quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Of course religious belief is a "leap of faith", but more to the point of the OP:

I've believed, for a loooooong time, that the main purpose of science is to "introduce" us to God. I believe it has a few purposes, but most importantly, science will, eventually, prove to the deniers that God exists.
Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Kinda surprised how many republicans answered yes. You would think the opposite because it mainly republicans who want to govern based on religion. Well loosely anyway.

Anyway, my friend's son went to a Catholic, actually Jesuit school. We turned the kid into a monster and taught him to question everything, and he did. He asked them about teaching evolution and creationism and was told that the science teacher(s) and religion teacher(s) had an agreement - you teach science and I will teach religion. (and vice versa of course)

The 6,000 year old Earth people are the worst of the class. They know neither science nor religion. They cite Genesis says six days. Well how long was a day ?

Plus the fact that when I was young I wasn't quite as faithless as I am now but at about six years old I had it reconciled, evolution was the method of creation. Think when the Mona Lisa was created it just magically popped up out of this air ? Fuck no. I bet you could convince the 6,000 year people. I suppose the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel painted itself as well. God's will and all.

Religion has always been a method of control. Tell them god said it. What the hell is a King James version of the Bible ? Who the hell was he to decide what goes in and what goes out ? Who the hell ws the Pope who changed the sabbath to Saturday to appease the Pagans to get more people into the "flock". And flock it is, they even refer to it that way.

Anyway still, what the hell would account for so many republicans answering yes ?

T^T

you are getting confused a bit by the language. they (the republicans) are strongly disagreeing with the statement "that the two are incompatible."

as to your question about king james---I answered that the first time you brought it up months ago:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Well the same shit happened to the Bible. What the fuck is a King James version ? Who the fuck is the leader of a country, member of a royal welfare recipient family get the right to edit the word of god ?
T^T

the king james version is an English translation, not an "editing."

and to be clear, the work of the translation was commissioned and supported by the king, not DONE by him. it took dozens of scholars a handful of years to do it.

you can only say "the same shit happened to the bible" if you can show how meaningful information exists in the original Hebrew, greek and Aramaic, but then does not show up in the English versions.


i added this later in a conversation with another person that has relevance here:

there was no the bible at the time. relatively speaking canonicity was still occurring, as well as the development of Christian traditions (eastern, protestant and roman catholic). there are some instructive side by side charts here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon


the notion that the purpose of religion is to control, as opposed to give spiritual background and guidance to believers might find some credence in isolated instances throughout history, but to attribute that motivation to all religion, is both absurdly cynical and misguided.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Kinda surprised how many republicans answered yes. You would think the opposite because it mainly republicans who want to govern based on religion. Well loosely anyway.

Anyway, my friend's son went to a Catholic, actually Jesuit school. We turned the kid into a monster and taught him to question everything, and he did. He asked them about teaching evolution and creationism and was told that the science teacher(s) and religion teacher(s) had an agreement - you teach science and I will teach religion. (and vice versa of course)

The 6,000 year old Earth people are the worst of the class. They know neither science nor religion. They cite Genesis says six days. Well how long was a day ?

Plus the fact that when I was young I wasn't quite as faithless as I am now but at about six years old I had it reconciled, evolution was the method of creation. Think when the Mona Lisa was created it just magically popped up out of this air ? Fuck no. I bet you could convince the 6,000 year people. I suppose the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel painted itself as well. God's will and all.

Religion has always been a method of control. Tell them god said it. What the hell is a King James version of the Bible ? Who the hell was he to decide what goes in and what goes out ? Who the hell ws the Pope who changed the sabbath to Saturday to appease the Pagans to get more people into the "flock". And flock it is, they even refer to it that way.

Anyway still, what the hell would account for so many republicans answering yes ?

T^T

you are getting confused a bit by the language. they (the republicans) are strongly disagreeing with the statement "that the two are incompatible."

as to your question about king james---I answered that the first time you brought it up months ago:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Well the same shit happened to the Bible. What the fuck is a King James version ? Who the fuck is the leader of a country, member of a royal welfare recipient family get the right to edit the word of god ?
T^T

the king james version is an English translation, not an "editing."

and to be clear, the work of the translation was commissioned and supported by the king, not DONE by him. it took dozens of scholars a handful of years to do it.

you can only say "the same shit happened to the bible" if you can show how meaningful information exists in the original Hebrew, greek and Aramaic, but then does not show up in the English versions.


i added this later in a conversation with another person that has relevance here:

there was no the bible at the time. relatively speaking canonicity was still occurring, as well as the development of Christian traditions (eastern, protestant and roman catholic). there are some instructive side by side charts here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon


the notion that the purpose of religion is to control, as opposed to give spiritual background and guidance to believers might find some credence in isolated instances throughout history, but to attribute that motivation to all religion, is both absurdly cynical and misguided.

Strongly DISagree that it is INcompatible. Two negatives make a positive.

Or has the language changed again ? Must've.

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

That one would subject themselves to a supernatural existence (force if I may) of a supreme god that watches over you from conception to birth, all of your life and even in death and commands upon you his code of behavior or suffer a damnation in hell...is a sadist at best...a mental and psychological fascist at worst. (God fearing ?)

We are to solemnly believe that all humans are born with original sin and are to live continually in the effort of cleansing yourself of that sin and by his word...a pious life, by his rules and even in what and how you think...or else. That's living under a spiritual, emotional and psychological dictator.

If that narrow and shallow synopsis of what it pleases you to call "religion" reflects the depth and breadth of your knowledge, you are woefully ill-equipped to have an opinion on the subject.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

the notion that the purpose of religion is to control, as opposed to give spiritual background and guidance to believers might find some credence in isolated instances throughout history, but to attribute that motivation to all religion, is both absurdly cynical and misguided.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Agreeing for argument's sake that man (Homo sapien) has been around for say, about what ? 100,000 or 200,000 years ? What 'spiritual background and guidance' was given to man for the approx. 198,000 of those years before god (Abraham or Gabriel) stepped in and basically said, 'enough of this shit'...here's the gospel and to poor, desert dwelling illiterates no less.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

At the end of the day, this is just a survey of opinions. Who cares?

Who cares what people think?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternlyDunn

There are a great many theologians with considerable education in the sciences, just as there are actual scientists who are devoutly religious and in some cases members of the clergy.

Science and religion coexist all over the place.

Science is knowledge-based system only concerned with understanding the universe and reality as it really is, based on verifiable fact.

Religion is a faith-based system, focused entirely on human beings who inhabit the world.

Part of the problem is, people confuse faith with belief.

The United States is one of the few places in the industrialized world where the leaders of the main Christian denominations choose to disbelieve the irrefutable, proven fact that the earth is billions of years old, and that all species evolved over millions of years through the processes first explained logically in Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, and later corrected and expanded by many other scientists in many fields.

They are not changing those facts, just improving our knowledge and understanding of them.

And while some people may not spend a lot of time dwelling on it, most practicing Christians, Jews, and Muslims in other parts of the world have no issue accepting the fact that the story of Adam and Eve is a creation myth, which, along with much of the Old Testament demonstrates the ethics and cultural identity at the heart of the Judaic-Christian-Islamic religion.

While parts of such myths and hero stories may have threads of real historical events sewn into them, they are no more valid as actual history than the creation myths and hero stories of Polynesian culture, Native Americans, and so forth. But they teach us much about tradition and cultural values.

All of that having been rooted in a prehistorical era when human society was evolving from a clan-based hunter-gatherer existence to an agricultural existence of permanent settlements, populated by many clans of diverse origins, who had to coexist without robbing, killing, pillaging and raping each other. In other words, we needed codes of conduct both legal and moral if we were to learn how to be civil, so we could become a civilization.

In no way does any of that have any bearing on there being a higher power, with or without direct connection to or plan for human kind and the world we live in, or not.

But it does bring into question any belief that any one religion is infallible and somehow truer than other religions, or that its holy texts are likewise valid as genuine history.

While Science may never shake our faith, the greater knowledge of the world and universe Science provides can challenge our beliefs.

Belief is the opposite of knowledge. What we cannot know with certainly, we must choose to believe, or not.

The nice thing about belief is that we can believe whatever we wish, because it has nothing to do with reality whatsoever.

The bad thing about belief is that we can believe whatever we wish, because it has nothing to with reality whatsoever.

If someone proves we are believing in a falsehood, we can simply choose to disbelieve their proof.

It will not change the fact we believe a falsehood any more than believing there is no God makes it so.

If there is a God, he/she/it exists whether we believe it or not.

But there being a God in no way validates any man-made religion over another, or in any way means the events depicted in ancient holy texts happened as written down, back before we knew that diseases of mind and body weren't caused by evil spirits, or that the world was full of people for a million years before modern humans wrote such texts, or that hot sulfur springs didn't come from Hell - a place, by the way, that wasn't even invented until the Middle Ages

Faith and belief are not the same thing. Actual Religion is faith-based interpretation of the metaphysical world, not belief-based, and should remain safe and sound as Science continues to improve our understanding of the physical world

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


Of course religious belief is a "leap of faith",

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

Of course religious belief is a "leap of faith",

So is atheism.

There isn't enough evidence to make a scientific conclusion either way.
Both religion and atheism are unproven hypothesis.

Anybody who does anything beyond being agnostic is taking "a leap of faith".

I don't see someone who happens not to believe in God as making a leap of faith. But those who insist that there is no God are another matter entirely.

K.