Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8929 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-26-2019 4:31 AM
30 online now:
AZPaul3, CosmicChimp, PaulK, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,465 Year: 15,501/19,786 Month: 2,224/3,058 Week: 82/516 Day: 3/79 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Denouncing religions ? [New to debate]
MadaManga
Junior Member (Idle past 4442 days)
Posts: 31
From: UK
Joined: 03-06-2007


Message 1 of 89 (388700)
03-07-2007 11:00 AM


Hi,

I'm new to this debate & this is my first posting, however I've been looking around and the first question that really strikes me about the evolution v creationism topic is this.

Is Creationism an attempt to denounce other religions by "scientifically" proving the holy scripture of Christians to be correct, thereby proving the holy scriptures of other religions incorrect?

I do not mean to cause offence, but there is very little mention of other religions in this debate and as it's a religion verse science debate, this strikes me as odd.

Thanks for reading.

Edited by MadaManga, : Grammer.


Nothing is perfect.

Before the universe was nothing and when the universe is perfect it will be nothing.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminQuetzal, posted 03-08-2007 7:56 AM MadaManga has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Jazzns, posted 03-08-2007 6:01 PM MadaManga has not yet responded
 Message 6 by anastasia, posted 03-08-2007 11:23 PM MadaManga has not yet responded

  
MadaManga
Junior Member (Idle past 4442 days)
Posts: 31
From: UK
Joined: 03-06-2007


Message 3 of 89 (388844)
03-08-2007 9:29 AM


My pleasure, AQ!

My opinion on this matter is that Creationism could ultimately be seen as just an attempt by Christians to justify that Christianity is "the One True Faith". It is hard to ignore that the arguements Creationists use against Evolution are in turn used to prove other religions are false.

I say this simply because their arguement largely resolves around proving their religious text to be irrafutable, hence making other religious scriptures wrong in all matters which contradict the Bible.

Evolutionists theories go against all religions equally, so how do Creationists get away with their bias against other religions?

I wouldn't normally open a debate straight away, but I've seen little evidence that this topic is addressed. I mean, this is one of the big reasons why Creationism is not taught in schools under the reason of "religious bias", I would have thought this topic would be better coverred by both sides.

Again, thanks for reading.

Edited by MadaManga, : Forgot to includ a point. Sorry

Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.

Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by ICANT, posted 03-15-2007 12:11 AM MadaManga has not yet responded
 Message 46 by jt, posted 03-18-2007 12:57 AM MadaManga has responded

  
MadaManga
Junior Member (Idle past 4442 days)
Posts: 31
From: UK
Joined: 03-06-2007


Message 9 of 89 (388942)
03-09-2007 7:53 AM


Dr Adequate writes:

Hindu creationists believe that everything is much older than it actually is. So, for example, they use the "Paluxy tracks" as proof that the human race is millions of years older than those atheist scientists are admitting.

This raises the interesting question that if was proved that humans existed many millions of years over 11 million, (as per evolution theory) in support of the Hindu theory, would the majority of Christian Creationists support this evidence against Evolution. For such hypothetical proof would go against Young Earth theory, one of the major arguement of Creationists.

Are Christian Creationists willing to support "evidence" against Evolution that also contradicts the Bible? Or conversely any other religionist Creationist against their holy text.

If so, this there any evidence that they have ever done so to prove they feel this way?

If not, how can they claim they lack bias in their interpretation of any "evidence" they find, if they are not open to evidence which supports other religions above their own. You can not draw a correct theory from biasd data.

In short, the main debate against Evolution should be that it's an incorrect theory, not that a religion needs to prove itself right.

If you conceed that there is a bias, Creationism becomes a fight to prove popular science and other religions wrong and one religion correct (regardless of the religion). Though the discrediting of other religions and creation of a "One True Faith" may not be intention - it could be perceived as the goal.


Thankyou nator for the link about other religious views.

It illustrates how many religions are neutral on this debate, as Evolution does not affect their beliefs. Evolution can slip into a number of creation theologies, though its purpose is divine rather than selfish. Of course, there are many that Evolution contradicts.

I like the Buddist version, the Universe is an illusion of awareness. You just can't argue against that one. Is what you see really there, when sight is just signals in your brain (if the mind is even hosted in a brain)? Mind bobbling.

Also interesting is that Jainism is a religion that goes against all Creationist theories, while not particually supporting Evolution.

Edited by MadaManga, : Saying thankyou.

Edited by MadaManga, : Grammer


Nothing is perfect.

Before the universe was nothing and when the universe is perfect it will be nothing.

Is it fair to say that Universe resulted from "Nothing" being rendered imperfect to form "Existance"


Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Quetzal, posted 03-10-2007 7:31 AM MadaManga has not yet responded
 Message 11 by obvious Child, posted 03-11-2007 5:56 AM MadaManga has not yet responded

  
MadaManga
Junior Member (Idle past 4442 days)
Posts: 31
From: UK
Joined: 03-06-2007


Message 12 of 89 (389408)
03-13-2007 1:05 PM


quote:
Is Creationism an attempt to denounce other religions by "scientifically" proving the holy scripture of Christians to be correct, thereby proving the holy scriptures of other religions incorrect?

So far I'm getting the impressions from Evolutionists that;

  • Creationism is a general indicator of the tension some religions have with modern science.
  • The Creationist agruement for a particuliar religion depends strongly on the country involved. (Hence as the USA dominate the internet, it dominates this US based website)
  • The most vocal religions are not overtly anxious about the Creationist arguements of other religions which may/may not oppose their religion.
  • That Creationism is not considered to be an attack on other religions, as Creationist can not "prove" their theories correct (hence it is not of detriment to other religions).


    I thought to see if there was any available evidence to indicate whether or not that religious based hate crimes occur more often in states where Creationism is most actively back.

    I tried looking at the USA hate crime stats from the FBI reports at
    http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

    However, those figures where pretty useless and I couldn't compare states at all.

    You see the numbers are really skewed! Some states appear to be reporting alot more faithfully than other, and Alabama apparently doesn't seem inclined to ever give a report (they alway report 0).
    Example - 2005;
    - 17.1 percent of hate crime were motivated by religious bias.
    -California is made out to be the hate center of the USA - having 1,379 incidents of hate crime
    -Alabama & Mississippi have an unbelievable 0 incidents
    -New Mexico & Wyoming had a saintly report of only 3 incidents.
    -The average number of per state is (7163 reports/50 states reporting =) around 143 hate inspired crimes a year.
    (Does anyone else think, yeah right! As if!)

    Lacking reliable evidence, do Creationist and Evolutions consider whether Creationism (as an expression of Fundamentalism) should/could be considered a contributor to the causes of hate crime in society.

    And also, are Creationists concerned this may be the case?


    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by AZPaul3, posted 03-13-2007 6:36 PM MadaManga has not yet responded

      
  • MadaManga
    Junior Member (Idle past 4442 days)
    Posts: 31
    From: UK
    Joined: 03-06-2007


    Message 16 of 89 (389555)
    03-14-2007 9:37 AM


    AZPaul3 writes:

    My gut feeling is that we may find a lot of those hate crimes are directed against Jews and gays, and not necessarily for "creationist" or "evolutionist" reasons.

    Yep, look at what stats there are & crimes against Jew far out did other religious based hate crimes.

    (Crimes against gays are counted as sexuality based and were not included in the religious based stats - same goes for racist & sexist crimes).

    However, these are the stats the American goverment made a law to obtain, and they are terrible. How does the American goverment approach social issues presented by crime if these are the shoddy stats they have to draw conclusions from? How do the agents that report to the FBI get away with lieing so badly? I mean, they are breaking the law to a law enforcement agency! Does no one pick up on this?


    ICANT writes:

    Just because I believe it does not make it true.

    Thankyou! One of the main social issue of the Creationism V Evolution debate is that people want Creationism taught in school next to, or instead, of Evolution. However, Creationism is based on beliefs, and as you stated, that doesn't automatically make it true.
    Evolution is taught because there is evidence to prove aspects of it, but not enough to prove the whole (hence, why it is a scientific theory - accepted by the majority of science community until proven wrong).
    Some people are arguing that Creationism is a theory just as valid as Evolutions & should be taught in science. However, as there is no evidence to support their Creationist theory, this arguement is often discounted. (Some people also argue that Evolution is a "religious" theory as much as Creationism, so Creationism should be taught to stop religious bias. They claim science to be a religion:D).

    Some religious scientists are trying to find scientific "evidence" to prove that Creationism is a theory just as valid as Evolution. However, their "evidence" always seems to be validating their religion's theory of creation alone.

    Now, I was taught Creationism theories - but not in my science class. In science Evolution was taught. At the end of this topic a "debate on Intelligent Design" was encouraged, but the teacher wasn't allowed to promote either side. I.D. wasn't taught as a theory, it was however presented as an opinion.

    Creationism was taught in my Religious Education class. It was kept completely seperate from science lessons & the theories of several religions were addressed. (One of the teachers was even the school's chaplin & he happily taught the theories of other religions without reference to his own).

    Which makes me ask - is Religious Studies part of the curriculum in America? (By Religious Studies I mean the unbiasd study of the beliefs and theories of several religions. At higher levels the class was optional & became Philosophy).


    ICANT writes:

    Now since I am so far off base from what I can find that others believe I don't know what this would make me.

    I currently think that everyone has, in essence, their own religion - that no two people have the same beliefs, even when they consider themselves to be of the same sect of the same religion. Also, their religion changes over time, just as they change.

    This is because belief is as personal as it gets. Your heart and your mind join to make your belief - your perception of the world. No other person has your heart & mind.

    It's why I feel that children shouldn't be taught religion until they are old enough to understand their heart & minds and stand firm in their convictions. Otherwise you are distorting the most personal part of them. I feel that parents that "commit" their child to a religion when they are born are being unfair to their child. Your child is not a tiny version of you and there is no reason why they should have the same beliefs.

    Conversely, I also feel that some people lie to themselves about their religion - they were raised this way so they "believe" this - but the way they act proves that they do not really believe, they're just used to the motions taught to them as children.

    While some people do comfortably fit the religion of their parents, I always feel sorry for those who can not express their beliefs, for fear of ostrasizing and/or persecution from friends, family or society.
    That is why I dislike Fundamentalist societies and the mandorty teaching of Creationism as "the truth" to children is Fundamentalism in action. There's nothing more distressing than someone feeling they are forbidden to follow their heart and mind. There's nothing more repulsive than trying to force others to have your heart & mind. Let children have all the facts available and don't punish them for drawing their own conclusions.

    So my opinion is that Creationism should be taught - but not in science. Futhermore, the creation theories of at least the most popular world religions should be taught. To keep perpective the other central beliefs of these religions should also be taught. Therefore, I believe Religious Studies is a necessary part of any curriculum for enabling children to have an understanding of the world and freedom of thought.

    Of course, this is just my view, and where I live (England, UK), this is the goverment's stance. Lucky me.

    However, I now feel put out that the boarding schools I went to were heavily Christian (we had Songs of Praise in the evening, Sunday School & Church most mornings. Everyone had to attend).
    When I was old enough to think for myself I "left" the religion I was raised to. From 13 onwards I resented the mandatory religious sessions. Now I have the mental "stigma" of someone who "lost faith", and I hate when people tell me that's what I did. I can only argue it wasn't fair to teach me a faith when I wasn't mature enough to understand it or myself. I bet there are lots of Evolutionists who find similar issues with the way they were raised.

    Edited by MadaManga, : Spelling errors. Why is I can preview something loads of times & only once I post do I relise I've spelt debate as deabte?

    Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.


    Nothing is perfect.

    Before the universe was nothing and when the universe is perfect it will be nothing.

    Is it fair to say that Universe resulted from "Nothing" being rendered imperfect to form "Existance"


    Replies to this message:
     Message 18 by ICANT, posted 03-14-2007 9:22 PM MadaManga has not yet responded
     Message 25 by Wounded King, posted 03-15-2007 6:39 AM MadaManga has responded

      
    MadaManga
    Junior Member (Idle past 4442 days)
    Posts: 31
    From: UK
    Joined: 03-06-2007


    Message 23 of 89 (389714)
    03-15-2007 5:44 AM


    Something truely unbelievable - no RE
    ICANT writes:

    Which makes me ask - is Religious Studies part of the curriculum in America?

    Only in private Church run schools.

    And I'm guessing that in the Church run schools they only teach the religion of the church.

    Basically, the American goverment makes no attempt for its citizen to understand other religions. The average high school leaver only understands the religion(s) they encounter in their daily lives outside of school. They have little to no concept of the beliefs of other religions in the world.

    Wow. :eek: That I find shockingly irresponcible. I can hardly believe that a developed country, active on the world stage, has a goverment like that!

    Maybe the best way to solve the American's issue of Creationism V Evolution in education is to have a campaign for Religious Studies/Education to be introduced into the curriculum. If students are taught the various beliefs of the main the religions of the world, then Creationism in its various forms will be included, in a non-science setting. People would then be less likely to feel slighted that their beliefs are being ignored in education.

    (If you keep the class optional i.e. to the discretion of the parents, then children of those parents who can't bare to have their children hear of other religions don't have to attend. Said parents then can't complain that Evolution, but not Creationism, was taught to their children. They're the ones who pulled their children out of the class Creationism was taught in! ;))

    How can being able to better understand people be unconstitutional. Religions exists. Ignoring them isn't going to make them go away - it's just going to increase public fear of them.

    Would any American Creationists and/or Evolutionists consider this a useful solution?

    Can anyone suggest a better solution?

    Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.

    Edited by MadaManga, : Added the second question at the end.


    Replies to this message:
     Message 34 by ICANT, posted 03-15-2007 3:42 PM MadaManga has not yet responded
     Message 35 by ICANT, posted 03-15-2007 4:45 PM MadaManga has not yet responded
     Message 36 by jar, posted 03-15-2007 5:11 PM MadaManga has responded

      
    MadaManga
    Junior Member (Idle past 4442 days)
    Posts: 31
    From: UK
    Joined: 03-06-2007


    Message 27 of 89 (389731)
    03-15-2007 7:49 AM
    Reply to: Message 25 by Wounded King
    03-15-2007 6:39 AM


    Do you mean that if a state chose to drop a subject - say Geography (and they could give a valid reason about how this would benefit students) then that state could just drop Geography & the goverment could do nothing about it?

    The American goverment has no influence on what subjects are taught in American schools?

    And I totally agree with Stephen Prothero, teaching people about religions is citizen empowerment. (Power to the people! :D)

    When it comes to dealing with people of different cultures - or even your own! - ignorance so doesn't mean bliss. Only understanding can gulf gaps between people.

    Plus, I realise the UK has a state religion - the Queen's the head of it! But that doesn't mean that this religion controls education, that decided by the Goverment. America has no state religion & you get the impression that in some cases religion is controlling education.

    Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.

    Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.

    Edited by MadaManga, : Spellings

    Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 25 by Wounded King, posted 03-15-2007 6:39 AM Wounded King has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 28 by Wounded King, posted 03-15-2007 10:02 AM MadaManga has not yet responded
     Message 29 by jar, posted 03-15-2007 11:15 AM MadaManga has responded

      
    MadaManga
    Junior Member (Idle past 4442 days)
    Posts: 31
    From: UK
    Joined: 03-06-2007


    Message 30 of 89 (389744)
    03-15-2007 11:28 AM
    Reply to: Message 29 by jar
    03-15-2007 11:15 AM


    Can people petition the State testing agencies, the various accreditation agencies and the local school board to add new subjects.

    And if they can, do they? How much support would a subject have to have before it was taught.

    On another note; some of the things raised on those links! :rolleyes:

    quote:
    “The sequence of the nucleotide bases within genes is not dictated by any known chemical or physical law” (p. 73, KSES, 2005)

    And before Issac Newton there were no "known" physical laws for gravity. Newton's laws doesn't 'dictate' gravity, they show how it works at the macro level. I bet gravity worked just fine before Newton came along. So what exactly is their point?

    Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 29 by jar, posted 03-15-2007 11:15 AM jar has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 31 by jar, posted 03-15-2007 12:04 PM MadaManga has responded

      
    MadaManga
    Junior Member (Idle past 4442 days)
    Posts: 31
    From: UK
    Joined: 03-06-2007


    Message 32 of 89 (389760)
    03-15-2007 12:48 PM
    Reply to: Message 31 by jar
    03-15-2007 12:04 PM


    Re: Education in the US
    jar writes:

    The Education system in the US is actually pretty messy.

    Something of an understatement looking at the Wiki description. :frazzled:

    So it's fairly safe to say that unless a law is passed making the centralized American goverment in control of American education, then the Creationism V Evolution issue in America's education will never be resolved.

    There is no obtainable &/or substantial means of resolving this issue with the education system as it currently stands.

    So is the education system to blame for this entire issue (in education) even occuring?

    Edited by MadaManga, : Added (in education).


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 31 by jar, posted 03-15-2007 12:04 PM jar has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 33 by jar, posted 03-15-2007 2:19 PM MadaManga has not yet responded

      
    MadaManga
    Junior Member (Idle past 4442 days)
    Posts: 31
    From: UK
    Joined: 03-06-2007


    Message 42 of 89 (389866)
    03-16-2007 9:33 AM
    Reply to: Message 36 by jar
    03-15-2007 5:11 PM


    Re: Something truely unbelievable - no RE
    ICANT writes:

    Our fore fathers put in our constitution a phrase "freedom of religion". Which I always thought meant that people could believe as they pleased without interference from the government.

    But our court systems in the past 55 years have interpreted that to mean freedom from religion

    Freedom of religion = Freedom from interference?
    Freedom of religion = Freedom from religion?

    I'm sorry, but neither of those views could work.

    For either of the above statements to be true you would have to live in a bubble, never having interacted with other people. And while I've heard the USA referred to as "the country in a bubble", I think they meant it metaphorically.

    The Goverment's stance of never having religion(s) mentioned in school is interference. They interfered with people's right to information about religions not from their local area. They are aiding the local religion dispite jar's claim that

    jar writes:


    What is unconstitutional is for the government to aid or establish one religion over another.

    If they taught religions it would of course still be interferance. The introduction of new religious concepts could possibly interfer with the student's current belief. (Though I've never met anyone whom that's ever happened to. If you're firm in your religion, just learning about other religions won't magically convert you to that religion or atheism).

    No matter what action the goverment take, it will interfer. That's the nature of politics - it gets everywhere, interfers with everyone and you can never be free of it.

    And religion is like politics in that respect, its impossible to offer freedom from it. You could be a staunch atheist & religions would still have an impact on your life

    Neither interpretation is possible in the real world, the bubble bursts and the outside world gets in.

    Letting the local religion take power is like promoting Fundamentalism. And if you look at fundamentalist societies, hatred of those who are "different" is a common social problem. :(

    Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 36 by jar, posted 03-15-2007 5:11 PM jar has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 43 by jar, posted 03-16-2007 10:35 AM MadaManga has responded

      
    MadaManga
    Junior Member (Idle past 4442 days)
    Posts: 31
    From: UK
    Joined: 03-06-2007


    Message 44 of 89 (389875)
    03-16-2007 11:16 AM
    Reply to: Message 43 by jar
    03-16-2007 10:35 AM


    Re: interference.
    Were you replying to me?

    Sorry, did I miss you out? :o

    Though, I think you may have missed something out.


    Actually, the 1st. Amendment had as one of its purposes, protecting regional religions...

    ...an assurance that the Central Government would not impose some other regions religious bias on all of the colonies...

    ...the courts have said is that favoring the locally dominate religion over the minority religions in an area denies people equal protection under the law. The reasoning is that public schools are part of the State Government since they are funded by local taxes and overall administration is through State and local governments.

    How does that mean local religions are allowed "immunity" from having the facts of other religions taught at school. I realise "immunity" was a key word in the 14th Amentment, but if you take to mean the goverment has to enforce having no other religion mentioned then, the 14th amendment would contradict the 1st - not aiding a religion. I'm clearly missing something here. :confused:


    For the most part, public schools in the US are funded locally. They are NOT paid for at the Federal level although there are supplemental Federal funds directed to particular programs. The basic funding for public schools is a local tax system, most often a property tax.

    This leads to great disparity in the funds available for a school from district to district. Schools in more affluent areas have more funds for teachers and infrastructure than schools in less affluent districts.

    And if you ran it from a goverment fund you would have to make or increase a goverment imposed tax for it. :eek: And if you had goverment funded education, peolpe might then ask for National Heathcare - so another tax would be required. From there, people could even ask for, gulp, Welfare. A critical mass of taxation, one spark & a chain reaction occurs! :laugh:

    OK, if you take that seriously, it isn't funny at all. It kind of means people are comfortable with great chucks of the population having a bad education, less future prospects, less means of optaining healthcare, and hence, earlier death - just so they don't have to pay more tax. :(

    Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.

    Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 43 by jar, posted 03-16-2007 10:35 AM jar has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 45 by jar, posted 03-16-2007 12:45 PM MadaManga has not yet responded

      
    MadaManga
    Junior Member (Idle past 4442 days)
    Posts: 31
    From: UK
    Joined: 03-06-2007


    Message 47 of 89 (390192)
    03-19-2007 9:57 AM
    Reply to: Message 46 by jt
    03-18-2007 12:57 AM


    Re: Perspective of a former creationist
    Hello jt,

    Thanks for posting - a more creationist view is needed.

    jt writes:

    Christians use creationism as an apologetic tool. But this is perfectly natural: if there was substantial evidence that the universe had been created as described in Genesis, wouldn’t this be strong evidence in favor of Christianity? And wouldn’t it rightfully have a place in debates between Christians and people of other religions?

    I agree that it is natural to use the arguements available to prove your side.

    However, the evidence they have is not irrefutably proven. It does not currently have "a rightful place" to make one side of a debate 'correct'. It's current place is more "What if..?"

    When it comes to evidence that proves one religion above other the evidence shouldn't be "substantial" - it needs to be irrefutable.

    (Though, given that you freely admit you are a former young earth Creationist, I think you might have already come to that conclusion yourself anyway, though I won't assume that).



    jt writes:

    Creationists say that evolutionists don’t have evidence, and evolutionists say that creationists don’t have evidence – thus the existence of websites such as this one...I don’t think this is true for most creationists. Many do think their theories have been proven (or very nearly proven) correct.

    If they are scientists then they can not 'think' their theories are proven, or else their theory would explain all the variable and be irrefutable. The scienctific communciaty would have accepted their theory as fact (which hasn't happened). However, you somewhat said the whole reason there even is a debate is that "nearly proven" is not good enough for some people, so please don't think I'm taking to task about this. Any scientist knows that scientific theories are subject to modifications until an irrefutable law is produced.

    Even the theories of Gravity hasn't been totally proven - there is no working Universal Law of Gravity that explains all movement from galaxies to sub-atomic particles - but physical laws are used to make elevators, airplanes, suspension bridges and many other technologies. So while they might not be totally correct they can however be used practically. You can "do the maths".



    jt writes:

    Do you hold any beliefs strongly enough that you would go to war for them?

    (Note: I do not support the numerous, horrible wars that have been waged for supposedly religious reasons.)

    (First off - your note is duly noted & thank goodness! I also realise this question wasn't directed at me, but hey, my two cents).

    Yes - there are beliefs worth fighting for that are not of a religious nature.
    The first is always - you have a right to exist. No one has the right to tell people that for their race/creed/nationality/sexuality/etc they should be dead. I think the potential death of people in war justifies stopping the garenteed death of a people or section of society.
    (To be honest, I'm not fond of death penalties and alternative methods to a war should be exhorsted before starting one).
    One has to admit - alot of religious wars (past & modern) try to violate this exact right as "just" penalties against unbeliever, immorals and heretics. The fact that any person could consider Genocide (the worst crime imaginable) to be justifiable is sickening and inexcusable.:mad:

    There are more beliefs to fight for but that one is the most important to me.

    Personally, I find discrimination for race/creed/nationality/sexuality/etc immoral, though lots of religions - including Christianity - would argue against me on that one. (For example; homosexuallity is "immoral" thus it is "moral" to discriminate against homosexuals :().


    jt writes:

    You should really be more polite.

    Agreed. Being rude doesn't support your side of the debate - the opposite in fact. It make make you sound unreasoning.

    Edited by MadaManga, : Spellings.

    Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.

    Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.

    Edited by MadaManga, : I give up! No more touch ups. If you see a glaring error, I'm sorry!


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 46 by jt, posted 03-18-2007 12:57 AM jt has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 50 by jt, posted 03-20-2007 4:49 AM MadaManga has not yet responded

      
    MadaManga
    Junior Member (Idle past 4442 days)
    Posts: 31
    From: UK
    Joined: 03-06-2007


    Message 54 of 89 (390402)
    03-20-2007 6:37 AM


    How can one argue against something one has little understanding of?

    How would one chose points to argue against? How would one know which points support your side?

    Creationists must have some understanding of science, or else they couldn't be arguing against it.


    the scientific method is valid, but that the findings of many modern scientists are not; the explanation for this involves a dysfunctional scientific culture.

    The scientific culture is inherantly dysfunctional- science is based on questioning and drawing conclusions from any evidence found. Until proven the conclusion is still open to questioning. Hence this loop effect means that scientists can make a variety of conclusions, some of which question each other. This can seems like dis-unity, but it's actually a mark of science in action - no scientist can approach a subject by all views. The idea is enough views with evidence will eventually lead to a proven conclusion. :)

    The scientific culture is a result of the scientific method, if you appriciated the method, you should appriciate the culture it produces.

    Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.

    Edited by MadaManga, : Adding conclusion


      
    MadaManga
    Junior Member (Idle past 4442 days)
    Posts: 31
    From: UK
    Joined: 03-06-2007


    Message 62 of 89 (392101)
    03-29-2007 10:29 AM
    Reply to: Message 60 by ICANT
    03-29-2007 9:28 AM


    Re: Denouncing religions
    Where did whatever it was that the universe started from come from?
    Where did life come from?

    These questions are part of the reason science exists. There are several theories on how the chemical processes which comprise life started, you’ve probably heard of ‘primordial soup’, but the specifics are vague. There are is a great book called The Collapse of Chaos by Jack Cohan and Ian Stewart (IBSN 0140291253 ) which has some interesting ideas on how chaos can ultimately create order i.e. how random events can cause complex patterns etc.

    And when it comes to what caused the universe to come to even exist there are a whole hurdle of questions to answer first. What is existence? What is the universe comprised of? What is nothing? How did universe begin? All of these would have to be fully addressed and irrefutable before we could answer How does existence become nothing and nothing become existence?

    Religions often claim to know these answers and are so resolute that conflicts occur between them. However, their answers generally can not be practically applied.

    If I evolved from something then there is no soul or spirit in me so when I die that's it…I don't see where I have many options as to what happens at death…What are the other options?

    Evolution doesn’t mean humans have no soul. It just doesn’t confirm that souls exist.

    The existence of souls has never been proven by science, and thus science has no answer as to where souls come from or where they go when you die. Science can’t say which of the 0.01% of genetic different from a chimpanzee encodes for having a soul.

    Different religions and opinions have different ideas on souls or lack thereof;

      1. You have new soul when you are born and a supreme consciousness will judge what happens to the soul, resulting in a eternal paradise or torment, or a period of punishment that can lead to absolution.
      2. You have a new soul when you are born, and at death you move onto a new realm of existence/consciousness. Your life continues but exists in a manner so different it can’t be properly perceived to those who exist only in 4 dimensions.
      3. Your soul was new when creation began, but you are now an old soul reborn into a new body. Souls continue to temper themselves with life (not always as humans) until they can be freed from the mortal toil.
      4. There are no souls. All individual consciousness is merely a part of a greater universal consciousness, and that dieing is just of loss of self perspective that merges you back into the greater consciousness.
      5. There are no souls. With the death of the brain consciousness end and that your capacity for existence is spent.

    There are probably more opinions, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. My personal fave is the universal consciousness one. “We are the universe, trying to understand itself.”(But perhaps I’ve just seen Babylon 5 too many times :D ).

    So what difference does it make where the universe came from or how life began. We are wasting our time looking for answers.

    You are being far too cynical! Though I get why the topic could be frustrating.

    Human possess intelligence and as such we are curious. We ask questions because we are intelligent enough to do so. Having these answers might, indeed, make no difference or it might make all the difference in the universe. Until we have the answers, we just don’t know whether they are worthless or not. This is part of the human condition.

    You shouldn’t spurn the dish untasted (unless you think it’s poisonous). :D

    We should eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die.

    Of course! (Except for the drinking part - I'm not going to advocate something so socially destructive. Heck, even eating should be done in moderation).

    Why should death and an unknown 'beyond’ stop anyone aiming for contentment? You still have purpose in your life.

    If your needs are met, you can raise your offspring in a safe environment so they can raise offspring of their own, and you are free to seek out greater understanding, then what more need you ask for? You will be happy.

    Of course, there are not many places in the world where all these conditions are met. Poverty, intolerance and enforced ignorance are unfortunately commonplace. Trying to dispel these is a good way of aiming for contentment, even if it is just by trying to elevate the suffering of those closest to you. Apathetic societies and those religions which encourage intolerance & ignorance can cause a lot of the suffering (that is not the direct result of random events).

    Edited by MadaManga, : Spelling & grammer

    Edited by MadaManga, : .


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 60 by ICANT, posted 03-29-2007 9:28 AM ICANT has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 63 by ICANT, posted 03-29-2007 11:44 AM MadaManga has responded

      
    MadaManga
    Junior Member (Idle past 4442 days)
    Posts: 31
    From: UK
    Joined: 03-06-2007


    Message 65 of 89 (392122)
    03-29-2007 12:04 PM
    Reply to: Message 63 by ICANT
    03-29-2007 11:44 AM


    Re: Denouncing religions
    Good for you! :D

    I drink nothing stronger than soft drinks either!

    From what I gather you are happy because you have met your needs. The fact that you are part of a forum like this indicates you are addressing the "quest for understanding". Aren't you glad you are able to do so with out someone trying to stop you :)


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 63 by ICANT, posted 03-29-2007 11:44 AM ICANT has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 66 by ICANT, posted 03-29-2007 6:13 PM MadaManga has not yet responded

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019