Welcome to Gaia! ::

CDizzle17's avatar

Distinct Informer

2,750 Points
  • Contributor 150
  • Forum Dabbler 200
  • Forum Regular 100
I was very angry the other day at a pious cretin and it led me to write this piece. Tell me what you think, and yes I am aware of the few grammatical errors. I want to elaborate more on the subject. Enjoy:

The universe is abstruse, it may even seem incomprehensible, but that’s where science comes in, to help us understand our origins. Each scientific discovery increases our understanding of the world around us. For I do not see the universe as a mystery, I see it as a puzzle and our minds are the only tool we need to solve it. Religion is a staunch adversary of science. Religions claim they have the answer to life, but do they really?

Is religion correct? No, I don’t believe any religion is correct. How narcissistic would you have to be to believe that you have the ultimate truth to life? Very would be the right answer. What has religion brought except for false hope and delusion? Oh and let us not forget all the pain and destruction it has wrought. It has offered us nothing except idiotic assertions about all knowing entities. When a religion says that their creed is the only way to happiness, prosperity, and eternal life, be skeptical. Closet non-believers must come out and attack religion. It’s about time they realize that their cowardice is only hindering the future of humanity. Non-believers must take leadership and propel humanity in the right direction and we are seeing this as the number of non-believers is beginning to rise. Humanity may be in the right direction, but only time will tell.

The idea of a God is something I despise a well, I am an anti-theist. The idea of a God is the embodiment totalitarianism. To say that an entity dictates your every move and intervenes in your life relinquishes reason and free thought. There is also no evidence for a God and therefore I refuse to take part in the concept. The only God I would accept is the Deist God, but even Deism doesn’t make sense. What created God? That question will stump every believer, not even science can answer that question because it’s impossible to answer.

The future is bright for humanity. Don’t get me wrong, I believe everyone should believe what they wish, but when it hinders our future as a species, then it must come to an end. That’s what religion does, it hinders our future. If you’re a closet non-believer, then come out. Do not be afraid to voice your opinion, your mind is the most powerful weapon you have. Use it and let us use science and reason to lead humanity to its maximum potential, if there is a limit of course.
Kita-Ysabell's avatar

Distinct Conversationalist

Some comments:

1. While righteous anger is a good motivator to get you writing, it does jack s**t for your prose. This is stilted as all get out (the only thing worse is the intro) and needs some serious editing.

2. And... well... on content? YOU'RE MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE THAT YOU'RE ACCUSING SOMEONE OF MAKING. PLEASE STOP BEING AN ASSHAT. I'm a Unitarian Universalist (LOOK IT UP) and I find this really offensive. We aren't easily offended.

Science neither opposes nor replaces religion. Thinking that it does is called "scientistic thinking" and it's basically the opposite of scientific thinking. Science isn't about answers. It's about creating an ever-changing model of reality that may or may not be radically flawed, and working to make it less flawed. For example? Science can't tell us what matter is, only how it acts.

Besides which, your definition of religion makes it really evident that you're not well-read at all. You've been looking to the worst-case-scenario definition of religion, the one created by people looking at religion as it has been sold to the lowest common denominator from the position of disdain. I respect your right to come to that conclusion, but not if you don't make some attempt at refuting more intelligent analyses of religion first. Leo Tolstoy? C. S. Lewis? Bertrand Russell? All great thinkers, none opposed to science, and they all refute one point or another of this.

If you didn't want comments of this sort? You probably should have posted somewhere else. Or maybe not posted at all.
Rotsab M. Hyolf's avatar

9,100 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • First step to fame 200
  • Peoplewatcher 100
You argue science is the answer, and yet it constantly contradicts itself. Many times have we held as truth something 'science' told us, only to learn it is wrong. Science has evolved and changed so much over the centuries that I can hardly believe you would hold the science of the medieval era as more informed and enlightened than religion.

What facts have we gleaned from science? There are few truths to be had. Identical twins must be opposite sexes; false. There are nine planets in our solar system; false. We are the only life in the entire universe; false. How moronic would you have to be to accept every fact science hands out, when they are so clearly biased by their nationality, pride, money, work ethics, backgrounds, and sponsors?

You say I can't believe in a God who came into sudden being. I say you cannot believe in a universe that suddenly came into being. Show me what came before your universe, or I say it doesn't exist.

Show me how black holes affect me on a daily basis. Show me why I should believe in neutrinos when I can't even see them. Tell me what proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the nahrite meteors came from Mars.

You can't. It's time you went and got a proper education, instead of spouting this anti-religion ignorant bullshit.

Then again, I find it hilarious to watch you people* squirm and squeal the way you claim those who are religious are, so by all means keep whining.


* And by people, I mean ignorant assholes.
So all the true Gnostics who seek to better themselves and the world though knowledge and all Buddhists who do their best to spread compassion and understanding to create a more diverse and peaceful world, as well as all others who tried to learn or truly help, including Darwin, Florence Nightingale, Copernicus, and Galileo world are all assholes, but athiests who do those things aren't?
CDizzle17
...

This is a really poorly constructed argument.

First, a lot of people feel very strongly about religions, and it's completely disrespectful to refer to someone as a "Pious Cretin." It has nothing to do with whether or not what your saying is valid or not, but if you're trying to write a professional looking essay or whatever, then this was your first misstep.

CDizzle17
Religion is a staunch adversary of science. Religions claim they have the answer to life, but do they really?

This sentence isn't at all accurate. Religion is a very broad term, and it's completely misleading to say that they're all adversaries of science, and that they all proclaim to have the answers to life. Certain faiths do, other's don't. As far as I know, Wicca doesn't have any sort of creation myth.

CDizzle17
How narcissistic would you have to be to believe that you have the ultimate truth to life?

Didn't you just say:
CDizzle17
For I do not see the universe as a mystery, I see it as a puzzle and our minds are the only tool we need to solve it.

So, it's narcissistic to believe that you have the ultimate truth, but you think that science can give it to us? How does that make science different from religion?

CDizzle17
What has religion brought except for false hope and delusion?

Religion has brought a lot more than that. Have you ever heard of the Mennonite Central Committee? They're a religious organization that works to raise money for relief efforts. Things like helping Haiti after after that earthquake, or helping to disarm cluster bombs in Laos. That's a lot more than false hope and delusions, wouldn't you say?

CDizzle17
Oh and let us not forget all the pain and destruction it has wrought.

Religion is a force that has been manipulated by people in authority. The Crusades are a good example of that. But is science any better? Didn't Albert Einstein once say "Technological progress is like an ax in the hands of a pathological criminal"?

CDizzle17
When a religion says that their creed is the only way to happiness, prosperity, and eternal life, be skeptical. Closet non-believers must come out and attack religion.

Why? If someone is a Christian, and that makes them happy, what's wrong with that?

CDizzle17
The idea of a God is the embodiment totalitarianism. To say that an entity dictates your every move and intervenes in your life relinquishes reason and free thought.

In some religions, yes. In others, no.

CDizzle17
Don’t get me wrong, I believe everyone should believe what they wish, but when it hinders our future as a species, then it must come to an end.

And how exactly is religion hindering our growth as a species? What recent technological advancements has it suppressed? This isn't the Middle Ages any more. The Catholic church doesn't control our governments.

Kita-Ysabell
2. And... well... on content? YOU'RE MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE THAT YOU'RE ACCUSING SOMEONE OF MAKING. PLEASE STOP BEING AN ASSHAT. I'm a Unitarian Universalist (LOOK IT UP) and I find this really offensive. We aren't easily offended.


Hey, Kita-Ysabell, I really don't know much about Unitarian Universalists... but I did look it up, and this is the definition I got. If it's incomplete, or I somehow misread it, please let me know.

Wikipedia.org
Unitarian Universalism is a religious denomination characterized by support for a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning".[1] Unitarian Universalists do not share a creed; rather, they are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth and by the understanding that an individual's theology is a result of that search and not obedience to an authoritarian requirement. Unitarian Universalists draw on many different theological sources and have a wide range of beliefs and practices.


So... you like thinking for yourself and coming to your own conclusions? Well, so do I. I really, really like it. But, at the same time, I don't really think you have any right to be offended when somebody comes up with a truth you don't necessarily agree with.

My personal beliefs probably conflict with what you believe. If you wrote up an essay detailing how you thought the Nietzschian concept of god being dead was stupid, and that the people who believed it would lead happier lives if they embraced whatever it is you believe, well I wouldn't be offended in the slightest. I might debate that point, but I'd never take it as a personal insult, and call you an asshat.

Kita-Ysabell
Science neither opposes nor replaces religion.


Where are you getting this idea that science never opposes religion from? It happens all the time, and is a reality that both atheists and theists have to come to terms with.

http://www.religioustolerance.org
Scientific findings and religious beliefs are normally quite separate:

  • Science deals with the study of nature, its forces, processes and development. It is based on the analysis of evidence. It assumes, as a working hypothesis, that processes and events happen due to natural causes, not through divine intervention. It rarely intrudes in matters of morality, the existence and nature of deity, spirituality, etc.

  • Religion deals with matters of faith. Its main basis is often revelation from a deity -- either orally transmitted from generation to generation, recorded in a sacred text, or revealed to individuals through prayer. Most faith groups teach of the existence of one or more deities who created the universe, and continue to play a major role in managing it -- sometimes bypassing the laws of nature to create miracles. A main function of religion is to teach moral principles, mankind's relationship to the god(s) or goddess(es), behavior towards other humans, spiritual matters, etc.

The main battles between religion and science are in areas in which they overlap. Here, both often hold conflicting positions.

Many people feel that their own religious tradition is absolutely true, whereas science and all other faiths are artificial and deeply flawed belief systems, invented by error-prone humans. This attitude often fuels religious conflict, sometimes escalating into mass crimes against humanity and genocide. The result is that different religious traditions battle each other, as well as disagree with the findings of science.

Areas of overlap and conflict:

Some of the areas where science and religion overlap, and make conflicting claims, are:

  • Cosmology, geology, astronomy, etc. Many believers within the conservative wing of Christianity claim that the earth is less than 10,000 years of age. They interpret the creation and universal flood stories in the Biblical book of Genesis as being literally true. 95% of scientists reject a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. They believe that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, that no world-wide flood has happened, and that humanity, the world and the rest of the universe evolved.

  • Linguistics: Most conservative Christians claims that the Tower of Babel story in the Biblical book of Genesis describes precisely a past event in the Middle East in which humanity abandoned a single language. They then separated into many different cultures, with various languages. Scientists generally disagree that languages developed in this manner.

  • Medicine: There are many conflicts in health related topics:

    • Some faith groups promote methods of healing that they believe is superior to modern medicine. Physicians tend to disagree in the effectiveness of prayer.

    • Some faith groups teach that human personhood begins at the instant of conception. Upon this belief they base their assertion that abortion is the killing of a human being -- a practice than they feel should be seriously restricted. Others teach that life becomes human life much later in pregnancy and that abortion is sometimes the least immoral choice.

    • Some faith groups believe that only God gives life and only God should take it away. They oppose physician assisted suicide. Others believe that when a terminally ill person is in intractable pain and wishes to die that physicians should be allowed to assist them in dying.


  • Religious practices:

    • A common Pentecostal practice is "speaking in tongues" where one believer will speak in what appears to be gibberish to the casual observer, while another believer interprets the meaning of the speech for the congregation. Pentecostals and investigators have reached different conclusions over the significants of speaking in tongues.

    • Most theists believe that they can assess the will of God. The sponsors of this web site have conducted a pilot study which appears to indicate that determining God's will is not possible.


  • Religious events: Various faith groups make certain claims about historical events.

    • One example is the belief by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons, that there were three mass migrations from Palestine to North America circa 600 BCE. This belief has been rejected by many archaeologists.

    • Another is the Shroud of Turin which many believers regard to be the burial cloth of Jesus. Many scientists disagree.


  • Human sexuality: Many conservative Christian groups teach that homosexual behavior is not normal, is unnatural, is chosen, is not genetically determined, and can be changed through prayer and counseling. Researchers into human sexuality generally believe that homosexual orientation is normal for a small percentage of the human race, is natural, is not chosen, is partly determined by one's genes, and cannot be changed through prayer and counseling.

    Generally speaking, in these areas of overlap:
    When religious claims are evaluated using scientific methods, they are found to be false.
    When scientific claims are evaluated using the methods of faith, they are found to be false.

    The result is stagnation. Neither side can easily convince the other of their truth. Sometimes, the conflict continues over centuries before being resolved. Some conflicts, like abortion access, may be permanently irresolvable.
SantaniasGirl's avatar

5,450 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Grunny Grabber 50
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
I usually keep my opinions to myself about these things, but since you decided to be oh, so rude as to call us religious people "pious cretins," I decided to put my two cents in.

CDizzle17
The universe is abstruse, it may even seem incomprehensible, but that’s where science comes in, to help us understand our origins.


If I'm not mistaken, science truly hasn't helped us at all but provided us theories that may or may not be true. Such as the "Big Bang Theory." Scientists believe that the universe came from a huge explosion, but yet there is a law that states "Matter is neither created nor destroyed." How is it possible for matter to be created, then?

Another law also states "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Therefore, if there was nothingness before the universe was created, how is it possible for it just to explode when there was nothing to cause it?

CDizzle17
Religion is a staunch adversary of science. Religions claim they have the answer to life, but do they really?


Science claims to have the exact same answer, but as previously stated above, all that it has provided are plausible theories.

CDizzle17
How narcissistic would you have to be to believe that you have the ultimate truth to life?


Okay, you're going to claim that religious people are narcissistic when you, yourself, just stated that science provides answers without any evidence to back this up, yes? Hmm... Perhaps it is just me, but I believe that you, kind sir, are being narcissistic yourself.

CDizzle17
What has religion brought except for false hope and delusion?


It has given people who have nothing left to live for something to believe in. It brings people who share the same thoughts and ideas together. That "false hope" it issues gets people through the day. It also motivates people to do great things and following their dreams. Most of the common laws are based on the ten commandments written within the Bible.

CDizzle17
Oh and let us not forget all the pain and destruction it has wrought.


Obviously, you aren't familiar with the Quakers who believed in nothing but peace but followed the Bible. Religion teaches us to love one another and free will. How is that bringing destruction? Granted, some religions teach to kill others, but you cannot condemn all religions because of one bad egg.

CDizzle17
Closet non-believers must come out and attack religion.


Okay, so... this whole statement above says that you are no better than the religions that use violence. Yeah... real smart.

Quote:
The idea of a God is the embodiment totalitarianism.


By now, I realize that you have to be young and very naive. You should know a little about the other religion you are trying to suppress before going and writing something opposing it. Christianity is not "Fear God." Church of Christ preaches this, which I absolutely disagree with all together, yes, but Christianity is about free will, giving you the option to love God or shun Him. If He was totalitarian, He would force you to worship Him.

CDizzle17
There is also no evidence for a God and therefore I refuse to take part in the concept.


Well then, provide me with evidence that the "Big Bang Theory" happened, if you would.

CDizzle17
Don’t get me wrong, I believe everyone should believe what they wish, but when it hinders our future as a species, then it must come to an end.


So, let me get this straight. Religion is hindering our humanity... how? If it gives people a reason to exist and live, how is that hindering? Can you view a world with no hope? And how is it hindering itself when people practice it in the privacy of a cathedral, church, or mosque?

CDizzle17
Do not be afraid to voice your opinion, your mind is the most powerful weapon you have. Use it and let us use science and reason to lead humanity to its maximum potential, if there is a limit of course.


Now, let me get this straight. It's okay for people who believe like you to voice their opinion, but religious people cannot? Hmm... Something tells me you're a little biased and a little jerkish. Just saying, dude, just saying.

And I'm done here.
Mixing both prayer and modern medicine together usually results in a better, easier, and faster recovery for patients than using just one or the other.

MLK was highly religious.

Wanting to practice religions without being insulted or persecuted the way you do is what spurned the American founding fathers to make freedom of religion an amendment.

Still think religion is bad?
Rotsab M. Hyolf's avatar

9,100 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • First step to fame 200
  • Peoplewatcher 100
Maltese_Falcon91


To be fair, there have been certain things contested about the bible that were later proven to be true. There was city in the desert that vanished, the rule of King David (not sure if this was contested, but it was apparently proven later that the bible was extremely accurate in its detailing of the reign), and even the ten plagues of Egypt have been tied to the possibility of a volcano erupting ( in addition to the annihilation of Sodom and Gomorrah). A lot of the catholics I talk to don't take everything from the bible as wholly literal (one of my friends, at McMaster University no less, feels that it's designed like Aesop's Fables and toned down so people could comprehend it).

I can't say whether or not the King James bible is right, or if science has all the answers, but I definitely think they get along a lot more than that article you posted would have you believe. I mean, just look at the number of religious people coming out and supporting the right to be gay, if not asserting their own orientation as being that.
Kita-Ysabell's avatar

Distinct Conversationalist

Maltese_Falcon91
Hey, Kita-Ysabell, I really don't know much about Unitarian Universalists... but I did look it up, and this is the definition I got. If it's incomplete, or I somehow misread it, please let me know.

Wikipedia.org
Unitarian Universalism is a religious denomination characterized by support for a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning".[1] Unitarian Universalists do not share a creed; rather, they are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth and by the understanding that an individual's theology is a result of that search and not obedience to an authoritarian requirement. Unitarian Universalists draw on many different theological sources and have a wide range of beliefs and practices.


One of the most difficult things about Unitarian Universalism is that it is both insanely hard and stupidly easy to explain. Trying to explain it to a life-long Catholic in Guatemala, in Spanish no less? Not gonna happen. Wikipedia entry? One of the less accurate ones, but only because only one of the seven principles was included in the overview. Here's all seven:

The Seven Principles (from www.uua.org)
The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

Maltese_Falcon91
So... you like thinking for yourself and coming to your own conclusions? Well, so do I. I really, really like it. But, at the same time, I don't really think you have any right to be offended when somebody comes up with a truth you don't necessarily agree with.

It's not really a matter of thinking for oneself. There is a strong rationalist tradition within UU, but that... isn't what defines it. UU is about taking those hippy-looking Seven Principles and saying that they are sacred. Not important, not ideal, not good sense, sacred. In exactly the same way that a monotheistic religion considers God to be sacred. That's what makes it a religion and not a political movement.

So here's how the OP violates and insults each of those principles in turn:

The inherent worth and dignity of every person: Well, we start off with that "pious cretin" bit. You might say that I did the same thing, but whereas I phrased it so that an asshat is something that someone (and in fact, anyone) can be, the OP phrased it so that a pious cretin is something that certain people always are. What's more, I intentionally chose a word that, while clearly negative, doesn't have a whole lot of meaning and used contextual clues to define that word to mean exactly what I meant it to.

Justice, equity and compassion in human relations: See above. I do understand getting frustrated with someone and ranting or writing a rant in response. That should be self-evident. But turning around to a writing forum and being like, "Here's what I wrote, isn't it awesome?" is something a bit different. I hope the OP showed more respect in-person than they did here. What's more, the OP advocates that other people take up their abusive tactics, extending the chain of disrespect and hypocrisy.

Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations: Well I certainly hope the OP isn't a UU, or I'll eat my bumpit. So I guess they get off on this one.

A free and responsible search for truth and meaning: Despite the "everyone should believe what they wish" line, the overall message of the OP is that religion should be abolished. That doesn't sound like a very free search for truth and meaning, and as for responsibility, well. Responsibility means holding your theories accountable for their implications. It means going out and exploring the ideas you're trying to refute. It means being rigorous about the internal logic of your arguments. It doesn't mean doing these things flawlessly, but it means not being proud about failing to do them.

The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large: So what does this have to do with what's wrong with the OP? This principle is about trust in humanity. It's about being very careful about saying that an idea held by a large group of people is somehow holding them back, and that they should be liberated (forcefully if necessary) from that idea. While the OP's implication that there is a silent majority of "closet non-believers" seems to agree with the ideals of democratic process, the OP says that such non-believers must take leadership roles, not those equal to believers. In effect, the OP advocates reversing, rather than abolishing, the totalitarianism that they claim religion supports.

The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all: Peace, liberty, and justice are conditional upon practices which, as outlined above, the OP advocates against. World community? Sure, but probably one resembling that in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part: This is mostly about hippy-dippy environmentalism. But it's a particular brand of environmentalism from which a large part of the more spiritual aspects of UU arise. But the absolute trust in SCIENCE, a human activity, to solve all problems, and the justification that human interests are the only interests to be taken into account? That's a discussion for a thread in which logic is not DOA.

I don't expect everyone to hold these principles in equal reverence. See Principle #4. But breaking at least five out of seven in one go is right out. That goes beyond "equal reverence" and into "you, sir, need to reconsider your approach, because this one sucks."

And, remember that the OP is saying all these nasty things about religions, of which UU is one.

So yes, I do feel that I have a right to be offended by that post, as a Unitarian Universalist.
Maltese_Falcon91
My personal beliefs probably conflict with what you believe. If you wrote up an essay detailing how you thought the Nietzschian concept of god being dead was stupid, and that the people who believed it would lead happier lives if they embraced whatever it is you believe, well I wouldn't be offended in the slightest. I might debate that point, but I'd never take it as a personal insult, and call you an asshat.

Haha, that is so not something I would write an essay about. I mean what I do believe (it's complicated) is such that "god is dead" is a statement that wouldn't likely be something that I'd refute, for a number of reasons including the context of the statement and the fact that I like the idea of the death of the author. Please don't ask. It's not important.

But if I did write such an essay, I would laud you for not thinking it offensive. As you have given the subject of my hypothetical essay, there's nothing offensive about it. It's not about holding the same beliefs, it's about being genuinely respectful in communicating them, which the OP does not do, as I have outlined above.

And about that "asshat" thing. Let's play a game of contextual definition!

Asshat(n. as defined by me): a state of being rather than an inherent property, a hypocrite, ignorant, offensive, intellectually dishonest

Religion(n. as defined by the OP): the polar opposite of science, a belief in an ultimate truth, a mythology, monotheism, totalitarianism, cowardice, mind control, something divorced from belief, a hindrance to our future, a lie, the polar opposite of reason

Now, which one of these contradicts not only itself, but its dictionary definition?
Maltese_Falcon91
Kita-Ysabell
Science neither opposes nor replaces religion.
Where are you getting this idea that science never opposes religion from? It happens all the time, and is a reality that both atheists and theists have to come to terms with.
I'm getting it from Bertrand Russell and his discussion of the importance of philosophy. Although even his definition of science is... lacking. Science is a model. Religion is a point from which we hang a pendulum and say, "from this, all." Science may refute a literal interpretation of the Bible, but it can never refute a metaphoric one. Religion is not mythology, though it may be involved in one. So on and so forth.

Note that I am saying this from the perspective of a very stripped-down religion.
Maltese_Falcon91


So when is religion taking things literally and believing the stories actually happened and not learning from them or holding them as spiritually important?

Where do people get that crap?
Resonare Praeteriti's avatar

Beloved Sex Symbol

Nice, but there's a bit of a problem. Laveyan Satanism is, for all intents and purposes, a religion, but does not undermine scientific progress, rather promotes it.

Really, take a look. It weakens your essay considerably, in my opinion.

In order to fix this, perhaps narrow down the spectrum of religions you are addressing? Because if you address all of them, your argument is bound to lose. After all, there is more than one religion that promotes scientific advance and the rise of reason. It's only a matter of sniffing them out.
Resonare Praeteriti

In order to fix this, perhaps narrow down the spectrum of religions you are addressing? Because if you address all of them, your argument is bound to lose. After all, there is more than one religion that promotes scientific advance and the rise of reason. It's only a matter of sniffing them out.


Plus, you'd have to weed out which religions don't care. Just because a religion isn't full of fanaticism about science doesn't mean it's full of fanaticism against science.

Plus, there's more than just science for people to achieve: compassion, understanding, aiding nature, aiding nature, bridging gaps between cultures.
Resonare Praeteriti's avatar

Beloved Sex Symbol

Moral Gutpunch
Resonare Praeteriti

In order to fix this, perhaps narrow down the spectrum of religions you are addressing? Because if you address all of them, your argument is bound to lose. After all, there is more than one religion that promotes scientific advance and the rise of reason. It's only a matter of sniffing them out.


Plus, you'd have to weed out which religions don't care. Just because a religion isn't full of fanaticism about science doesn't mean it's full of fanaticism against science.

Plus, there's more than just science for people to achieve: compassion, understanding, aiding nature, aiding nature, bridging gaps between cultures.

Those are all very valid points. Really I think the author can only direct this at a comparatively small group, or else they risk missing something like the things we have listed that nullifies their claim.

Ah, and two words that kill the argument, as it stands, right out: eclectic paganism. The self serve buffet of religions, in which one picks and chooses what they like from other religions to create their own. I think it might be the ultimate Achilles heel to this sort of piece, as eclectics don't have to merely scavenge from other religions, they can input things they've thought of themselves.
Resonare Praeteriti

Ah, and two words that kill the argument, as it stands, right out: eclectic paganism. The self serve buffet of religions, in which one picks and chooses what they like from other religions to create their own. I think it might be the ultimate Achilles heel to this sort of piece, as eclectics don't have to merely scavenge from other religions, they can input things they've thought of themselves.

I honestly don't see what's wrong with this so long as you do your research. Hell, I do it.

Religion is about finding out what's important in life and how to view everything about it. I feel it's kind of stupid to go 'This is my religion, but I don't actually think this way.' Isn't that like being a vegetarian when you trust in the evolutionary importance of eating meat?
Rotsab M. Hyolf
Maltese_Falcon91


To be fair, there have been certain things contested about the bible that were later proven to be true. There was city in the desert that vanished, the rule of King David (not sure if this was contested, but it was apparently proven later that the bible was extremely accurate in its detailing of the reign), and even the ten plagues of Egypt have been tied to the possibility of a volcano erupting ( in addition to the annihilation of Sodom and Gomorrah). A lot of the catholics I talk to don't take everything from the bible as wholly literal (one of my friends, at McMaster University no less, feels that it's designed like Aesop's Fables and toned down so people could comprehend it).

I can't say whether or not the King James bible is right, or if science has all the answers, but I definitely think they get along a lot more than that article you posted would have you believe. I mean, just look at the number of religious people coming out and supporting the right to be gay, if not asserting their own orientation as being that.

To the best of my knowledge, the article doesn't have any bias towards science or religion, it just states the areas where the two disagree. I apologize to if it seemed that I was taking one side over another. That was not my intention, and I meant no disrespect.


EDIT: Sorry, I only just noticed your post now.
Moral Gutpunch
Maltese_Falcon91


So when is religion taking things literally and believing the stories actually happened and not learning from them or holding them as spiritually important?

Where do people get that crap?

There are religious people who do consider the bible very important them and follow it to the word, and there are those who don't follow it as literally.

Both are religions, though the former tends to conflict with science much more than the latter.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games