I did not say science has all the answers, I said it has facts - and over time, as another poster mentioned, it builds and evolves for clarity and truth. God/religion is not like this any respect. With god/religion you either swallow the pill and believe or do not.
you are going 10 steps further than the point in this thread. no one is saying science holds all the answers. At least I'm not. And I haven't seen anyone here claim that either.
believing that science has all the answers (to these grand questions of "god") seems to me to be just as delusional as relying on a book written 2000 years ago.
I wasn't saying the OP was implying that science has all the answers... but there are a few posts ^^^ that are swaying to the whole religion v. science debate (i.e. "they are polar opposites")
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
And yes - Science does not prove anything. Just ask a scientist. They can form theories and laws based upon current information and observation. Those theories are not absolute proof of anything.
...
No... crutches are a good thing... in times when you need them. But, why use crutches, when you can walk perfectly fine? I believe Man has uses God as a crutch because of Man's weaknesses and his failure to accept his own weaknesses. Man leans in God to justify War... to rationalize why his nation is greater than the others and can, therefore, rule and/or plunder the land and resources outside their borders.
But, God can provide a crutch when we need one... in times of dispair, hopelessness or tragedy. That is a good thing... comfort.
...
As for Science vs. Religion... neither knows of the answers. Science tries to explains by asking questions in hopes of the future's truth... Religion does not question, simply accepts what was written by men 2,000 to 5,000 year ago.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
FAITH is a crutch.
By definition, I have faith in nothing.
Funny, when I tell a religious believer this, they always tell me they feel sorry for me
this reminds me of one of my favorite quotes; "I believe in everything; nothing is sacred, I believe in nothing; everything is sacred"
I like that a lot
good way of looking at things....i like that too
peace,
jo
http://www.Etsy.com/Shop/SimpleEarthCreations
"How I choose to feel is how I am." ~ EV/MMc
"Some people hear their own inner voices with great clearness and they live by what they hear. Such people become crazy, or they become legends." ~ One Stab ~
And yes - Science does not prove anything. Just ask a scientist. They can form theories and laws based upon current information and observation. Those theories are not absolute proof of anything.
...
No... crutches are a good thing... in times when you need them. But, why use crutches, when you can walk perfectly fine? I believe Man has uses God as a crutch because of Man's weaknesses and his failure to accept his own weaknesses. Man leans in God to justify War... to rationalize why his nation is greater than the others and can, therefore, rule and/or plunder the land and resources outside their borders.
But, God can provide a crutch when we need one... in times of dispair, hopelessness or tragedy. That is a good thing... comfort.
...
As for Science vs. Religion... neither knows of the answers. Science tries to explains by asking questions in hopes of the future's truth... Religion does not question, simply accepts what was written by men 2,000 to 5,000 year ago.
And yes - Science does not prove anything. Just ask a scientist. They can form theories and laws based upon current information and observation. Those theories are not absolute proof of anything.
...
No... crutches are a good thing... in times when you need them. But, why use crutches, when you can walk perfectly fine? I believe Man has uses God as a crutch because of Man's weaknesses and his failure to accept his own weaknesses. Man leans in God to justify War... to rationalize why his nation is greater than the others and can, therefore, rule and/or plunder the land and resources outside their borders.
But, God can provide a crutch when we need one... in times of dispair, hopelessness or tragedy. That is a good thing... comfort.
...
As for Science vs. Religion... neither knows of the answers. Science tries to explains by asking questions in hopes of the future's truth... Religion does not question, simply accepts what was written by men 2,000 to 5,000 year ago.
Science DOES explain things by testing and providing emperical evidence. Something Religion has never provided. The only answer that you will get out of religion is "well, the Lord works in mysterious ways".
Its amazing to me that 2,000 years ago they thought the world was flat, didn't have the slightest clue about diseases, but yet were able to figure out God, the afterlife and every question that we can't answer. How were they wrong about everything else yet got those answers?
i know these facts, i love sceince, but when you are scared beyond all reason, you will ask god for help.
Wheres the proof of this. This sounds more like something that you have faith in than fact. Your sentence clearly shows why humans create gods in the first places. Because in times of need, beyond our control we tend to look torwards a father/mother figure - so in-turn we created a father figure in the skys that watches over us all the time, so that we feel some comfort and think everything will turn out fine. Its pretty much teaching you Fear, instead of love.
i know these facts, i love sceince, but when you are scared beyond all reason, you will ask god for help.
Wheres the proof of this. This sounds more like something that you have faith in than fact. Your sentence clearly shows why humans create gods in the first places. Because in times of need, beyond our control we tend to look torwards a father/mother figure - so in-turn we created a father figure in the skys that watches over us all the time, so that we feel some comfort and think everything will turn out fine. Its pretty much teaching you Fear, instead of love.
no proof needed, wait till it's your turn. experiance, you can write me off as just another brain washed fool, fine, but there was no dieharder athesist than i, until the day, that it is just not good enough, understand i'm talking about believing in god, not religon, love does not comfort when scared beyond reason.
And you know this how exactly? Speaking on behalf of everyone is pretty dumb to say the least no matter what message you have to pass along. I don't believe in any god (yes there's thousands of them) and as george carlin once said, 'if this is the best some creator can do, i'm not impressed'. And even if in the slightest chance ever there is a god/creator, he/she/it is a real d-bag and a-hole to say the least. The older I get, the more I see, learn and think, the more I recognize this world, universe, earth, animals and humanity isn't the work of some divine ghost pulling strings...it's human engineering and story telling as an extension through a 3rd party. I believe our universe and everything in it is merely a cluster f' of a million long shots panning out into one place we experience. We fill in the blanks and voids to amuse and hone our way about things. That's god - the unknown for some swear upon and others call imaginary. Like a child believing Santa is keeping tabs if you're good and bad.... you used to believe when you were a child to make things feel good, right and have it's place. All god is and will ever be, a feel good tale. And if you want to continue to believe, awesome, enjoy it, but don't tell others they're wrong for not, or when the chips are down, you know how they'll react. Self-righteous isn't becoming.
no proof needed, wait till it's your turn. experiance, you can write me off as just another brain washed fool, fine, but there was no dieharder athesist than i, until the day, that it is just not good enough, understand i'm talking about believing in god, not religon, love does not comfort when scared beyond reason.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
It seems to me that there is a very clear display of ignorance on the part of many posting in this topic in regards to the issue of "science vs. religion." I have a few things to comment on that: first, it is an extremely ignorant statement that "science proves things using facts and empirical evidence" whereas religion is just "blind faith." Such a statement is clearly made by someone who shows no knowledge of how science actually works whatsoever. Are any of you scientists? Do you have any clue how scientists work? There is a good article I read once in the huffington post that I managed to find. This particular part I think deals with this issue:
Its well known that many of the world's greatest scientists were spiritual and saw the value in spiritual belief. Just as Einstein said that we exist in a library of books written by someone else, Max Planck, the founder of modern quantum theory, stated that science is able to measure the 'symbols' of the universe -- ie its physical structure, its laws, and its mechanics -- but that there is a greater spirit beyond the symbols that is immeasurable. He specifically called out atheists for placing too great an emphasis on the symbols and not on the spirit behind the symbols.
Planck regarded the scientist as a man of imagination and faith, 'faith' being akin to "having a working hypothesis."
Which leads us to last point, which is the sticking point. The matter of proof.
When and where, in the history of science, do our greatest scientists tell us that one should live their lives believing only in that which can be proven? Who of them has said that it is more 'intelligent' to accept nothing in life but modern western scientific proof?
The scientific method, of course, is the accepted way to validate theorems and forward scientific understanding. It is the mechanism through which scientific progress takes place. It allows us all the great advances of science and allows us a better understanding of the mechanics of our universe. But it is not necessarily meant to be a worldview in and of itself. The idea that if science hasn't proven it then it doesn't exist or it isn't worth believing in would be considered insufferably narrow-minded to most of the great scientists of history. If Einstein, or Bohr, or Planck, or Schroedinger were to witness the "Oh Yeah, Well Prove It!" attitude of many modern atheists, they would be the first to take them to school.
Historically, the people who cling to proof as an absolute barometer of truth and only accept the "proven" theorems of the day are inevitably the ones to be proven wrong when science validates the hunches, inspirations, and intuition of its forward thinkers. It is the same type of narrow-minded thinking that came from those who laughed at the notion that the world is round and who scoffed at the monk who posited that the universe was created in a 'big bang.' What is lost in this mindset is perspective on the history of human understanding and innovation that lives outside of -- and predates -- western science, the recognition of the value of human ways of knowing that exist outside of scientific method -- ie intuition and imagination, and a little humble perspective on the relatively minute place of western science in the vast history of this universe and of humankind.
The trails of scientific understanding are blazed by those of great imagination. Newton's gospel -- the laws of physics which bear his name -- were intuited first, proven later. John Maynard Keynes said: "Newton owed his success to his muscles of intuition. Newton's powers of intuition were the strongest and most enduring with which a man has ever been gifted." Freidrich Kekulé, the famed chemist, discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule in a dream in which he was visited by the image of snake biting its own tail. Srinavasa Ramanujan, the brilliant Indian mathematician who redefined mathematical analysis, number theory, and continued fractions, claimed he received his formulas through direct revelation from the goddess Namagiri. Einstein wrote that "the intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it Intuition or what you will, the solution comes to you and you don't know how or why".
Science is not all about gathering facts and empirical evidence, if you think that's what science is about then you are only talking about the most basic fundamentals of science. science is such an incredible subject that deals with the most abstract - it's really an amazing thing.
Next, I don't understand the notion that science and religion conflict. i remember there was a study that most contemporary scientists believed in a God or something of that sort, i don't have time to look for it now but i'll try to find it later. are these scientists at a conflict of interest in their work? it would make no sense. i know for a fact that during the middle ages, the islamic empire in the middle east was responsible for some of the most important scientific, mathematical, medical, philosophical, literature, etc, innovations in history. yet they were not at conflict with their religion. it's ignorant to claim such a disparity between the two. science does not in any way disprove religion, and religion does not necessarily try to discourage scientific findings. sure some religious backgrounded people may, but it's grossly misrepresented in the media due to recent conflicts with evangelicals and whatever, but many religions actually encourage scientific growth of knowledge.
People also are so quick to talk about how horrible religion is, and all the evil it has brought throughout the centuries, which is really just another truly pathetic and ignorant argument, which I will not get into much detail about since it wasn't really brought up in this topic from what I saw, but it's another thing that has been misrepresented only in recent times and exaggerated to include history, but anyone who says such a thing really only proves to have poor knowledge of history.
also the OP said that he believes in commandments but not for fear of being judged by because "it's the right thing to do." in my opinion this makes no sense. the western notion that the right thing to do (ie. morality) is objective is incorrect. morality is completely subjective. thus, if you're choose not to kill someone because it's right thing to do, what the fuck is that supposed to mean for someone else who views the situation differently? there are millions of different loopholes that can come about. religion is what set these morals in principle and basically stated that because someone supreme, ie. not an ordinary human like you and I, said this: it is absolutely right. that because God said you can't do this, there is no loophole. now, you may argue against that, but my only point is that the idea that humans shouldn't do something because some other human said so has too many loopholes so that is why commandments were solidified with religion.... anyway, i'm getting too carried away i could talk about this all day but this post is so fucking long... to be honest, i guess i consider myself 'religious' per se but i'm not the best at practicing my religion completely. i'm more of an 'on and off' type guy i guess, maybe that'll change i'm still young and have yet to truly witness a 'miracle' like so many others on here claim (seriously, it's pretty unreal that so many people on here have witnessed something, i've barely met people who claim what u all do, but to each his own i suppose)
Firstly, Richard Dawkins proved that "survey" was not true and pretty much a fabrication by religious people trying to make some ridiculous point.
Secondly, as several posters have correctly stated, science is the continual process of information, knowledge - an evolution or growth process to base things upon. Religion is nothing like this - it is take it or leave it.
Lastly, what is a "miracle" exactly? Shit happens in life, whether some find it improbable or unrealistic or even mind-boggling doesn't mean it's the force of some greater being/creator/god. That mindset and notion is merely self-fulfilling prophecy, not necessarily "proof" of anything whatsoever.
It seems to me that there is a very clear display of ignorance on the part of many posting in this topic in regards to the issue of "science vs. religion." I have a few things to comment on that: first, it is an extremely ignorant statement that "science proves things using facts and empirical evidence" whereas religion is just "blind faith." Such a statement is clearly made by someone who shows no knowledge of how science actually works whatsoever. Are any of you scientists? Do you have any clue how scientists work? There is a good article I read once in the huffington post that I managed to find. This particular part I think deals with this issue:
Its well known that many of the world's greatest scientists were spiritual and saw the value in spiritual belief. Just as Einstein said that we exist in a library of books written by someone else, Max Planck, the founder of modern quantum theory, stated that science is able to measure the 'symbols' of the universe -- ie its physical structure, its laws, and its mechanics -- but that there is a greater spirit beyond the symbols that is immeasurable. He specifically called out atheists for placing too great an emphasis on the symbols and not on the spirit behind the symbols.
Planck regarded the scientist as a man of imagination and faith, 'faith' being akin to "having a working hypothesis."
Which leads us to last point, which is the sticking point. The matter of proof.
When and where, in the history of science, do our greatest scientists tell us that one should live their lives believing only in that which can be proven? Who of them has said that it is more 'intelligent' to accept nothing in life but modern western scientific proof?
The scientific method, of course, is the accepted way to validate theorems and forward scientific understanding. It is the mechanism through which scientific progress takes place. It allows us all the great advances of science and allows us a better understanding of the mechanics of our universe. But it is not necessarily meant to be a worldview in and of itself. The idea that if science hasn't proven it then it doesn't exist or it isn't worth believing in would be considered insufferably narrow-minded to most of the great scientists of history. If Einstein, or Bohr, or Planck, or Schroedinger were to witness the "Oh Yeah, Well Prove It!" attitude of many modern atheists, they would be the first to take them to school.
Historically, the people who cling to proof as an absolute barometer of truth and only accept the "proven" theorems of the day are inevitably the ones to be proven wrong when science validates the hunches, inspirations, and intuition of its forward thinkers. It is the same type of narrow-minded thinking that came from those who laughed at the notion that the world is round and who scoffed at the monk who posited that the universe was created in a 'big bang.' What is lost in this mindset is perspective on the history of human understanding and innovation that lives outside of -- and predates -- western science, the recognition of the value of human ways of knowing that exist outside of scientific method -- ie intuition and imagination, and a little humble perspective on the relatively minute place of western science in the vast history of this universe and of humankind.
The trails of scientific understanding are blazed by those of great imagination. Newton's gospel -- the laws of physics which bear his name -- were intuited first, proven later. John Maynard Keynes said: "Newton owed his success to his muscles of intuition. Newton's powers of intuition were the strongest and most enduring with which a man has ever been gifted." Freidrich Kekulé, the famed chemist, discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule in a dream in which he was visited by the image of snake biting its own tail. Srinavasa Ramanujan, the brilliant Indian mathematician who redefined mathematical analysis, number theory, and continued fractions, claimed he received his formulas through direct revelation from the goddess Namagiri. Einstein wrote that "the intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it Intuition or what you will, the solution comes to you and you don't know how or why".
Science is not all about gathering facts and empirical evidence, if you think that's what science is about then you are only talking about the most basic fundamentals of science. science is such an incredible subject that deals with the most abstract - it's really an amazing thing.
Next, I don't understand the notion that science and religion conflict. i remember there was a study that most contemporary scientists believed in a God or something of that sort, i don't have time to look for it now but i'll try to find it later. are these scientists at a conflict of interest in their work? it would make no sense. i know for a fact that during the middle ages, the islamic empire in the middle east was responsible for some of the most important scientific, mathematical, medical, philosophical, literature, etc, innovations in history. yet they were not at conflict with their religion. it's ignorant to claim such a disparity between the two. science does not in any way disprove religion, and religion does not necessarily try to discourage scientific findings. sure some religious backgrounded people may, but it's grossly misrepresented in the media due to recent conflicts with evangelicals and whatever, but many religions actually encourage scientific growth of knowledge.
People also are so quick to talk about how horrible religion is, and all the evil it has brought throughout the centuries, which is really just another truly pathetic and ignorant argument, which I will not get into much detail about since it wasn't really brought up in this topic from what I saw, but it's another thing that has been misrepresented only in recent times and exaggerated to include history, but anyone who says such a thing really only proves to have poor knowledge of history.
also the OP said that he believes in commandments but not for fear of being judged by because "it's the right thing to do." in my opinion this makes no sense. the western notion that the right thing to do (ie. morality) is objective is incorrect. morality is completely subjective. thus, if you're choose not to kill someone because it's right thing to do, what the fuck is that supposed to mean for someone else who views the situation differently? there are millions of different loopholes that can come about. religion is what set these morals in principle and basically stated that because someone supreme, ie. not an ordinary human like you and I, said this: it is absolutely right. that because God said you can't do this, there is no loophole. now, you may argue against that, but my only point is that the idea that humans shouldn't do something because some other human said so has too many loopholes so that is why commandments were solidified with religion.... anyway, i'm getting too carried away i could talk about this all day but this post is so fucking long... to be honest, i guess i consider myself 'religious' per se but i'm not the best at practicing my religion completely. i'm more of an 'on and off' type guy i guess, maybe that'll change i'm still young and have yet to truly witness a 'miracle' like so many others on here claim (seriously, it's pretty unreal that so many people on here have witnessed something, i've barely met people who claim what u all do, but to each his own i suppose)
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Firstly, Richard Dawkins proved that "survey" was not true and pretty much a fabrication by religious people trying to make some ridiculous point.
Secondly, as several posters have correctly stated, science is the continual process of information, knowledge - an evolution or growth process to base things upon. Religion is nothing like this - it is take it or leave it.
Lastly, what is a "miracle" exactly? Shit happens in life, whether some find it improbable or unrealistic or even mind-boggling doesn't mean it's the force of some greater being/creator/god. That mindset and notion is merely self-fulfilling prophecy, not necessarily "proof" of anything whatsoever.
Really? That's your first point? that the survey was not true? And how is it a ridiculous point to suggest that the majority of scientists believe in a God? is that really absurd? As I pointed out, regardless of that survey which I barely know much about, it is still a fact that many of the most important scientific advancements made during the middle ages were by Islamic intellectuals, is that also absurd?
Religion is take it or leave it? How? And which religion are you talking about? what basis do you have that religion is take it or leave it? Such an ignorant statement you make here. Not only that but you also proved my point. I wasn't trying to say that religion is like science at all (in fact, I never even inferred that). I was trying to end the debate of how science is different than religion. of course they are different, the point is that the notion you all seem to present that science and religion cannot coexist is, in simple terms, stupid.
As for your "religion is take it or leave it" statement - I'll ignore the fact that you don't know what you're talking about, I'll speak from my own personal knowledge. I don't know much about Christianity or even Judaism, and my knowledge of all other religions is even less, but as for Islam, I know that there is no such thing as 'take it or leave it' for the most part. there are certainly rules that you have to follow (such as dietary laws, laws regarding usury, possession, etc), but it is actually grossly misrepresented. there are so many things left open for interpretation which is the point of having religious scholars who devote their lives to trying to understand these things. now, in the past, as we should all know, it was normal for someone to have multiple professions (one could be a scientist, physicist, mathematician, doctor, philosopher, religious scholar, etc, all at once), and it was very common in the muslim world for one to be both a scientist and a religious scholar. how is this possible if one presents a 'take it or leave it' notion and the other is based on the "continual process of information, knowledge" (haha whatever that means, it sounds like you're just trying to sound smart... lol, i mean seriously 'continual process of information'...really?), which you seem to imply contrast eachother. anyway:
The Abbassids were influenced by the Qur'anic injunctions and hadith such as "The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of martyrs" stressing the value of knowledge. During this period the Muslim world became a major intellectual centre for science, philosophy, medicine and education. They established the "House of Wisdom" (Arabic:بيت الحكمة) in Baghdad, where scholars, both Muslim and non-Muslim, sought to gather and translate all the world's knowledge into Arabic in the Translation Movement. Many classic works of antiquity that would otherwise have been forgotten were translated into Arabic and later in turn translated into Turkish, Sindhi, Persian, Hebrew and Latin. Knowledge was synthesized from works originating in ancient Mesopotamia, Ancient Rome, China, India, Persia, Ancient Egypt, North Africa, Ancient Greece and Byzantine civilizations. Rival Muslim dynasties such as the Fatimids of Egypt and the Umayyads of al-Andalus were also major intellectual centres with cities such as Cairo and Córdoba rivaling Baghdad.[4] According to Bernard Lewis, the Caliphate was the first "truly universal civilization," which brought together for the first time "peoples as diverse as the Chinese, the Indians, the people of the Middle East and North Africa, black Africans, and white Europeans."[5]
Science DOES explain things by testing and providing emperical evidence. Something Religion has never provided. The only answer that you will get out of religion is "well, the Lord works in mysterious ways".
Its amazing to me that 2,000 years ago they thought the world was flat, didn't have the slightest clue about diseases, but yet were able to figure out God, the afterlife and every question that we can't answer. How were they wrong about everything else yet got those answers?
...
Let me clarify my statement...
Science provides an alternate explanation of our natural surroundings based upon verifiable evidence that is available to us at this time.
Religion has no tolerance for any alternative explanation. What was written by church founders 2,000 to 5,000 years ago cannot be questioned.
Is science the truth? Not in my opinion.
Is religion truth? Definately not, in my opinion.
But, I believe science is providing us with a more reasonable explanation of things... such as our place in the kingdom of the animals on this planet and that gravity is what keeps our feet to the ground... not Satan's power over our bodies.
...
And I hope the Christians and other religions don't shove me in the Aetheist (i.e. immoral, Satan Worshiper) corner. I believe in something greater than us... something greater than any of the religions that man has staked claim upon. God is greater than the bullshit religions that have controlled people for milleniums... waged Wars in His name... plundered, pillaged and raped indigenous peoples in His name... killed in His name.
Perhaps, one day, science will prove that God wants a personal relationship with each of us... individually... instead of a collective that evolves around money and power over others. Religion will never have that.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
And yes - Science does not prove anything. Just ask a scientist. They can form theories and laws based upon current information and observation. Those theories are not absolute proof of anything.
...
No... crutches are a good thing... in times when you need them. But, why use crutches, when you can walk perfectly fine? I believe Man has uses God as a crutch because of Man's weaknesses and his failure to accept his own weaknesses. Man leans in God to justify War... to rationalize why his nation is greater than the others and can, therefore, rule and/or plunder the land and resources outside their borders.
But, God can provide a crutch when we need one... in times of dispair, hopelessness or tragedy. That is a good thing... comfort.
...
As for Science vs. Religion... neither knows of the answers. Science tries to explains by asking questions in hopes of the future's truth... Religion does not question, simply accepts what was written by men 2,000 to 5,000 year ago.
Just for the record. I don't lean on God to justify war. I think God is against it.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Science DOES explain things by testing and providing emperical evidence. Something Religion has never provided. The only answer that you will get out of religion is "well, the Lord works in mysterious ways".
Its amazing to me that 2,000 years ago they thought the world was flat, didn't have the slightest clue about diseases, but yet were able to figure out God, the afterlife and every question that we can't answer. How were they wrong about everything else yet got those answers?
...
Let me clarify my statement...
Science provides an alternate explanation of our natural surroundings based upon verifiable evidence that is available to us at this time.
Religion has no tolerance for any alternative explanation. What was written by church founders 2,000 to 5,000 years ago cannot be questioned.
Is science the truth? Not in my opinion.
Is religion truth? Definately not, in my opinion.
But, I believe science is providing us with a more reasonable explanation of things... such as our place in the kingdom of the animals on this planet and that gravity is what keeps our feet to the ground... not Satan's power over our bodies.
...
And I hope the Christians and other religions don't shove me in the Aetheist (i.e. immoral, Satan Worshiper) corner. I believe in something greater than us... something greater than any of the religions that man has staked claim upon. God is greater than the bullshit religions that have controlled people for milleniums... waged Wars in His name... plundered, pillaged and raped indigenous peoples in His name... killed in His name.
Perhaps, one day, science will prove that God wants a personal relationship with each of us... individually... instead of a collective that evolves around money and power over others. Religion will never have that.
This is going to come off as harsh, but you really have a close-minded view of religion. In other words, you really do not know what you're talking about. You may have had some limited experiences with some aspects of religion that has shaped your views, but there is a lot you do not know about religion....and especially its evolution. The christianity that I follow very rarely looks like your absolute assertions of it.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
No the point is whether person x believes or not it is irrelevant... religious people use this kind of comment to somehow legitimize their belief system or make some silly equation as if some scientists believe, that must mean even science bends in the face of religion. Not a legitimate claim.
Also, religion is take it or leave it, people sway the "meaning and practice" of such things, but the actual words do not. Most religions by nature are barbaric and very pedestrian in thought and practice. It doesn't mean they can't offer some good stories or morals (basically be a good person), but with that comes a whole lot of outdated rigmarole which pre-dates anything applicable to society now. As I stated previously, science and people who adhere towards that mindset/belief recognize it is about the continual learning process and building up/evolution of thoughts, ideas and facts. Religion is set in stone, much like the time frame it spurs from...
Really? That's your first point? that the survey was not true? And how is it a ridiculous point to suggest that the majority of scientists believe in a God? is that really absurd? As I pointed out, regardless of that survey which I barely know much about, it is still a fact that many of the most important scientific advancements made during the middle ages were by Islamic intellectuals, is that also absurd?
Religion is take it or leave it? How? And which religion are you talking about? what basis do you have that religion is take it or leave it? Such an ignorant statement you make here. Not only that but you also proved my point. I wasn't trying to say that religion is like science at all (in fact, I never even inferred that). I was trying to end the debate of how science is different than religion. of course they are different, the point is that the notion you all seem to present that science and religion cannot coexist is, in simple terms, stupid.
As for your "religion is take it or leave it" statement - I'll ignore the fact that you don't know what you're talking about, I'll speak from my own personal knowledge. I don't know much about Christianity or even Judaism, and my knowledge of all other religions is even less, but as for Islam, I know that there is no such thing as 'take it or leave it' for the most part. there are certainly rules that you have to follow (such as dietary laws, laws regarding usury, possession, etc), but it is actually grossly misrepresented. there are so many things left open for interpretation which is the point of having religious scholars who devote their lives to trying to understand these things. now, in the past, as we should all know, it was normal for someone to have multiple professions (one could be a scientist, physicist, mathematician, doctor, philosopher, religious scholar, etc, all at once), and it was very common in the muslim world for one to be both a scientist and a religious scholar. how is this possible if one presents a 'take it or leave it' notion and the other is based on the "continual process of information, knowledge" (haha whatever that means, it sounds like you're just trying to sound smart... lol, i mean seriously 'continual process of information'...really?), which you seem to imply contrast eachother. anyway:
The Abbassids were influenced by the Qur'anic injunctions and hadith such as "The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of martyrs" stressing the value of knowledge. During this period the Muslim world became a major intellectual centre for science, philosophy, medicine and education. They established the "House of Wisdom" (Arabic:بيت الحكمة) in Baghdad, where scholars, both Muslim and non-Muslim, sought to gather and translate all the world's knowledge into Arabic in the Translation Movement. Many classic works of antiquity that would otherwise have been forgotten were translated into Arabic and later in turn translated into Turkish, Sindhi, Persian, Hebrew and Latin. Knowledge was synthesized from works originating in ancient Mesopotamia, Ancient Rome, China, India, Persia, Ancient Egypt, North Africa, Ancient Greece and Byzantine civilizations. Rival Muslim dynasties such as the Fatimids of Egypt and the Umayyads of al-Andalus were also major intellectual centres with cities such as Cairo and Córdoba rivaling Baghdad.[4] According to Bernard Lewis, the Caliphate was the first "truly universal civilization," which brought together for the first time "peoples as diverse as the Chinese, the Indians, the people of the Middle East and North Africa, black Africans, and white Europeans."[5]
As for your last point, I've never seen a miracle, but if you really wanna know what a miracle is, use wikipedia or something.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
And you know this how exactly? Speaking on behalf of everyone is pretty dumb to say the least no matter what message you have to pass along. I don't believe in any god (yes there's thousands of them) and as george carlin once said, 'if this is the best some creator can do, i'm not impressed'. And even if in the slightest chance ever there is a god/creator, he/she/it is a real d-bag and a-hole to say the least. The older I get, the more I see, learn and think, the more I recognize this world, universe, earth, animals and humanity isn't the work of some divine ghost pulling strings...it's human engineering and story telling as an extension through a 3rd party. I believe our universe and everything in it is merely a cluster f' of a million long shots panning out into one place we experience. We fill in the blanks and voids to amuse and hone our way about things. That's god - the unknown for some swear upon and others call imaginary. Like a child believing Santa is keeping tabs if you're good and bad.... you used to believe when you were a child to make things feel good, right and have it's place. All god is and will ever be, a feel good tale. And if you want to continue to believe, awesome, enjoy it, but don't tell others they're wrong for not, or when the chips are down, you know how they'll react. Self-righteous isn't becoming.
no proof needed, wait till it's your turn. experiance, you can write me off as just another brain washed fool, fine, but there was no dieharder athesist than i, until the day, that it is just not good enough, understand i'm talking about believing in god, not religon, love does not comfort when scared beyond reason.
i'm sorry i didn't mean to be self righteous, even if i was , what i mean is i think it's part of the human condition, like how your laying on an operating table about to go under, i think even you will find yourself asking god for help. i think it's part of our genetic makeup, or something but i used to be just like you, but until you come face to face w/ your mortality , you really don't know what you beleive, i think is my point of veiw.
i also think this is why so many old people start going to church, or back to church, you need something to clutch to, it's just to damn scary otherwise.
i also think this is why so many old people start going to church, or back to church, you need something to clutch to, it's just to damn scary otherwise.
Not everyone needs something to clutch to. And there's nothing wrong with those who do.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Been there and I'll tell you, never once did I ask or think of such. In fact, I did the opposite, looked around me (friends, family and similar) for extra support and strength.
Many old cultures and civilizations throughout history had gods and beliefs, but they were one's that weren't there for guidance and rules, they were there for appreciate and recognition. The rain god provided rain for crops, the sun god provided sun so the crops could get sunlight, etc. It wasn't til organized religion (the 3 major religions primarily) that people began looking up to the skies for help, guidance and approval - and much of it all can also be traced back to signs of societal discrepancies (crime, poverty, change from hunter/gatherer lifestyle in general) which all started around roughly the same time frame. If you want to read a good book about some of this, read Daniel Quinn's The Story of B.
i'm sorry i didn't mean to be self righteous, even if i was , what i mean is i think it's part of the human condition, like how your laying on an operating table about to go under, i think even you will find yourself asking god for help. i think it's part of our genetic makeup, or something but i used to be just like you, but until you come face to face w/ your mortality , you really don't know what you beleive, i think is my point of veiw.
Post edited by FiveB247x on
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Been there and I'll tell you, never once did I ask or think of such. In fact, I did the opposite, looked around me (friends, family and similar) for extra support and strength.
Many old cultures and civilizations throughout history had gods and beliefs, but they were one's that were there for guidance and rules, they were there for appreciate and recognition. The rain god provided rain for crops, the sun god provided sun so the crops could get sunlight, etc. It wasn't til organized religion (the 3 major religions primarily) that people began looking up to the skies for help, guidance and approval - and much of it all can also be traced back to signs of societal discrepancies (crime, poverty, change from hunter/gatherer lifestyle in general) which all started around roughly the same time frame. If you want to read a good book about some of this, read Daniel Quinn's The Story of B.
i'm sorry i didn't mean to be self righteous, even if i was , what i mean is i think it's part of the human condition, like how your laying on an operating table about to go under, i think even you will find yourself asking god for help. i think it's part of our genetic makeup, or something but i used to be just like you, but until you come face to face w/ your mortality , you really don't know what you beleive, i think is my point of veiw.
i also think this is why so many old people start going to church, or back to church, you need something to clutch to, it's just to damn scary otherwise.
Not everyone needs something to clutch to. And there's nothing wrong with those who do.
This is going to come off as harsh, but you really have a close-minded view of religion. In other words, you really do not know what you're talking about. You may have had some limited experiences with some aspects of religion that has shaped your views, but there is a lot you do not know about religion....and especially its evolution. The christianity that I follow very rarely looks like your absolute assertions of it.
....
So... are you saying that wars have not been fought with religion as basis... that people have not used religion as the foundation to kill others? Aren't the sectarian killings betwen Sunni and Shi'ia Muslims based, at least partly, upon religious views? Are you saying that missionaries did not go around the world, nailing Christianity to the souls of the heathens?
Yes, Christianity does not wage Crusades today (although, i suppose an arguement could be raised regarding our current involvement in the Middle East). But, what has 'evolved' about religion? Please, enlighten me with the enlightenment of modern religion. Can you question the Bible... and retain faith? Question Jesus' role as messiah and still be saved? Question God's existance and still be loved? Are there other paths to God's Heaven... instead of Jesus and Christianity?
How am I so far off base with my perception of the corruption of the Churches?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Religion is dying. As time (and science) move forward it will eventually disappear. Most Americans have blinders on because we are a very religious nation. It is hard for many to accept that much of the world views us like we view fundamentalist Muslim nations...kinda wacko
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
And yes - Science does not prove anything. Just ask a scientist. They can form theories and laws based upon current information and observation. Those theories are not absolute proof of anything.
Comments
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
No... crutches are a good thing... in times when you need them. But, why use crutches, when you can walk perfectly fine? I believe Man has uses God as a crutch because of Man's weaknesses and his failure to accept his own weaknesses. Man leans in God to justify War... to rationalize why his nation is greater than the others and can, therefore, rule and/or plunder the land and resources outside their borders.
But, God can provide a crutch when we need one... in times of dispair, hopelessness or tragedy. That is a good thing... comfort.
...
As for Science vs. Religion... neither knows of the answers. Science tries to explains by asking questions in hopes of the future's truth... Religion does not question, simply accepts what was written by men 2,000 to 5,000 year ago.
Hail, Hail!!!
good way of looking at things....i like that too
jo
http://www.Etsy.com/Shop/SimpleEarthCreations
"How I choose to feel is how I am." ~ EV/MMc
"Some people hear their own inner voices with great clearness and they live by what they hear. Such people become crazy, or they become legends." ~ One Stab ~
u 2?
“Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to".
Right on....
Its amazing to me that 2,000 years ago they thought the world was flat, didn't have the slightest clue about diseases, but yet were able to figure out God, the afterlife and every question that we can't answer. How were they wrong about everything else yet got those answers?
no proof needed, wait till it's your turn. experiance, you can write me off as just another brain washed fool, fine, but there was no dieharder athesist than i, until the day, that it is just not good enough, understand i'm talking about believing in god, not religon, love does not comfort when scared beyond reason.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Its well known that many of the world's greatest scientists were spiritual and saw the value in spiritual belief. Just as Einstein said that we exist in a library of books written by someone else, Max Planck, the founder of modern quantum theory, stated that science is able to measure the 'symbols' of the universe -- ie its physical structure, its laws, and its mechanics -- but that there is a greater spirit beyond the symbols that is immeasurable. He specifically called out atheists for placing too great an emphasis on the symbols and not on the spirit behind the symbols.
Planck regarded the scientist as a man of imagination and faith, 'faith' being akin to "having a working hypothesis."
Which leads us to last point, which is the sticking point. The matter of proof.
When and where, in the history of science, do our greatest scientists tell us that one should live their lives believing only in that which can be proven? Who of them has said that it is more 'intelligent' to accept nothing in life but modern western scientific proof?
The scientific method, of course, is the accepted way to validate theorems and forward scientific understanding. It is the mechanism through which scientific progress takes place. It allows us all the great advances of science and allows us a better understanding of the mechanics of our universe. But it is not necessarily meant to be a worldview in and of itself. The idea that if science hasn't proven it then it doesn't exist or it isn't worth believing in would be considered insufferably narrow-minded to most of the great scientists of history. If Einstein, or Bohr, or Planck, or Schroedinger were to witness the "Oh Yeah, Well Prove It!" attitude of many modern atheists, they would be the first to take them to school.
Historically, the people who cling to proof as an absolute barometer of truth and only accept the "proven" theorems of the day are inevitably the ones to be proven wrong when science validates the hunches, inspirations, and intuition of its forward thinkers. It is the same type of narrow-minded thinking that came from those who laughed at the notion that the world is round and who scoffed at the monk who posited that the universe was created in a 'big bang.' What is lost in this mindset is perspective on the history of human understanding and innovation that lives outside of -- and predates -- western science, the recognition of the value of human ways of knowing that exist outside of scientific method -- ie intuition and imagination, and a little humble perspective on the relatively minute place of western science in the vast history of this universe and of humankind.
The trails of scientific understanding are blazed by those of great imagination. Newton's gospel -- the laws of physics which bear his name -- were intuited first, proven later. John Maynard Keynes said: "Newton owed his success to his muscles of intuition. Newton's powers of intuition were the strongest and most enduring with which a man has ever been gifted." Freidrich Kekulé, the famed chemist, discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule in a dream in which he was visited by the image of snake biting its own tail. Srinavasa Ramanujan, the brilliant Indian mathematician who redefined mathematical analysis, number theory, and continued fractions, claimed he received his formulas through direct revelation from the goddess Namagiri. Einstein wrote that "the intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it Intuition or what you will, the solution comes to you and you don't know how or why".
If anyone would like to read further: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-schr ... 04667.html
Science is not all about gathering facts and empirical evidence, if you think that's what science is about then you are only talking about the most basic fundamentals of science. science is such an incredible subject that deals with the most abstract - it's really an amazing thing.
Next, I don't understand the notion that science and religion conflict. i remember there was a study that most contemporary scientists believed in a God or something of that sort, i don't have time to look for it now but i'll try to find it later. are these scientists at a conflict of interest in their work? it would make no sense. i know for a fact that during the middle ages, the islamic empire in the middle east was responsible for some of the most important scientific, mathematical, medical, philosophical, literature, etc, innovations in history. yet they were not at conflict with their religion. it's ignorant to claim such a disparity between the two. science does not in any way disprove religion, and religion does not necessarily try to discourage scientific findings. sure some religious backgrounded people may, but it's grossly misrepresented in the media due to recent conflicts with evangelicals and whatever, but many religions actually encourage scientific growth of knowledge.
People also are so quick to talk about how horrible religion is, and all the evil it has brought throughout the centuries, which is really just another truly pathetic and ignorant argument, which I will not get into much detail about since it wasn't really brought up in this topic from what I saw, but it's another thing that has been misrepresented only in recent times and exaggerated to include history, but anyone who says such a thing really only proves to have poor knowledge of history.
also the OP said that he believes in commandments but not for fear of being judged by because "it's the right thing to do." in my opinion this makes no sense. the western notion that the right thing to do (ie. morality) is objective is incorrect. morality is completely subjective. thus, if you're choose not to kill someone because it's right thing to do, what the fuck is that supposed to mean for someone else who views the situation differently? there are millions of different loopholes that can come about. religion is what set these morals in principle and basically stated that because someone supreme, ie. not an ordinary human like you and I, said this: it is absolutely right. that because God said you can't do this, there is no loophole. now, you may argue against that, but my only point is that the idea that humans shouldn't do something because some other human said so has too many loopholes so that is why commandments were solidified with religion.... anyway, i'm getting too carried away i could talk about this all day but this post is so fucking long... to be honest, i guess i consider myself 'religious' per se but i'm not the best at practicing my religion completely. i'm more of an 'on and off' type guy i guess, maybe that'll change i'm still young and have yet to truly witness a 'miracle' like so many others on here claim (seriously, it's pretty unreal that so many people on here have witnessed something, i've barely met people who claim what u all do, but to each his own i suppose)
Secondly, as several posters have correctly stated, science is the continual process of information, knowledge - an evolution or growth process to base things upon. Religion is nothing like this - it is take it or leave it.
Lastly, what is a "miracle" exactly? Shit happens in life, whether some find it improbable or unrealistic or even mind-boggling doesn't mean it's the force of some greater being/creator/god. That mindset and notion is merely self-fulfilling prophecy, not necessarily "proof" of anything whatsoever.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Religion is take it or leave it? How? And which religion are you talking about? what basis do you have that religion is take it or leave it? Such an ignorant statement you make here. Not only that but you also proved my point. I wasn't trying to say that religion is like science at all (in fact, I never even inferred that). I was trying to end the debate of how science is different than religion. of course they are different, the point is that the notion you all seem to present that science and religion cannot coexist is, in simple terms, stupid.
As for your "religion is take it or leave it" statement - I'll ignore the fact that you don't know what you're talking about, I'll speak from my own personal knowledge. I don't know much about Christianity or even Judaism, and my knowledge of all other religions is even less, but as for Islam, I know that there is no such thing as 'take it or leave it' for the most part. there are certainly rules that you have to follow (such as dietary laws, laws regarding usury, possession, etc), but it is actually grossly misrepresented. there are so many things left open for interpretation which is the point of having religious scholars who devote their lives to trying to understand these things. now, in the past, as we should all know, it was normal for someone to have multiple professions (one could be a scientist, physicist, mathematician, doctor, philosopher, religious scholar, etc, all at once), and it was very common in the muslim world for one to be both a scientist and a religious scholar. how is this possible if one presents a 'take it or leave it' notion and the other is based on the "continual process of information, knowledge" (haha whatever that means, it sounds like you're just trying to sound smart... lol, i mean seriously 'continual process of information'...really?), which you seem to imply contrast eachother. anyway:
The Abbassids were influenced by the Qur'anic injunctions and hadith such as "The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of martyrs" stressing the value of knowledge. During this period the Muslim world became a major intellectual centre for science, philosophy, medicine and education. They established the "House of Wisdom" (Arabic:بيت الحكمة) in Baghdad, where scholars, both Muslim and non-Muslim, sought to gather and translate all the world's knowledge into Arabic in the Translation Movement. Many classic works of antiquity that would otherwise have been forgotten were translated into Arabic and later in turn translated into Turkish, Sindhi, Persian, Hebrew and Latin. Knowledge was synthesized from works originating in ancient Mesopotamia, Ancient Rome, China, India, Persia, Ancient Egypt, North Africa, Ancient Greece and Byzantine civilizations. Rival Muslim dynasties such as the Fatimids of Egypt and the Umayyads of al-Andalus were also major intellectual centres with cities such as Cairo and Córdoba rivaling Baghdad.[4] According to Bernard Lewis, the Caliphate was the first "truly universal civilization," which brought together for the first time "peoples as diverse as the Chinese, the Indians, the people of the Middle East and North Africa, black Africans, and white Europeans."[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
As for your last point, I've never seen a miracle, but if you really wanna know what a miracle is, use wikipedia or something.
Let me clarify my statement...
Science provides an alternate explanation of our natural surroundings based upon verifiable evidence that is available to us at this time.
Religion has no tolerance for any alternative explanation. What was written by church founders 2,000 to 5,000 years ago cannot be questioned.
Is science the truth? Not in my opinion.
Is religion truth? Definately not, in my opinion.
But, I believe science is providing us with a more reasonable explanation of things... such as our place in the kingdom of the animals on this planet and that gravity is what keeps our feet to the ground... not Satan's power over our bodies.
...
And I hope the Christians and other religions don't shove me in the Aetheist (i.e. immoral, Satan Worshiper) corner. I believe in something greater than us... something greater than any of the religions that man has staked claim upon. God is greater than the bullshit religions that have controlled people for milleniums... waged Wars in His name... plundered, pillaged and raped indigenous peoples in His name... killed in His name.
Perhaps, one day, science will prove that God wants a personal relationship with each of us... individually... instead of a collective that evolves around money and power over others. Religion will never have that.
Hail, Hail!!!
It tells me science hasn't gotten it right yet.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Just for the record. I don't lean on God to justify war. I think God is against it.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
This is going to come off as harsh, but you really have a close-minded view of religion. In other words, you really do not know what you're talking about. You may have had some limited experiences with some aspects of religion that has shaped your views, but there is a lot you do not know about religion....and especially its evolution. The christianity that I follow very rarely looks like your absolute assertions of it.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Also, religion is take it or leave it, people sway the "meaning and practice" of such things, but the actual words do not. Most religions by nature are barbaric and very pedestrian in thought and practice. It doesn't mean they can't offer some good stories or morals (basically be a good person), but with that comes a whole lot of outdated rigmarole which pre-dates anything applicable to society now. As I stated previously, science and people who adhere towards that mindset/belief recognize it is about the continual learning process and building up/evolution of thoughts, ideas and facts. Religion is set in stone, much like the time frame it spurs from...
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
i'm sorry i didn't mean to be self righteous, even if i was , what i mean is i think it's part of the human condition, like how your laying on an operating table about to go under, i think even you will find yourself asking god for help. i think it's part of our genetic makeup, or something but i used to be just like you, but until you come face to face w/ your mortality , you really don't know what you beleive, i think is my point of veiw.
Not everyone needs something to clutch to. And there's nothing wrong with those who do.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Many old cultures and civilizations throughout history had gods and beliefs, but they were one's that weren't there for guidance and rules, they were there for appreciate and recognition. The rain god provided rain for crops, the sun god provided sun so the crops could get sunlight, etc. It wasn't til organized religion (the 3 major religions primarily) that people began looking up to the skies for help, guidance and approval - and much of it all can also be traced back to signs of societal discrepancies (crime, poverty, change from hunter/gatherer lifestyle in general) which all started around roughly the same time frame. If you want to read a good book about some of this, read Daniel Quinn's The Story of B.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
i'll check it out.
So... are you saying that wars have not been fought with religion as basis... that people have not used religion as the foundation to kill others? Aren't the sectarian killings betwen Sunni and Shi'ia Muslims based, at least partly, upon religious views? Are you saying that missionaries did not go around the world, nailing Christianity to the souls of the heathens?
Yes, Christianity does not wage Crusades today (although, i suppose an arguement could be raised regarding our current involvement in the Middle East). But, what has 'evolved' about religion? Please, enlighten me with the enlightenment of modern religion. Can you question the Bible... and retain faith? Question Jesus' role as messiah and still be saved? Question God's existance and still be loved? Are there other paths to God's Heaven... instead of Jesus and Christianity?
How am I so far off base with my perception of the corruption of the Churches?
Hail, Hail!!!
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
+1