promoting slavery, stoning those of other faiths as well as those who are homosexual, then yes, it should be held accountable for those beliefs. Just because current day Christians don't follow the Bible (Which is a good thing) doesn't mean the Bible is not bad.
It doesn't matter what I THINK because you clearly already KNOW the truth. Which is quite remarkable.
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.
One last thing, to nobody imparticular, I want to say that I am glad that there are people that actually understand what the word Discriminate means. When people use it wrong, like it was used in this thread, it isn't just an insult to me, but also an insult to people who actually work hard every day to be a discriminating douche bag.
Okay here you go, take note that nowhere in that address is there a bash of scientific pursuit.
As for the use of discriminatory, I've fairly sure I'm correct on its usage
------
dis·crim·i·na·to·ry
/dɪˈskrɪmənəˌtɔri, -ˌtoʊri/ Show Spelled[dih-skrim-uh-nuh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee]
–adjective
1. characterized by or showing prejudicial treatment, esp. as an indication of racial, religious, or sexual bias: discriminatory practices in housing; a discriminatory tax.
Certain religions can coexist with science, but certain religions cannot. As per your request, I cannot say what religions can and what religions cannot, because, well, I don't know why we are not allowed.
I see a prejudicial treatment on said religions that can't coexist with science, there's not even an "I think" in there, no it's thrown out as cold hard fact.
But now one is probably (maybe you) going to scorn me for the term 'prejudicial' but I've come prepared for that too.
------
prej·u·di·cial
/ˌprɛdʒəˈdɪʃəl/ Show Spelled[prej-uh-dish-uhl]
–adjective
causing prejudice or disadvantage; detrimental.
-quoted from Dictionary.com
------
Clearly the original quote from you speaks disadvantage how? Because it's stated that certain religions cannot coexist with science, which clearly emphasizes the underhandedness that you proposed on said certain religions.
Now normally, I don't bother to bring in definitions from outside sources into an argument, but trying to destabilize my credibility based on the mediocre attack on my word usage, is a bit silly, don't you think?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But how do you argue the generality of Nascar and Football? Drive faster to get more touchdowns? Worship only Yahweh as well as worship a pantheon of gods and goddesses? All gods are equal as well as all gods besides Yahweh are demons? They are simply too different to place together.
And if we go with generic religion vs generic science, that's as far as we are going to go. Details matter. It matters what deity, what science, what this, what that. Otherwise, one person says religion is good, another says religion is bad, and that's the end of the thread.
-----
The thread is titled 'Religion vs Science' and we must abide to that theme. I will not teach and/or explain how to argue, if you cannot then you lose credibility.
Anyways, I still stand beside my point that religion is perfectly fine to coexist with the science.
I like how religion is both good and bad. I would explain why, but that would be talking about specific religions, and you guys don't want to do that.
Why must you discriminate against certain religions? Isn't religion, all religions, an evolving concept? If it were not, bombing such as 9/11 would be daily-weekly basis and slavery would probably still exist.
So since religion is ever-evolving it is suspect to reform. So instead of outright discriminating it why not slowly change it to fit current society's need?
(And yes you can use specific religions and discuss them, I [and others] just don't want a specific religion brought up and the conversation slowly evolves into a debate on said religion).
Also, exactly what do you call discrimination? I have yet to see any discrimination from the non-religious side.
Right there is discriminatory, you are signaling out the certain religions that don't fit your view of things.
Religion A says the world is X years old. Science says it's Y years old. That's not discrimination, unless you are calling simple facts discriminatory.
As LinkX has already said, Buddhism and Christianity are completely different, and if you want to avoid "discrimination" (if that is even a relevant here) then this thread would have been exhausted 20 pages ago.
I myself don't find faith to be bad at all. It explains the unexplainable, which can have positive impacts on many people's state of mind. The idea of heaven and hell can be enough incentive for people to change their ways, thus religion in this sense is a reward on society. Buddhism takes another approach, but for the same cause. To reach enlightenment can be their reward of heaven in some sense.
What I do find to be ignorant by many though is that while Buddhism stops there, Christianity has taken it a step further. They give evidence of god really existing with the story of Jesus. Many people take this as proof beyond a doubt (by this point already, it's obvious that these people don't have a good knowledge of the scientific method) and thus believe the bible to the very last detail.
They imagine any reason possible to try dispute the solid evidence to suggest the Earth is much, much older than 6000 years as one example. They are being brainwashed honestly.
Also, I'm waiting for Puttah to be labeled a discriminator too. Lol.
As for religion halting scientific pursuit, well I'll bring Christianity into this. It is true that this religion and its followers have done grievances in the past, but that's over. If you pay attention to current events the Vatican is actually in league with scientific pursuit, allowing to have an open mind with them.
Yes it is true that some people follow Christianity fanatically, but like all religions it is subject to change and evolution, the problem we are facing is the transition to change (look at the response we had for health-care in America) and not only that but anti-religious folk attack Christianity for past wrongs, which is like someone attacking modern Britain for unreasonable taxes on the original 13 colonies.
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.
Man, I'm glad you're so knowledgeable and wise.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Lol? Okay... What is religion then? Tell me how you think it came to be.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
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:
Alright, give some proof. What has the Vatican done to push forward science and knowledge? If I remember correctly, It was the Catholics who were the most upset about the Large Hadron Collider, and about CERN in general. Granted, it was the Vatican that stated the Earth was flat, the Sun revolves around the Earth, and in fact the entire world revolves around the Earth, which science later disproved. So, if you have something the Vatican has done to help Science instead of Hindering it, please, I want to know.
Well, I do agree. If Christian X and Christian Y did not perpetrate the crimes of Christian Z, then Christian X and Christian Y should not be held accountable. However, if it is in the holy book, the religion should be held accountable.(Not saying the people, but the religion.) Thus, if you take beating disobedient children, promoting slavery, stoning those of other faiths as well as those who are homosexual, then yes, it should be held accountable for those beliefs. Just because current day Christians don't follow the Bible (Which is a good thing) doesn't mean the Bible is not bad.
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.
One last thing, to nobody imparticular, I want to say that I am glad that there are people that actually understand what the word Discriminate means. When people use it wrong, like it was used in this thread, it isn't just an insult to me, but also an insult to people who actually work hard every day to be a discriminating douche bag.
i believe eventually science will unlock the truth behind religious teachings
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
Okay here you go, take note that nowhere in that address is there a bash of scientific pursuit.
As for the use of discriminatory, I've fairly sure I'm correct on its usage
------
dis·crim·i·na·to·ry
/dɪˈskrɪmənəˌtɔri, -ˌtoʊri/ Show Spelled[dih-skrim-uh-nuh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee]
–adjective
1. characterized by or showing prejudicial treatment, esp. as an indication of racial, religious, or sexual bias: discriminatory practices in housing; a discriminatory tax.
-quoted from Dictionary.com
------
By saying said quote
I see a prejudicial treatment on said religions that can't coexist with science, there's not even an "I think" in there, no it's thrown out as cold hard fact.
But now one is probably (maybe you) going to scorn me for the term 'prejudicial' but I've come prepared for that too.
------
prej·u·di·cial
/ˌprɛdʒəˈdɪʃəl/ Show Spelled[prej-uh-dish-uhl]
–adjective
causing prejudice or disadvantage; detrimental.
-quoted from Dictionary.com
------
Clearly the original quote from you speaks disadvantage how? Because it's stated that certain religions cannot coexist with science, which clearly emphasizes the underhandedness that you proposed on said certain religions.
Now normally, I don't bother to bring in definitions from outside sources into an argument, but trying to destabilize my credibility based on the mediocre attack on my word usage, is a bit silly, don't you think?