God exists

[keelanz]

I seriously can't possible see how God being identified as a male (when God is most likely genderless) offends you in any way.

 

I had no idea women were being oppressed. Are you not allowed to vote? Do you not have your inalienable human rights?

 

Then why are you complaining?

 

Seriously. What point are you trying to make? That women are oppressed because of Jesus or something?

 

you have no idea what country she is from (originally or now) or what religion she could have been born into, keep the sly remarks away from religious posts as this is where it can cause the most offense. im sure you are aware that sexism is more than an occurrence almost everywhere but western civilization so please keep it in mind when your challenging people about what you think you know.

 

EDIT: the reasons gods sex is important (why i originally pointed out your ignorance) is that if you dont change your outlook on simple things such as that then obviously from our point of view you havent shaken other deeply inserted religious traits that only proves your religious ignorance (theres plenty after reading the god delusion TWICE)

 

This quote of yours seems to make out itself that either you have studied all religions yourself both theoretically and practically or you are yourself BIG AND BEST God so that you can always insult other Gods.

I doubt both.

 

To Everyone: Now please make this thread a dead one and start a new one. I respect your ideas, so should you . I am not asking to follow them like a saint.

Regards

|rktpro|

 

as far as the religious aspect went i do not for one minute pretend to be a theologian however i have my own opinions on what religion "is" and what god "is" therefor ill make my own assertions about what god "is" defined as by abrahamic religion, if you dont agree with my assertion please state the facts of why rather than saying my god is the "BIG AND BEST" god, all im doing is being philosophical of religion rather than conformist, i can see truth in your religion but not as much as in my own reality of the modern day.

 

in my answer to the existence of god you dont question my fundamental statement about it depending on "gods definition" but rather trivialities in my text about my own definition of abrahamic god, if you want to start getting technical i actually think alot of religious people have no idea whats going on, they are preached to each sunday and whole heartily believe what they are being told as fact, you could tell them god is a spinning tea cup or a spaghetti monster and they wouldnt disagree etc etc (this scares me)

 

again this brings me back to my original post, in my own opinion if you believe in any deity or organised religion your definition of god is false on premise and therefor non existent however if you deduct your own definition of god then only you can decide weather it exists

 

P.S i believe there is much to learn from organised religion I.E the metaphors and stories but theres too many contradictions in the bible for it to be taken factually

 

ALSO its IMO that religion is a cover for spirituality for the benefit of the kids or the less educated. (only my opinion)

 

EDIT EDIT: i think the simplest answer to this thread is "YES" but only by our own definition

 

You said:

 

 

 

First of all your premise is false. People don't say that. And even if some people did, it's not a valid source to base a claim from. Therefore, your conclusions are logically invalid.

 

its not even a case of if "people" said it, its the fact science requires what he states as both visual and experimental proof to be valid, that which in most peoples definition of "god" is impossible to show(right now), also relative to his assertion that "god" is "nature" this only backs up his statement as nature is yet to be defined which only means its yet to be fully discovered for its absolute truth I.E "the natural universe" is almost endless.

 

really hes saying things exist that we know exist but are hard to prove E.G the very simple things in essence like the laws of physics (usually in scientific terms we borrow the hand of a genius). He then asserts that god is nature, we collectively try to figure out what nature is by the use of science so he is asserting science is a means by which to reach god.

 

ALSO he uses analogy's which are simple to grasp to back up his also belief (no need to disagree with the premise)

Edited April 29, 2011 by keelanz

[Athena]

I seriously can't possible see how God being identified as a male (when God is most likely genderless) offends you in any way.

 

 

 

I had no idea women were being oppressed. Are you not allowed to vote? Do you not have your inalienable human rights?

 

 

 

Then why are you complaining?

 

 

 

Those are people who do not understand the fact that Jesus is a human projection of God.

 

 

 

Satan is a fallen Archangel.

 

 

 

Who are Angels, and Fallen Angels, respectively.

 

 

 

He is. According to Christianity's interpretation of the Bible.

 

 

 

Of course they do not. They aren't Christians. That's a tautological truth.

 

 

 

Well right now, it's still religion. But thanks for being so condescending.

 

Seriously. What point are you trying to make? That women are oppressed because of Jesus or something?

 

I was in a rush this morning and posted before completing. Tripolation, might you suggest what I might change to avoid being criticized for being condescending? That is very hurtful, so of course I want to avoid it.

 

http://www.google.co...G=Google+Search

 

That google link is to many arguments about if Jesus is God or not. The argument that Jesus was only a mouth piece for "the word" of God, seems a good one, considering this comes from Greek philosophy about logos (the word).

 

I didn't think I was complaining but stating facts. I remember life before women's liberation and the huge impact of seeing the word "she" where only the word "he" had been used. Unless you were a female at that time, you can not know the experience, but you can be sensitive about the experience women had, and the adjustment we are still trying to make. Please, do not think our experience has no importance because this is 2011. That is worse than condescending. It is a reminder of when we read only the word "he" and we were forced to be passive and dependent. To make that change from trying to live up to the 1950 model of the ideal woman to being the 2011 model of the ideal woman is not easy, and that change sure has not been easy for men either. The ramifications for children who do not have the advantage of stable home lives, where they feel physically, emotional and psychological safe is dreadful. How do families that no longer assumes the man is the head of the house, and that he supports the family, so the family lives near his job, and no one has to consider her career, resolve their conflicts of interest? What is the new model?

 

My general, my argument is about the importance of literacy in understanding the mythology. The Christian mythology has many sources. Clearly at least 5 biblical stories are the result of Hebrews translating Sumerian documents, adjusting the stories of many gods to be a story of one god. The Hebrews who did this could have been linked to the people who fled Amenhotep's holy city. Amenhotep tried to force monotheism on the Egyptians, and when he and his wife died, his holy city was destroyed and buried, and his name was taken out of Egyptian records. And those of the new monotheistic religion had to flee, perhaps to Ur, which had been a city of Sumer. Also much of Christianity is Egyptian theology.

 

However, Zoroaster also gave the world a concept of one God, and the Zoroastrian ruler Cyrus freed the Jews from Babylon and ordered that Persia would pay for the rebuilding of the Jewish temple in Israel. So much of Judaism and Christianity seems influenced by Zoroastrianism it is worth our while to learn of this religion. Understanding Mithra is certainly important to understanding the teachings of Jesus, and I don't think our understanding of Jesus is complete without also an understanding of Buddhism.

 

As for Satan being a fallen angel, I believe this dualism of the light and darkness originated with Zoroastrianism. The Hebrews did hold this dualistic concept, but it is very much a part of Christianity. I am not sure of the origin of angels. I know the Greeks had cupids. For sure the Persians had demons and this demonology became a part of Christianity.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Athena

[keelanz]

People say that God doesn't exist both scientifically and visually.

Let me conclude this:

Not everything can be visualized. Can you get the knowledge of the letter 'A' only by visualizing? Simply not. You need to have the knowledge how the word sounds.

Can you prove your father by visualizing? No, because you weren't even born at that time.

Can you prove a far country by visualizing? No, because the country can be beyond reach of eyes, but it actually exists.

Same is for God. He is beyond our material eyes and ears and all senses.

A lot of saints have seen him and they have attained bliss.

 

Something more-

What is nature?

Whatever we can't explain scientifically is what we call nature.

For ex- We know subatomic particles have no smell when taken individually. But when they combine in ratios of different number(as different elements) they form compounds with different smell. How can you get smell? This is termed as NATURE of electrons! Because this is unexplained.

There are countless examples of so called Nature.

GOD is what we call nature in science.

 

ive just realised this thread has nothing to with the existence of our own "gods" that is mine, yours, the christians or the muslims but of the god of nature that rktro defines.

 

it has been my personal opinion that nature is god and science our bible for a few years now however there are in my own view still philosophical concepts above and beyond science. i wouldnt like to define the concepts as religious but im sure they are metaphorically covered in most religions, the personal touches on life which make them our own, the trivialities and pursuit of existence as a human and all the deeper fundamental questions dont seem to have any objective answer and i think thats where the subjective god has come into existence

 

also incase you dont read a few posts up (as i tend to do), would this be an accurate description of your general thinking?

 

"really hes saying things exist that we know exist but are hard to prove or show E.G the very simple things in essence like the laws of physics (usually in scientific terms we borrow the hand of a genius). He then asserts that god is nature(undefined, un-explained), we collectively try to figure out what nature is by the use of science so he is asserting science is a means by which to reach god.

 

ALSO he uses analogy's which are simple to grasp to back up his belief (no need to disagree with the premise) "

Edited April 29, 2011 by keelanz

[A Tripolation]

EDIT: the reasons gods sex is important (why i originally pointed out your ignorance) is that if you dont change your outlook on simple things such as that then obviously from our point of view you havent shaken other deeply inserted religious traits that only proves your religious ignorance (theres plenty after reading the god delusion TWICE)

 

1. Learn to spell before calling me ignorant. Your mistakes make you seem uneducated, and your points less valid.

 

2. It's not rational to be insulted by the gender of a deity which wouldn't have a gender as humans describe it.

 

3. Oh my. You read a pop-religion book from an atheist author. TWICE. I might as well submit to your superior, book-reading mind right now.

 

My point of view of religion HAS changed quite a bit, and some members of this forum can take credit for it. But it wasn't you, nor the convoluted points you attempt to make.

 

again this brings me back to my original post, in my own opinion if you believe in any deity or organised religion your definition of god is false on premise and therefor non existent however if you deduct your own definition of god then only you can decide weather it exists

 

So if I believe in Jesus, that makes it false, but if I make something up, only I can decide if it's false. Is that really what you're saying?

[keelanz]

1. Learn to spell before calling me ignorant. Your mistakes make you seem uneducated, and your points less valid.

 

2. It's not rational to be insulted by the gender of a deity which wouldn't have a gender as humans describe it.

 

3. Oh my. You read a pop-religion book from an atheist author. TWICE. I might as well submit to your superior, book-reading mind right now.

 

My point of view of religion HAS changed quite a bit, and some members of this forum can take credit for it. But it wasn't you, nor the convoluted points you attempt to make.

 

 

 

So if I believe in Jesus, that makes it false, but if I make something up, only I can decide if it's false. Is that really what you're saying?

 

no i rather unsuccessfully said that whatever you believe is gona be subjectively your own truth and just because more than one person believes it doesnt put it any higher than self belief other than the fact some of you may be conditioned into a religious outlook before spirituality or science even get a look in.

 

the fact you all group together and share fairy tales automatically makes your god a false idol....im sorry you dont get how praying to "him" makes you worse than not praying at all, but hay maybe she'll forgive you?

 

and on the 7th day god became (an) idol

 

the best bit though has to be the way you took my joking nature, did the slapstick fail?

 

EDIT: YOU WILL BOW TO DAWKING'S OR FOREVER BURN IN HELL

 

EDIT EDIT: is it my grammar or spelling? if its the spelling im gona put some steal to this chrome

 

EDIT EDIT EDIT: its not about making something up its about being the individual you was born as...you dry cookie

 

i prefer outlook as its alot more general however if im making a point then ill make it specific such a point of view, read it again its your outlook and my point of view.....

 

btw if i didnt think i was close to being banned this post may have been very different

 

im not offended or insulted, by now you should have figured out it is i who fears the lack of education from the opposition

Edited April 30, 2011 by keelanz

[Athena]

ive just realised this thread has nothing to with the existence of our own "gods" that is mine, yours, the christians or the muslims but of the god of nature that rktro defines.

 

it has been my personal opinion that nature is god and science our bible for a few years now however there are in my own view still philosophical concepts above and beyond science. i wouldnt like to define the concepts as religious but im sure they are metaphorically covered in most religions, the personal touches on life which make them our own, the trivialities and pursuit of existence as a human and all the deeper fundamental questions dont seem to have any objective answer and i think thats where the subjective god has come into existence

 

also incase you dont read a few posts up (as i tend to do), would this be an accurate description of your general thinking?

 

"really hes saying things exist that we know exist but are hard to prove or show E.G the very simple things in essence like the laws of physics (usually in scientific terms we borrow the hand of a genius). He then asserts that god is nature(undefined, un-explained), we collectively try to figure out what nature is by the use of science so he is asserting science is a means by which to reach god.

 

ALSO he uses analogy's which are simple to grasp to back up his belief (no need to disagree with the premise) "

 

Perfect and so true. Science alone is not good enough. The scientist who worked on the atom bomb, jumped for joy when they heard their bomb did exactly what it was supposed to do when it fell on Japan. However, a split second later, some of them realized the human implications and they no longer felt so joyful.

 

When one of the gods gave man fire, Zeus's biggest concern was, that with the technology of fire, man would learn all other technologies and then rival the gods. It seems obvious to me, this is technology without the wisdom to use it. We need more than science to discover nature, and keep more and more people alive for longer and longer periods of time, or science for killing and destroying with nuclear bombs far more powerful than the first ones we unleashed. We need wisdom, and that is the the realm of metaphysics, the study the nature of being and reality. This is the study of God.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Athena

[A Tripolation]

the fact you all group together and share fairy tales automatically makes your god a false idol....im sorry you dont get how praying to "him" makes you worse than not praying at all, but hay maybe she'll forgive you?

 

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here. Or how a false idol plays into it.

 

btw if i didnt think i was close to being banned this post may have been very different

 

All your posts should strive to be of the polite and eloquent type. Not just when you're about to be banned.

 

im not offended or insulted, by now you should have figured out it is i who fears the lack of education from the opposition

 

Again. What are you trying to say?

 

Science alone is not good enough.

 

Science has not killed as many people as conflicting theologies have. If anything, I think the more and more science advances, the more wise we will become as a species. Science is good enough.

[keelanz]

Science has not killed as many people as conflicting theologies have. If anything, I think the more and more science advances, the more wise we will become as a species. Science is good enough.

 

Honestly? sure the theologian battles on idealism's but there would be no battle without the help of science, thanks again for the mac 11 and the atomic bombs......(the idealism didnt kill a soul, the technology did)

 

theologians have morals and ethics, science itself doesnt so you can use it to any end, it isnt good enough.

[A Tripolation]

Honestly? sure the theologian battles on idealism's but there would be no battle without the help of science, thanks again for the mac 11 and the atomic bombs......(the idealism didnt kill a soul, the technology did)

 

theologians have morals and ethics, science itself doesnt so you can use it to any end, it isnt good enough.

 

You're comparing scientific advances to theology? Apples and Oranges. You need to be comparing "Scientific advances being turned into weapons" to "Interpretations of theology being turned into excuses to murder people". As in the Crusades. Jihads. Territory conflicts based on Holy Books. Ect, ect.

Edited May 1, 2011 by A Tripolation

[keelanz]

You're comparing scientific advances to theology? Apples and Oranges. You need to be comparing "Scientific advances being turned into weapons" to "Interpretations of theology being turned into excuses to murder people". As in the Crusades. Jihads. Territory conflicts based on Holy Books. Ect, ect.

 

Yeh you are right, i didnt like that you said

 

"Science has not killed as many people as conflicting theologies have. If anything, I think the more and more science advances, the more wise we will become as a species. Science is good enough."

 

although i agree science is a means to an end, its only through science that so many people have died and you seem to shrug off the fact that science has as much potential for bad as it does good. i suppose thats what i was try to express rather badly.

 

i do agree though that

 

"You're comparing scientific advances to theology? Apples and Oranges. You need to be comparing "Scientific advances being turned into weapons" to "Interpretations of theology being turned into excuses to murder people". As in the Crusades. Jihads. Territory conflicts based on Holy Books. Ect, ect."

 

i was trying to say that its only through science that theology has killed so many, were not comparing apple's to oranges, somebody can use both of them to do almost anything they want and you seemed to say its enough that the apple's are sweeter and the oranges have gone sour.....well i dont think it is.

i do totally agree that my analogy was wrong and should have been worded much more like yours though.

 

im not sure god does exist, unless we can get 6.2 billion people to agree upon its definition, if we can yaya.....

 

maybe we can agree that....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02BUCVBHSKw

Edited May 2, 2011 by keelanz

[Zarnaxus]

It is often a religious reasoning for why people go to war.

 

Technologies made possible by science are just the tools or means of the people going to war.

 

Taking away the technologies is not going to stop a religious feud~They existed far before science was regularly practiced.

 

Although, the total destruction caused during wars is often due to both the reasoning and the method. If I a little boy hits his brother with a hammer, not only will the hammer be taken away, but the boy will be punished for his actions aswell.

[Realitycheck]

Theology has killed more over time than technology has killed in the last hundred years. A sword slash, an arrow can be just as deadly as a gunshot. And some of the armies in antiquity were pretty big.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Realitycheck

[mississippichem]

It is often a religious reasoning for why people go to war.

 

Technologies made possible by science are just the tools or means of the people going to war.

 

Taking away the technologies is not going to stop a religious feud~They existed far before science was regularly practiced.

 

Although, the total destruction caused during wars is often due to both the reasoning and the method. If I a little boy hits his brother with a hammer, not only will the hammer be taken away, but the boy will be punished for his actions aswell.

I agree, before we had cruise missiles and AK-47s, we would just beat each other over the head with rocks or sticks. Chimps throw rocks at rival troop members, they even steal the babies and rape the women. They have no religious or technological motivation, just good ole fashion territory/food/mating rights battles. We are animals, and animals just tend to fight.

 

By the way, whether or not religion causes wars or not is completely irrelevant to whether or not a god or gods exist. If God does exist, then he surely causes wars; see the entire Old Testament. If god doesn't exist, then silly people will still fight over something.

 

"Hey, I don't like the way you put butter on both sides of your toast, it offends me and I want to kill you and your stupid culture."

 

I'm sure that in that universe we would have a thread vigorously debating the merits and cons of "double-sided-toastism".

Edited May 4, 2011 by mississippichem

[Zarnaxus]

"Hey, I don't like the way you put butter on both sides of your toast, it offends me and I want to kill you and your stupid culture."

 

I'm sure that in that universe we would have a thread vigorously debating the merits and cons of "double-sided-toastism".

 

 

Woah! This is the best idea I have heard in a long time... I am going to go try this right now...

[keelanz]

Theology has killed more over time than technology has killed in the last hundred years. A sword slash, an arrow can be just as deadly as a gunshot. And some of the armies in antiquity were pretty big.

 

the creation of an axe is as much science as a gun is, sure the mechanisms are more advanced but the systems that we use are the same, we use past knowledge and understanding to manipulate raw materials to our own ends, that being said im sure less people have died from the human fist than materials we have manipulated to be a tool of death. It stands that war is started because of idealisms (mostly religious ignorance) and ends with science.....if i remember rightly it goes a little like this "stick and stoned will break my bones but words shall never harm me"

[Athena]

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here. Or how a false idol plays into it.

 

 

 

All your posts should strive to be of the polite and eloquent type. Not just when you're about to be banned.

 

 

 

Again. What are you trying to say?

 

 

 

Science has not killed as many people as conflicting theologies have. If anything, I think the more and more science advances, the more wise we will become as a species. Science is good enough.

 

I disagree with you about science being good enough, especially after engaging in the discussions here. I am very concerned about the lack of consideration of values and morals here. Especially disappointing to me is the discussions of education. People jumped to say what a good curriculum is, but not to discuss the purpose of education. This is a serious gap in the thinking, because culture is so important to what humans do and do not do, and culture is learned. People need to give some thought to what a good culture is like and how it is taught, and they are not. Their point of view is too small, and what they see from their point of view is too narrow.

 

Science is amoral and amoral people do not have good moral judgment. Science can improve their moral judgment, but doesn't motivate them to have moral judgment. Individuals with no concept of God, do not come close to having the perspective needed for good moral judgment. Holding a concept of God is kind of like climbing on a high mountain and having a broader view of everything. In AA this is called the higher self, and the God is left undefined.

 

When we perceive ourselves as spiritual beings having a human experience, it changes our relationship with everything, and this resolves some serious human problems we tend to have. Biologically we are designed to have a sense of community, but we are also very limited in our capacity to be intimate with others on a meaningful level. Here is where a mythology becomes very important. This mythology needs a concept of God and the meaning of being human. This means many people having different ideas of the same thing, not everyone thinking the same about different things. When religion demands everyone thinks the same, that is when it becomes destructive. It is sad that religion tells us we can not know God, and then humans create a God we can know, and personalize this deity. Then the mythology to end trouble, becomes the mythology creating trouble. This is so much the result of the limits of our brain and therefore the limit of the number people we can be intimate with. Like troops of primates divide when they get large, so do humans divide into smaller groups. Religion and nationalism unite these small groups, and then they break down into smaller groups again. We need a unifying mythology that avoids the break down problem, and that begins with an unknown God. That is, it begins by standing on the mountain, and is about us, not about self.

 

What Hegel and Nietzsche did to Christian mythology is not good, and the US replaced Greek and Roman philosophy with German philosophy and now is what it fought against. This problem is exasperated with Islam, because this divide increases a focus on differences and competition to prove who is God's favorite people, making this statement true- religion is good for war and war is good for religion. This is really nuts. There is a mythology that resolves this problem, but it isn't explained in one holy book, and it is pagan. Religious people are sure the pagans are their enemy, so we must avoid exasperating this division. We must convert them as they once converted pagans, if we are to have peace and move forward, raising the human potential to a new plateau.

 

the creation of an axe is as much science as a gun is, sure the mechanisms are more advanced but the systems that we use are the same, we use past knowledge and understanding to manipulate raw materials to our own ends, that being said im sure less people have died from the human fist than materials we have manipulated to be a tool of death. It stands that war is started because of idealisms (mostly religious ignorance) and ends with science.....if i remember rightly it goes a little like this "stick and stoned will break my bones but words shall never harm me"

 

Picky, picky, picky I am going to nit pick here. Making an axe is not science, but technology. Using technology does not require science, which is abstract thinking dependent on theory. Egypt achieved a lot with technology, and then Greeks studied around the world, and developed the theories that separate science from technology.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Athena

[Realitycheck]

How can you say that science is amoral? Some scientists are amoral, those that choose to be, half the time because the religious go out of their way to stigmatize them just because ages ago somebody declared that all information is evil just because much of it regarded things like magic which had no scientific basis whatsoever? There is scripture in the Bible which supports science. l am not going to track it down, but it is there. The Pope has been very supportive of science in the past few decades, following advances in abiogenesis/biogenesis. There is nothing wrong with information or knowledge. If everybody just stuck their heads in the sand and reproduced like rabbits, then the world would end much sooner than the next asteroid to come along and kill everything off. You should be thanking scientists, of every different type, for so many different things. I could care less for living in a tent. (She is in pain, so give her a break.)

[hypervalent_iodine]

Science is amoral and amoral people do not have good moral judgment. Science can improve their moral judgment, but doesn't motivate them to have moral judgment. Individuals with no concept of God, do not come close to having the perspective needed for good moral judgment. Holding a concept of God is kind of like climbing on a high mountain and having a broader view of everything. In AA this is called the higher self, and the God is left undefined.

 

 

I think someone woke up on the wrong side of the Renaissance this morning.

[A Tripolation]

Science is amoral and amoral people do not have good moral judgment. Science can improve their moral judgment, but doesn't motivate them to have moral judgment. Individuals with no concept of God, do not come close to having the perspective needed for good moral judgment. Holding a concept of God is kind of like climbing on a high mountain and having a broader view of everything. In AA this is called the higher self, and the God is left undefined.

 

I know many atheists who are better people than I could ever hope to be. So no. God is not needed for someone to be a good person.

 

When we perceive ourselves as spiritual beings having a human experience, it changes our relationship with everything, and this resolves some serious human problems we tend to have. Biologically we are designed to have a sense of community, but we are also very limited in our capacity to be intimate with others on a meaningful level. Here is where a mythology becomes very important. This mythology needs a concept of God and the meaning of being human. This means many people having different ideas of the same thing, not everyone thinking the same about different things. When religion demands everyone thinks the same, that is when it becomes destructive. It is sad that religion tells us we can not know God, and then humans create a God we can know, and personalize this deity. Then the mythology to end trouble, becomes the mythology creating trouble. This is so much the result of the limits of our brain and therefore the limit of the number people we can be intimate with. Like troops of primates divide when they get large, so do humans divide into smaller groups. Religion and nationalism unite these small groups, and then they break down into smaller groups again. We need a unifying mythology that avoids the break down problem, and that begins with an unknown God. That is, it begins by standing on the mountain, and is about us, not about self.

 

What Hegel and Nietzsche did to Christian mythology is not good, and the US replaced Greek and Roman philosophy with German philosophy and now is what it fought against. This problem is exasperated with Islam, because this divide increases a focus on differences and competition to prove who is God's favorite people, making this statement true- religion is good for war and war is good for religion. This is really nuts. There is a mythology that resolves this problem, but it isn't explained in one holy book, and it is pagan. Religious people are sure the pagans are their enemy, so we must avoid exasperating this division. We must convert them as they once converted pagans, if we are to have peace and move forward, raising the human potential to a new plateau.

 

I disagree with pretty much everything written here.

[Athena]

I know many atheists who are better people than I could ever hope to be. So no. God is not needed for someone to be a good person.

 

 

 

I disagree with pretty much everything written here.

 

You do not know me and should not attempt to judge me. So what if you disagree with me. That is not an argument, but only an opinion, that brings this discussion to a dead end.

 

I know many atheists who are better people than I could ever hope to be. So no. God is not needed for someone to be a good person.

 

 

 

I disagree with pretty much everything written here.

 

You do not know me and should not attempt to judge me. So what if you disagree with me. That is not an argument, but only an opinion, that brings this discussion to a dead end.

 

How can you say that science is amoral? Some scientists are amoral, those that choose to be, half the time because the religious go out of their way to stigmatize them just because ages ago somebody declared that all information is evil just because much of it regarded things like magic which had no scientific basis whatsoever? There is scripture in the Bible which supports science. l am not going to track it down, but it is there. The Pope has been very supportive of science in the past few decades, following advances in abiogenesis/biogenesis. There is nothing wrong with information or knowledge. If everybody just stuck their heads in the sand and reproduced like rabbits, then the world would end much sooner than the next asteroid to come along and kill everything off. You should be thanking scientists, of every different type, for so many different things. I could care less for living in a tent. (She is in pain, so give her a break.)

 

Please explain what science has to do with morals. I have said, with science we can make better moral decisions. That is because information improves our decision making. Scientist can be highly moral people, but from where do they get their morality? What branch of science studies morals? There is a branch of science that does, but I am not aware of physics or math being a study in morality.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Athena

[A Tripolation]

You do not know me and should not attempt to judge me. So what if you disagree with me. That is not an argument, but only an opinion, that brings this discussion to a dead end.

 

Funny thing about discussion boards. Everything you post is up for discussion.

 

Please explain what science has to do with morals. I have said, with science we can make better moral decisions. That is because information improves our decision making. Scientist can be highly moral people, but from where do they get their morality? What branch of science studies morals? There is a branch of science that does, but I am not aware of physics or math being a study in morality.

 

Psychology. Sociology. Biology.

 

What point are you making about physics and mathematics not studying morality?

[Realitycheck]

My mistake. I know what amoral means, but I was in a hurry I guess.

[keelanz]

Funny thing about discussion boards. Everything you post is up for discussion.

 

Psychology. Sociology. Biology.

 

What point are you making about physics and mathematics not studying morality?

 

ill make the point.

 

science is objective, its the difference between a theory and proving a theory is fact and hence having an opinion on a fact doesnt change the fact.

 

morals are subjective if not inter-subjective and therefore let it be known science(fact from theory) only adds to the information we have it doesnt necessarily sway the outcome, infact its because the facts dont sway our morals that they are opinion at all

 

2+3(or the scientific data about child growth) wont ever change the fact i wont let a baby growing in me be killed even before it has a nervous system and it never will, you can tell me about the nervous system causing pain or eating lamp being an appropriate analogy of our evils, the outcome for certain individuals wont change, morals > science > nature > god

 

Athena's point was that objectives have no place in certain subject's; and although science has new subject's the objective of that subject is subjective to itself and nothing else......?

 

also id like to add that god has no place in science but it has a place in our morals; morals arent made more objective with science they are perverted from the nature of themselves, point made?

 

How can you say that science is amoral? Some scientists are amoral, those that choose to be, half the time because the religious go out of their way to stigmatize them just because ages ago somebody declared that all information is evil just because much of it regarded things like magic which had no scientific basis whatsoever? There is scripture in the Bible which supports science. l am not going to track it down, but it is there. The Pope has been very supportive of science in the past few decades, following advances in abiogenesis/biogenesis. There is nothing wrong with information or knowledge. If everybody just stuck their heads in the sand and reproduced like rabbits, then the world would end much sooner than the next asteroid to come along and kill everything off. You should be thanking scientists, of every different type, for so many different things. I could care less for living in a tent. (She is in pain, so give her a break.)

 

Science is Amoral regardless of the scientist's, science itself in totality shows you how to make bombs and kill unborn baby's as much as it shows how to heal diseases and make life in general easier.

 

Picky, picky, picky I am going to nit pick here. Making an axe is not science, but technology. Using technology does not require science, which is abstract thinking dependent on theory. Egypt achieved a lot with technology, and then Greeks studied around the world, and developed the theories that separate science from technology.

 

maybe in greek times it wasnt classified as science but it doesnt change the fact that making a sword is defined in science, everything you need to understand the making of a sword can be explained in science, it may well be a technological advancement but technology can only be defined by science so i dont think my assertion that making a sword and making a gun are both scientific is false. if we use evolution as the base of science (a constantly changing framework of human understanding of the forces that be) then technology itself is scientific, ofcourse the evolution has a set of parameters by which that understanding is accepted it still wont change the fact that science is an evolutionary process of its own.

Edited May 8, 2011 by keelanz

[Marat]

Although science and morality are logically distinct, they do interact with and influence each other as historical processes. Thus the discovery of Darwinian evolution made many believers question whether humans were sufficiently special to be at the center of the universe, or ask at what stage of the evolution of humanity from its primate ancestors does the soul enter, or does it enter on a continuum, and these questions had a real effect in changing or undermining religious belief. Conversely, sometimes religion and morality can alter the real world course of science, such as when Bush refused federal funding to embryonic research. Rarely, religion can even alter scientific belief, such as when the Church suppressed Galileo's findings.

[Realitycheck]

People will fight regardless of science, since the dawn of time. Science is Amoral because it has no effect on morality. It's apples and oranges. Check your dictionary.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Realitycheck