Moontanman Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Yes. I am not aware of an outcry against scientific inquiry. Most everyone uses modern medicine, computers, and accept the discoveries of science. Not really true, or at least not true in the USA, a subset of Christianity called fundamentalism, often personified by evangelicals but also present in other sects of Christianity do indeed oppose modern science and adhere to a strictly absolute truth interpretation of the bible some even refuse medical treatments. A large percentage are pushing to have "Creation Science" taught in the classroom as reality. On the other hand a great many Christians do indeed go with the idea that the bible is really parables instead of absolute truth. It's a personal choice to use contraception. It's not a mandate made by the church. No, actually the idea of birth control not being a sin is quite recent, less than 100 years ago it was illegal and a sin, the Catholic church still says it's a sin. And some do not consider it a good idea. There are far more effective methods of population control. Ummm like what? Abstinence? Oral sex? Get real.... Religion in the US is in a huge battle to restrict even sex education to nothing but abstinence... I'm not inclined to put contraceptions on the same level as evolution and the big bang theory. It's just one more way to control people and their sex lives, i think basic human rights is indeed important... many people are totally unaware that Christianity was gelded by the enlightenment, and religion has been fighting tooth and toenail to get their testicles back and regain absolute control of the people ever since. What we see as the Christian religion today is afar cry from what it was before the enlightenment.
A Tripolation Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 I understand that you disagree, but I also don't think you're approaching this discussion in good faith. You're being obtuse about points which are pretty obvious. They are not obvious to me, else I would agree.
Appolinaria Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 I'm not as worried about an old man in a cape telling me not to have sex as I am with the corruption I see carried out right before my eyes by, for example, politicians.
A Tripolation Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Not really true, or at least not true in the USA, a subset of Christianity called fundamentalism, often personified by evangelicals but also present in other sects of Christianity do indeed oppose modern science and adhere to a strictly absolute truth interpretation of the bible some even refuse medical treatments. A large percentage are pushing to have "Creation Science" taught in the classroom as reality. On the other hand a great many Christians do indeed go with the idea that the bible is really parables instead of absolute truth. I like how you say "subset" and then proceed to write as if it is the majority of Christians. Maybe you do not know what that word means. No, actually the idea of birth control not being a sin is quite recent, less than 100 years ago it was illegal and a sin, the Catholic church still says it's a sin. What's your point? I just said it was a personal choice, which it is. Many catholics do not agree with the church's stance on contraceptives. Ummm like what? Abstinence? Oral sex? Get real.... Religion in the US is in a huge battle to restrict even sex education to nothing but abstinence... Abstinence is the best, yes. There is nothing that beats it. But more importantly, I was thinking about limiting children to two per household. Or procedures that make people unable to reproduce. That would do more than contraceptives. It would be better population control. It's just one more way to control people and their sex lives, i think basic human rights is indeed important Yes, I'm sure the catholic church (which isn't even the largest sect of Christianity in the US) are rubbing their mitts together with all of this power they are getting from people not using contraceptives. ... many people are totally unaware that Christianity was gelded by the enlightenment, and religion has been fighting tooth and toenail to get their testicles back and regain absolute control of the people ever since. What we see as the Christian religion today is afar cry from what it was before the enlightenment. Yes. Religions change and evolve. Thanks for agreeing with me. What were you hoping to prove with this?
njaohnt Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) I know that's what you believe, but there is zero evidence that an afterlife exists. Why should I bother with it? How is this comment from you any different than if I say, "If you don't believe that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns, you will burn for eternity?" It's not... Also, you say that if I'm not religious I will burn for eternity. What if I'm buddhist? That's a religion. What about muslims? That's a religion. What if I'm shinto, or jainist, or any of the countless other religions? I suspect you think they'll all burn for eternity, too, simply because they've been born in a different part of the world than you, and simply because they were raised with different parents with different beliefs. When viewed in this way, it becomes clear that it is completely silly, and that anyone with any degree of self-respect would reject it for the ridiculous nonsense it is. I wonder... Why would you intentionally choose to believe such a hateful set of fairy tales written thousands of years ago by some desert dwellers in the bronze age? You say the bible is absolute truth, but others say their holy books are absolute truths. Clearly, one or both of you are wrong. The logical position, I'm afraid to say, is that you are both quite wrong, and neither are absolute truths. Have you ever seen a list of the inconsistencies and falsehoods in the bible? There are quite a lot, and it's worth knowing about them before you surrender your freewill, your intellectual freedom, and your ability to reason like a mature human being. If you're going to subject yourself to the fictional writings of a death cult who is obsessed with the end of the world, childrens genitals, and the ability to eat fish on Fridays or wear clothes made of different threads... a cult who claims you're living under the control of a cosmic dictator who says you're born evil and must beg forgiveness simply for existing... a magic sky pixie who convicts you of thought crimes and is responsible for enormous violence and division amongst humanity... You ought to AT LEAST spend some time learning about the problems in your magical book to ensure it's worth it. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html What makes you think that I have not done this already, and as a result of that study found the christian set of beliefs to be absurd and a complete waste of my time? There is not zero evidence, there is lots of evidence the Bible. It's not proof, but it's good evidence, it's not the at all same as some story ' "If you don't believe that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns, you will burn for eternity?" ' that no one believes, and there actually is zero evidence of. You're right about burning for eternity if you're Buddhist or something like that. God makes everything fair, I don't know what He'll do with those people, but you've heard, many times, so if you don't change soon, you're going to burn for eternity. Bring oil, for the bridegroom is not coming until midnight, and we're not letting you in once the door is shut. Put your money to work, for your master is coming soon, so don't throw it in the ground! Be smart, don't be a goat. I also have a question for you, we're you ever a Christian? What makes me think that you haven't spent time think about religion? You're not a Christian, and if you think that Christianity is a waste of time, you haven't spent enough time. See what problems there are with my so called "magical book"? There are no problems with the book, and the things that don't make sense a miracles. Edited January 3, 2012 by njaohnt -1
A Tripolation Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 See what problems there are with my so called "magical book"? There are no problems with the book, and the things that don't make sense a miracles. This is off-topic, so I'll keep it to one quick example. The gospels cannot agree on how Judas died. That's a pretty glaring discrepancy.
Moontanman Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 I like how you say "subset" and then proceed to write as if it is the majority of Christians. Maybe you do not know what that word means. Um, a subset can be a majority, i suggest you look up the meaning of the word subset... What's your point? I just said it was a personal choice, which it is. Many catholics do not agree with the church's stance on contraceptives. They can disagree and be excommunicated too not to mention the whole burn in hell part as well... You cannot be a Catholic and use birth control other than abstinence and... wait they have a word for people who follow it.. I think they are called parents... Abstinence is the best, yes. There is nothing that beats it. Nothing that beats it? Was that meant to be funny? Abstinence is about as likely to be a successful form of birth control as holding your breath is successful to get your way, humans are going to have sex, you know it and I know it, preaching abstinence only is just silly. But more importantly, I was thinking about limiting children to two per household. Or procedures that make people unable to reproduce. That would do more than contraceptives. It would be better population control. Yes, if you could enforce it, forced abortion is about the only way to enforce that, good luck with that btw. Yes, I'm sure the catholic church (which isn't even the largest sect of Christianity in the US) are rubbing their mitts together with all of this power they are getting from people not using contraceptives. It seems pretty damn important to them, so important they tell third world cultures that condoms spread aids... Yes. Religions change and evolve. Thanks for agreeing with me. What were you hoping to prove with this? What I was trying to show is that religions change and evolve due to factors outside the religion, given the freedom to do so religion would be back torturing people for eating meat on Friday pretty quick, only secular laws prevent this. On the other hand the subset of Christians who are fundamentalists is smaller than the subset that is not fundamentalist but the fundamentalist movement is growing in both numbers and political power. That cannot be ignored... I'm not as worried about an old man in a cape telling me not to have sex as I am with the corruption I see carried out right before my eyes by, for example, politicians. I agree, except they are often the same people....
A Tripolation Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Um, a subset can be a majority, i suggest you look up the meaning of the word subset... Yes, you're right. I had a temporary lapse and was conflating the definition with something that meant a smaller-than-50%-portion. They can disagree and be excommunicated too not to mention the whole burn in hell part as well... You cannot be a Catholic and use birth control other than abstinence and... wait they have a word for people who follow it.. I think they are called parents... The Catholic church has deemed it a sin. That does not mean that the Catholics themselves follow it, nor does it mean that the other denominations of Christianity believe that it is a sin. There is no verse in the Bible pertaining to it. Nor does committing one sin send you to Hell for all of time. You do not know much about Christian doctrines. Abstinence is about as likely to be a successful form of birth control as holding your breath is successful to get your way, Please explain to me how not having intercourse is a bad way to avoid getting pregnant. I'd really love to hear it. humans are going to have sex, you know it and I know it, preaching abstinence only is just silly. I never said anything about preaching abstinence. You incorrectly inferred that. Yes, if you could enforce it, forced abortion is about the only way to enforce that, good luck with that btw. In what twisted world is limiting the children to two per household seen as forced abortion? After the second child, the parents would go through procedures to make them unable to have children. I'm not saying it's ethical or right, but it's a damn good way of controlling the human population, which we will need to do eventually. What I was trying to show is that religions change and evolve due to factors outside the religion, given the freedom to do so religion would be back torturing people for eating meat on Friday pretty quick, only secular laws prevent this. Pretty sure that most "secular" laws against murder and torture were against the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad as well. On the other hand the subset of Christians who are fundamentalists is smaller than the subset that is not fundamentalist but the fundamentalist movement is growing in both numbers and political power. That cannot be ignored... I'd like to see numbers that say this. I was under the impression that atheism was on the rise and belief in religion on the decline.
iNow Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Can you please give me an example of this? I am unaware of any. Stem cell research...
Moontanman Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 See what problems there are with my so called "magical book"? There are no problems with the book, and the things that don't make sense a miracles. What always amazes me is that the most religious read their holy book the least, the most they do is read cherry picked bits and pieces given to them by their religious leaders and fail to really read the book and what it says, it's a horrifying tail of a psychopathic god that demands murder, genocide, pillage, slavery, child molestation, and yes njaohnt, the bible does indeed say the earth is a flat disc covered by a crystal dome under water. The sun and the moon are just lights under the crystal dome, your ignorance of scripture is sadly not unique and most people do not even know the basics of the bible much less the details and when you try to tell them they stick their fingers in their ears and scream LA LA LA LA LA, willful stupidity is a very sad thing, I have a lot of respect for the many theists we have on this forum, I might disagree but at least we can agree on where our disagreements lie, you sir just don't care to see reality, fairy tales are more important to you and that is why you are not getting any respect on this site,... OH MY GOD, YOU'VE CONVINCED ME, I SEE THE LIGHT HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SO STUPID JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD... no wait, it was just a mini stroke... Good God man, if you are going to believe something at least know wtf you are believing....
iNow Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 You're right about burning for eternity if you're Buddhist or something like that. That's hateful, childish, and silly. I also have a question for you, we're you ever a Christian? Yes. What makes me think that you haven't spent time think about religion? You're not a Christian, and if you think that Christianity is a waste of time, you haven't spent enough time. It was my time actually thinking about it honestly that caused me to reject it. I know you struggle to understand this, but it's true. See what problems there are with my so called "magical book"? There are no problems with the book, and the things that don't make sense a miracles. Closing your eyes, covering your ears, and singing "lalalala I can't hear you" does not change any of the facts. . your ignorance of scripture is sadly not unique and most people do not even know the basics of the bible much less the details and when you try to tell them they stick their fingers in their ears and scream LA LA LA LA LA, willful stupidity is a very sad thing Lol... I hadn't yet read this post from you when I typed mine. But the rejection of evolution is enough to show why your point merits further consideration. Evolution is a "good idea," right? Indeed it is. And as far as I know, I accept it as fact. Along with the catholic church. And *most* Christians. If not religion, then what is the source of the countless people's rejection of evolution? Incidentally, this also addresses your question about the power of fundamentalists in the US: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9786-why-doesnt-america-believe-in-evolution.html The main opposition to evolution comes from fundamentalist Christians, who are much more abundant in the US than in Europe. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/02/11/gallup-darwins-birthday-poll-fewer-than-four-in-ten-believe-in-evolution Charles Darwin would have been 200 tomorrow, an event that Gallup is marking with a new poll showing that 39 percent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution. A quarter say they don't believe in evolution, and 36 percent say they have no opinion. The strongest predictor of respondents' views on evolution? Church attendance. In fact, Gallup's analysis says religiosity outweighs educational level in shaping views on evolution, even though those with the most education are far more likely to support evolution than those with the least. Just 21 percent of respondents who had up to a high school level of education believe in evolution, compared with 74 percent of those with postgraduate degrees. But Frank Newport, Gallup's editor in chief, says religion is the determining factor: Last time I checked, 39% did not amount to "most."
Moontanman Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Yes, you're right. I had a temporary lapse and was conflating the definition with something that meant a smaller-than-50%-portion. No problem dude, if all theists were like you i would not have any problems with them. The Catholic church has deemed it a sin. That does not mean that the Catholics themselves follow it, nor does it mean that the other denominations of Christianity believe that it is a sin. There is no verse in the Bible pertaining to it. Nor does committing one sin send you to Hell for all of time. You do not know much about Christian doctrines. Ok, i know that in the Catholic church you can't just decide not to follow the rules of the church, I know lots of Catholics, birth control is a big problem for them. while you are correct that right now, for most of the christian religion but not by a large majority, birth control for married people is not a problem. less than 100 years ago it was illegal for anyone to buy sell or posses a condom, even married people, such unnatural birth control was not only illegal but considered immoral. And i think you better check with your theist friends, committing one sin will indeed send you to hell if you do not ask for forgiveness and never do it again. Please explain to me how not having intercourse is a bad way to avoid getting pregnant. I'd really love to hear it. Honestly if I have to explain that we cannot possibly be on the same channel.... I never said anything about preaching abstinence. You incorrectly inferred that. In the US it is preached and in some states illegal to teach any other way of birth control, i was not suggesting you personally preached it. In what twisted world is limiting the children to two per household seen as forced abortion? After the second child, the parents would go through procedures to make them unable to have children. I'm not saying it's ethical or right, but it's a damn good way of controlling the human population, which we will need to do eventually. While I agree with you I know enough about human nature to know that would not fly... how about after a divorce, could a woman not have another child? the idea is a five gallon bucket full of worms, worms with dangerous bites... Pretty sure that most "secular" laws against murder and torture were against the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad as well. Tell it to the inquisition.... I'd like to see numbers that say this. I was under the impression that atheism was on the rise and belief in religion on the decline. It's quite possible for religious fundamentalism to be on the rise as atheism is on the rise as well. Atheists are still a small percentage of the population in the US, religious people are a much bigger part of the population than atheists and religious fundamentalism is a bigger portion of theists and much larger portion of the population than atheists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
iNow Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Can you please give me an example of this? I am unaware of any. The dark ages? The burning of Giordano Bruno? Galileo? What about this whole thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/34657-fear-of-western-medicine-claims-another-victim/
A Tripolation Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Stem cell research... Many people are opposed to this simply because of the nature of how the stem cell is obtained, even atheists. You cannot claim this as a solely religious issue. The dark ages? The burning of Giordano Bruno? Galileo? What about this whole thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/34657-fear-of-western-medicine-claims-another-victim/ Yes, medieval Christianity was quite terrible. But we're not speaking of that now, are we? That's the same as me claiming that science still says we are a heliocentric universe, or that the Kepler orbits are accurate and Mercury's preccesion orbit does not exist.
iNow Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Which is why I said MODERN Christianity. You mean, like current events such as these: http://ncse.com/
A Tripolation Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) No problem dude, if all theists were like you i would not have any problems with them. Many are. The sad fact is that it's only the screaming, hateful people that get heard from the most. Thank you for the kind words, though. Ok, i know that in the Catholic church you can't just decide not to follow the rules of the church, I know lots of Catholics, birth control is a big problem for them. while you are correct that right now, for most of the christian religion but not by a large majority, birth control for married people is not a problem. less than 100 years ago it was illegal for anyone to buy sell or posses a condom, even married people, such unnatural birth control was not only illegal but considered immoral. Exactly. Things are changing for the better. That is my entire point. And i think you better check with your theist friends, committing one sin will indeed send you to hell if you do not ask for forgiveness and never do it again. Actually, we're all born damned and then, upon receiving Jesus' grace, we become redeemed through Him. Honestly if I have to explain that we cannot possibly be on the same channel.... Abstinence is the best form of birth control. I don't see how anyone could dispute that. In the US it is preached and in some states illegal to teach any other way of birth control, i was not suggesting you personally preached it. I do not think it is illegal to do such a thing. But thanks for clarifying what you meant. Tell it to the inquisition.... As I stated with iNow, that's not a fair comparison. It's quite possible for religious fundamentalism to be on the rise as atheism is on the rise as well. Atheists are still a small percentage of the population in the US, religious people are a much bigger part of the population than atheists and religious fundamentalism is a bigger portion of theists and much larger portion of the population than atheists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism Ok, I see I was wrong about the statistics thank to yours and iNow's links. But that still does not falsify my position. You mean, like current events such as these: http://ncse.com/ ...well...dammit. I hadn't realized there was so much legislation over scientific fact. Anyways. I see that evolution is still heavily challenged. But what other "good ideas" are being oppressed by the religious? Edited January 3, 2012 by A Tripolation
iNow Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) Many people are opposed to this simply because of the nature of how the stem cell is obtained, even atheists. You cannot claim this as a solely religious issue. Not soley, just mostly. http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Religious-Groups-Official-Positions-on-Stem-Cell-Research.aspx Religious Groups' Official Positions on Stem Cell Research http://www.explorestemcells.co.uk/religion-adult-stem-cell-research.html It is generally cited in the scientific community that there is no substitute for embryonic stem cells and that adult stem cells simply don't hold the same potential as embryonic stem cells. These scientists also explain that the embryos were discarded ones that would serve a better purpose by being put to use to improve the health and lives of people suffering from devastating diseases such as diabetes and heart disease. Religious groups such as Catholics strongly disagree and support the view that life begins at conception. By this notion, any research on embryos is synonymous with murder. <...> The reality is still controversial as well because religious groups argue that adult stem cells are just as capable as embryonic stem cells. Recent years have shown increased funding from religious groups to adult stem cell research, with the hopes that greater interest in the use of adult stem cells will prompt reduced use of embryonic stem cells. While there has been a great deal of promising research into adult stem cells, including recent studies that suggested adult stem cells can be reprogrammed into embryonic-like cells, current knowledge still dictates that embryonic stem cells hold far more therapeutic potential. The debate over the use of embryonic stem cells does not appear to be fading anytime soon. As religious groups continue to push for the use of adult stem cells instead of embryonic ones, it may very well be that we find new potential and uses for adult stem cells. Until that time, however, embryonic stem cells continue to be the most promising stem cells but the surrounding ethical controversy may ultimately prevent the full harnessing of embryonic stem cell power. Abstinence is the best form of birth control. I don't see how anyone could dispute that. Your argument is that abstinence is 100% effective. Moontanman's argument is that abstinence fails more often than not since people give into their natural biological urges. http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/abstinence-only-education.html The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all support comprehensive sex education programs that encourage abstinence while also providing adolescents with information on how to protect themselves against sexually transmitted diseases.3 In fact, a recent systematic analysis of pregnancy prevention strategies for adolescents found that, far from reducing unwanted pregnancies, abstinence programs actually "may increase pregnancies in partners of male participants." . Out of curiosity, are there any number of examples which will cause you to concede the point that religion and religious beliefs often stand in the way of good ideas, progress, and quality care? You've been offered quite a number of examples, and instead of saying, "Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for," your replies have been mostly a bunch of nit picking and you obfuscating and dissembling. . I see that evolution is still heavily challenged. But what other "good ideas" are being oppressed by the religious? Did you check out this one? Basic medicine for easily treatable maladies like juvenile diabetes... That one especially sticks in my craw. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/34657-fear-of-western-medicine-claims-another-victim/ I know you'll likely think that these types of things don't reflect YOUR brand of religion, but they are reflective of MANY people's religious beliefs... and hence quite sufficiently address your request for examples. ...And just so you don't have to dig through the thread for it, there's this bit which is maybe most specifically relevant here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/us/21faith.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all About 300 children have died in the United States in the last 25 years after medical care was withheld on religious grounds, said Rita Swan, executive director of Children’s Health Care Is a Legal Duty, a group based in Iowa that advocates punishment for parents who do not seek medical help when their children need it. Edited January 3, 2012 by iNow
swansont Posted January 3, 2012 Author Posted January 3, 2012 It's a personal choice to use contraception. It's not a mandate made by the church. And some do not consider it a good idea. There are far more effective methods of population control. I'm not inclined to put contraceptions on the same level as evolution and the big bang theory. The Catholic church considers it a sin, and yet some people think it's a good idea. I don't see how this fails to fit the criteria. The Catholic church has deemed it a sin. That does not mean that the Catholics themselves follow it, nor does it mean that the other denominations of Christianity believe that it is a sin. There is no verse in the Bible pertaining to it. Nor does committing one sin send you to Hell for all of time. You do not know much about Christian doctrines. But that's precisely my point. The hierarchy has deemed it a sin — even though it is not in the Bible — which is an effort to exert control, and yet some of the followers deem it important enough to not follow the rule.
Phi for All Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 There is not zero evidence, there is lots of evidence the Bible. It's not proof, but it's good evidence, it's not the at all same as some story ' "If you don't believe that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns, you will burn for eternity?" ' that no one believes, and there actually is zero evidence of. You're right about burning for eternity if you're Buddhist or something like that. God makes everything fair, I don't know what He'll do with those people, but you've heard, many times, so if you don't change soon, you're going to burn for eternity. Bring oil, for the bridegroom is not coming until midnight, and we're not letting you in once the door is shut. Put your money to work, for your master is coming soon, so don't throw it in the ground! Be smart, don't be a goat. I also have a question for you, we're you ever a Christian? What makes me think that you haven't spent time think about religion? You're not a Christian, and if you think that Christianity is a waste of time, you haven't spent enough time. See what problems there are with my so called "magical book"? There are no problems with the book, and the things that don't make sense a miracles. ! Moderator Note This thread is about the correlation of religion with poverty. Assertions on the Bible's accuracy or "proof" of an afterlife are off-topic to this discussion. Feel free to start another thread, or if you wish, I can move this post to start such a thread. Please respect the topic and don't hijack it for other purposes. Response to this warning is unnecessary.
A Tripolation Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Not soley, just mostly. http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Religious-Groups-Official-Positions-on-Stem-Cell-Research.aspx ...uh huh. Reading through that, it seems that many are torn on the issue. And that others are ok with other types of stem cell research. Hardly the windfall you're making it out to be. And yes, I understand the difference between the two types of stem cells quite well. They are not opposing it on religious grounds. They are opposing it on ethical grounds. It's the same as if we were to start testing new drugs on people instead of animals. It would work out much better for discovery and research. But it would be much more unethical. The people opposing the stem cell research are the ones that consider an embryo life. I am well aware of your position on this issue, iNow, but if i recollect properly, there is no scientific or medical line at which we can define where humanity starts. Otherwise, there would not be an issue. I do not see this as a "religious issue". http://www.explorestemcells.co.uk/religion-adult-stem-cell-research.html Some of the more liberal religious groups take a somewhat relaxed approach to stem cell research and do support the use of embryonic stem cells. Others may support the use of embryonic stem cells but only when used under very tight, rigid parameters. And, once more, other non-religious people oppose it. I honestly have no idea why abortion/embryonic matters are attributed to religion. It plays no part in my decision. Your argument is that abstinence is 100% effective. Moontanman's argument is that abstinence fails more often than not since people give into their natural biological urges. Oh, I see what he's saying now. Thanks for clearing it up. Out of curiosity, are there any number of examples which will cause you to concede the point that religion and religious beliefs often stand in the way of good ideas, progress, and quality care? You've been offered quite a number of examples, and instead of saying, "Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for," your replies have been mostly a bunch of nit picking and you obfuscating and dissembling. I have been offered a grand total of three counter examples. Contraceptives, stem cell research, and evolution. The only one I can see as being impeded by religion is evolution and the teaching of it, because of pending legislation. As far as I know, there are still many successful contraceptive manufacturers. And stem cell research has not been brought to a halt because of the outcry of a few. I know you'll likely think that these types of things don't reflect YOUR brand of religion, but they are reflective of MANY people's religious beliefs... and hence quite sufficiently address your request for examples. ...And just so you don't have to dig through the thread for it, there's this bit which is maybe most specifically relevant here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/us/21faith.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all Yes, that's despicable, and they should be charged with murder. It was intentional. But I am asking for instances where religion inhibits good ideas as a whole. I accept that it is done with evolution. But I see no threat to contraceptives or stem cell research. Or even medicine. Most everyone actively seeks medical help in any situation. The Catholic church considers it a sin, and yet some people think it's a good idea. I don't see how this fails to fit the criteria. Because religion isn't hampering the contraceptives market. But that's precisely my point. The hierarchy has deemed it a sin — even though it is not in the Bible — which is an effort to exert control, and yet some of the followers deem it important enough to not follow the rule. I agree to this. But, honestly, what power are they getting from such a superfluous rule?
swansont Posted January 4, 2012 Author Posted January 4, 2012 Your argument is that abstinence is 100% effective. Moontanman's argument is that abstinence fails more often than not since people give into their natural biological urges. Actual abstinence is almost 100% effective (no Christian should be able to claim it's identically 100%). Teaching abstinence, on the other hand, is a huge failure. Because religion isn't hampering the contraceptives market. Specious reasoning. Not everyone is Catholic. Brewers and distillers do well, too, but that doesn't mean there are no teetotalers. I agree to this. But, honestly, what power are they getting from such a superfluous rule? Control. Believers — the God-fearing members of a religion — do what the church says.
iNow Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 I have been offered a grand total of three counter examples. And yet only one was required to satisfy the request you made. Shiny. Further, you have some incredibly narrow restrictions to minimize our chances of providing a reasonable reply, and yet reasonable replies have still been offered. "Modern" christianity? Really? Should I share data with you about the percentages of people who believe in anything BUT a modern version of religious woo. Let me ask you this way, as this gets to the heart of what I was saying before all the dissembling. Which of these two things is more likely to repress good ideas, and which is more likely to explore, enhance, and share them for maximal benefit? Religion or science? You know what? Never mind. I really don't even care at this point. Here's what I said that prompted this long circuitous path away from what we were actually talking about. I even said it in a positive way without bashing the religious, and I did so in context of freedom of inquiry and its impact on finances and economics: I agree that the relationship goes both ways, but the data is quite strong, too, that when a society is more secular, free, and open to scientific inquiry it tends to do better financially and economically. Good ideas are allowed to prosper without being batted down by powerful clergy. I'm sorry you find that so deeply troubling that you've chosen to battle over it for three pages now. It's quite simply true. ...it was scientific thinking which preceded and led to thriving democracies. It makes the case that democracy and science are symbiotic... and that it is the anti-authoritarian and egalitarian nature of science that leads to the most successful societies where citizens are educated and more often than not fed and and healthy. Further, these societies which are themselves stifled and have their progress retarded when free inquiry is thwarted. I think the scientific method is inherently dismissive of authority, quite anti-authoritarian actually. It relies on freedom to explore any idea, and requires authenticity and openness. It is itself a democratic process, wherein religion is often dictatorial and hierarchical... and even if it's not... it's most certainly not democratic and free. Belief in the manner prescribed by most religions (my point was not specific to christianity) reduces and minimizes that freedom of exploration... and requires followers to submit to specific rules, guidelines and alignment with a prescribed set of beliefs. It rejects ideas that conflict with scripture, and suppresses work that implies flaws or contradicts the preacher. Religion is anathema to the heart of science... Free inquiry and openness to any idea. As I said initially, too often religious leaders bat down that which reduces their power. There are numerous examples of this happening throughout history. 1
John Cuthber Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 "Abstinence is the best form of birth control. I don't see how anyone could dispute that. " No it isn't, because it doesn't let you screw. Other forms of contraception do let you have sex and, since screwing is fun, they are better. Of course, any form of homosexual sex has a very low risk of pregnancy too, but the Catholic church isn't happy with that either. Fussy aren't they. To get back to somewhere near the topic, is there a link between poverty and religion. If so is it a causal link and if so which way does the cause go? Does religion, by, for example, proscribing contraception and therefore ensuring that families have a lot of children who they might not be able to feed properly, promote poverty. Does the diversion of effort to things like maintaining a religious class (of priests etc and their associated buildings, servants etc) deprive people of the opportunity to provide for themselves? Does this promote poverty? Does the suppression of knowledge (as in the inquisition, the story of Galileo etc) hinder the development of an educated society and thus rob that society of the best means to progress? Does this promote poverty? Does religion promote the hatred of others simply because they subscribe to a different faith (or none), and does this lead to conflict and war which rob society of wealth ,safety, liberty and life?
iNow Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 The Catholic church has deemed it a sin. That does not mean that the Catholics themselves follow it, nor does it mean that the other denominations of Christianity believe that it is a sin. Returning a moment to the birth control discussion... It's hardly some "fringe view" like you're making it out to be, nor is there any other rational reason to oppose it other than religious belief and religion itself. In fact, the guy who was 8 votes away from coming in first and winning the Republican primary in Iowa last night... a guy who is very much a serious candidate and who has a terrifyingly real chance of being the next president of these United States if his current momentum continues and this rush of support for him doesn't soon subside... said this: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/03/396516/santorum-states-should-have-the-right-to-outlaw-birth-control/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter Santorum has long opposed the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling “that invalidated a Connecticut law banning contraception” and has also pledged to completely defund federal funding for contraception if elected president. As he told CaffeinatedThoughts.com editor Shane Vander Hart in October, “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay."
jryan Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) Religion is anathema to the heart of science... Free inquiry and openness to any idea. As I said initially, too often religious leaders bat down that which reduces their power. There are numerous examples of this happening throughout history. Are you genuinely unaware of these? This is simply false. Religion and Science are tools to explain two completely different aspects of human existence. Science seeks to explain the how while Religion seeks to explain the why. It has always seemed to me that using religion to explain the how and using science to dismiss the why are both misuses of the tools provided to you. Atheists simply argue there is no why. Also, the "numerous examples" throughout history that are used to prove your argument generally manage to accomplish this by ignoring some rather large and glaring faults in the example. Galileo, it is argued, was silenced by religion... yet Galileo remained a devout Catholic his whole life. Gregor Mendel, Isaac Newton, and on and on were religious people. The scientific discoveries of Western civilization survived the dark ages due to dedicated monastic efforts to protect and maintain the records in the face of a destructive barbaric occupation. The idea of religion holding back science as an argument for atheism is about as useful as an argument for ammorality as the only true path to scientific discovery. Edited January 4, 2012 by jryan
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now