Religious Attitude and Scientific Temper !

[Commander]

Why do I get into more arguments and difference of Opinions when I am less Faithful in Religion and more bent towards Scientific Truth !

 

Ever since I joined this Forum and started interacting about Scientific Truth and Philosophies I find myself less interested in hobbies and pastimes and social functions.

 

In my mind scientific thoughts and innovations go on and perhaps shows in my moods and reactions.

 

Perhaps my real self with a scientific temper is being honed and shows up.

 

The main benefit of Religious Faith perhaps is the Spirituality and calmness of behavior while being heated up through physical stress and pressure of the arguments.

 

In my personal experience I have found myself to be either in the faithful mode or in the scientific mode exhibiting different reactions at different times / phases.

 

I believe the main reason why MAN needs Religion is to gain that composure in practical life if not anything else.

 

Perhaps what is given in 1 Corr : 13 about Love / Charity and the fact that Love is more important than Faith or Hope is a very needed lesson to be embedded in a Human heart while arguing with Close Relatives, Friends and even Enemies.

 

Whether it is inter-personal conflicts or Scientific Arguments one can do better if an approach with the right Spirituality , Composure , Faith and Charity is shown rather than a mere dog-fight about Laws and Principles !

 

It is very hard to adopt both at the same time !

[Strange]

Why do I get into more arguments and difference of Opinions when I am less Faithful in Religion and more bent towards Scientific Truth !

 

Because you reject evidence and theory in favour of personal opinion and imagination.

[ajb]

The main benefit of Religious Faith perhaps is the Spirituality and calmness of behavior while being heated up through physical stress and pressure of the arguments.

I am going to stop you there and reference the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

[Strange]

I am going to stop you there and reference the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

 

And Northern Ireland (in the past, mainly).

And Israel-Palestine.

And Boko-Haram in Nigeria.

 

All great examples of spirituality and calmness. Which all comes back to favouring personal opinion and imagination.

[ajb]

All great examples of spirituality and calmness.

These are all great examples, and I am sure we could go on all day.

 

So, it maybe the case that religion calms some people down, but no way can this be a general statement about all people!

[John Cuthber]

"Why do I get into more arguments and difference of Opinions when I am less Faithful in Religion and more bent towards Scientific Truth !"

Because you voice opinions that are clearly wrong.

For example, you say "I believe the main reason why MAN needs Religion is to gain that composure in practical life if not anything else"

When it is clearly not true.

Many people on this site are calm and composed without religion.

 

Do you understand why you would get into a lot of arguments if you posted things like "I think all fish can fly" or "I believe cars would work better if they had square wheels"?

Saying things like that , which are obviously wrong, is going to start an argument.

It's just the same when you say "I believe the main reason why MAN needs Religion..."

Man does not need religion. Plenty of us get by without it.

And, as has been pointed out before, it kills lots of people.

[John Cuthber]

And, once again, you are ignoring the evidence.

You say

"And then recount all the great miracles God has done in your own life saving your self and children etc from grave danger etc."

Well, if there is any truth in that then it is equally true that God put me in that danger in the first place.

Why do you thank God for giving you a faulty heart in the first place?

Why don't you understand that you survived, not through the grace of God, but because of the scientific competence of human doctors? .

 

More importantly it has nothing to do with the point I raised.

You stated a belief that isn't true and seemed surprised when people argued.

 

You keep starting arguments by saying things that are not true.

Don't you understand that?

Also, if you ignore the points people raise then you will start other arguments about your misbehaviour.

Edited February 14, 2015 by John Cuthber

[Commander]

And, once again, you are ignoring the evidence.

You say

"And then recount all the great miracles God has done in your own life saving your self and children etc from grave danger etc."

Well, if there is any truth in that then it is equally true that God put me in that danger in the first place.

Why do you thank God for giving you a faulty heart in the first place?

Why don't you understand that you survived, not through the grace of God, but because of the scientific competence of human doctors? .

 

More importantly it has nothing to do with the point I raised.

You stated a belief that isn't true and seemed surprised when people argued.

 

You keep starting arguments by saying things that are not true.

Don't you understand that?

Also, if you ignore the points people raise then you will start other arguments about your misbehaviour.

 

What is TRUE is that you have not understood what I am trying to say.

 

All I have tried to say in this thread is that I find my behavior and resultant reaction by others is different if I am in a Faithful mode or in a Scientific Mode / Mood.

 

It is a statement I HAVE MADE ABOUT MYSELF and therefore it is always true and there is no debate about its veracity.

 

If you know any truth tell me what you know with evidence.

 

Do not assume that you know truth and others don't know anything.

 

The Truth is currently we know nothing about anything but claim we know it all ! Here I am talking about Science Cosmos etc.

 

You don't know what is matter, what is energy, what is gravity or what is Universe etc.

 

Just peddling equations and Models and surmises are not enough !

[Strange]

 

The Truth is currently we know nothing about anything but claim we know it all ! Here I am talking about Science Cosmos etc

 

The truth is, we know quite a lot and never claim we know everything.

 

The trouble is you make claims like "the big bang is wrong" then when things are explained and evidence presented you appear to accept it. And then a few days later you start another thread saying "the big bang is wrong".

 

You have done this at least three times. And you wonder why people are hostile?

 

How about, instead, using your God-given brain to learn something about the subject.

[John Cuthber]

Commander,

Deleting your entire post when someone points out the problems in it look as if you are being dishonest.

 

Anyway, what I said was not that your statement about you belief was false.

What I said was that what you believe is plainly wrong.

 

I don't doubt that you believe that "the main reason why MAN needs Religion is ..."

But, just because you think it is true, doesn't not stop it being plainly false.

It is plainly not true that man needs religion for any reason.

Because man does not need religion. because plenty of us get by without it.

Do you understand that?

 

It's like saying "I believe mankind needs internet access so they can watch music videos".

It's obvious that the belief is wrong.

Mankind doesn't need internet access- lots of people who do not have access to the web are doing fine, and a hundred years ago, nobody had access to it.

 

And, incidentally you said

"Why do I get into more arguments and difference of Opinions when...?"

Which is asking a question.

 

So this bit simply isn't true

"All I have tried to say in this thread is that I find my behavior and resultant reaction by others is different if I am in a Faithful mode or in a Scientific Mode / Mood.

It is a statement I HAVE MADE ABOUT MYSELF and therefore it is always true and there is no debate about its veracity."

It was not a statement but a request for an explanation.

When that explanation was given, you ignored it, and talked about something else.

then, when i pointed out that you were wrong and that your post was irrelevant, you pretended you never said it by deleting it.

After that, you came back and said things that just are not true.

Are you surprised that you get arguments?

[Commander]

 

The truth is, we know quite a lot and never claim we know everything.

 

The trouble is you make claims like "the big bang is wrong" then when things are explained and evidence presented you appear to accept it. And then a few days later you start another thread saying "the big bang is wrong".

 

You have done this at least three times. And you wonder why people are hostile?

 

How about, instead, using your God-given brain to learn something about the subject.

 

I wrote something but lost it as computer froze and won't bother to rewrite all that again.

 

You have misunderstood my post here [my first in the Religion thread]

 

What I said here has no connection with my Science Thread posts to start with.

 

I was not talking about the arguments here but in my real life and Bridge Game etc.

 

Though I don't think i enjoy any negative clicks I receive.

 

I know I am unnecessarily wasting my efforts trying to discuss / propose my views here instead of publishing on a suitable Journal but nothing can be done about it now.

Edited February 14, 2015 by Commander

[dimreepr]

The onus of understanding is the communicator’s responsibility.

[Commander]

Commander,

Deleting your entire post when someone points out the problems in it look as if you are being dishonest.

 

Anyway, what I said was not that your statement about you belief was false.

What I said was that what you believe is plainly wrong.

 

I don't doubt that you believe that "the main reason why MAN needs Religion is ..."

But, just because you think it is true, doesn't not stop it being plainly false.

It is plainly not true that man needs religion for any reason.

Because man does not need religion. because plenty of us get by without it.

Do you understand that?

 

It's like saying "I believe mankind needs internet access so they can watch music videos".

It's obvious that the belief is wrong.

Mankind doesn't need internet access- lots of people who do not have access to the web are doing fine, and a hundred years ago, nobody had access to it.

 

And, incidentally you said

"Why do I get into more arguments and difference of Opinions when...?"

Which is asking a question.

 

So this bit simply isn't true

"All I have tried to say in this thread is that I find my behavior and resultant reaction by others is different if I am in a Faithful mode or in a Scientific Mode / Mood.

It is a statement I HAVE MADE ABOUT MYSELF and therefore it is always true and there is no debate about its veracity."

It was not a statement but a request for an explanation.

When that explanation was given, you ignored it, and talked about something else.

then, when i pointed out that you were wrong and that your post was irrelevant, you pretended you never said it by deleting it.

After that, you came back and said things that just are not true.

Are you surprised that you get arguments?

 

John Cuthber :

 

Hi, thanks for all the response.

 

I can not react to every line and points of the replies due to paucity of time and efforts.

 

Therefore there are many open ends in many of my threads.

 

However as you have pointed out I do add up some more stuff with the intention of elaborating and being more truthful and honest and this effort has now earned me a dishonest tag as I have deleted it.

 

I thought that the additional info is doing no good to explain the point better [contrary to my aim] and therefore deserves to be deleted.

 

One important thing I must tell you is that the arguments I was referring to are not the ones happening in this forum as I have explained to Strange.

 

Regards

[Finding the Elephant]

I have to say, as having been both a theist and an atheist in the past, today I find myself being more religious around smug intolerant atheists and more of an atheist around fanatical intolerant theists. There must be some sane ground between Richard Dawkins and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIL, surely. Or is it just these extremists who get all the press?

Edited February 28, 2015 by Finding the Elephant

[ajb]

There must be some sane ground between Richard Dawkins and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIL, surely.

Agnostic maybe?

 

It seems quite sane; someone has asked a question that appears to have no answer and so there is no way of deciding. You might as well just live a good life and not worry about this.

[John Cuthber]

There must be some sane ground between Richard Dawkins and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIL, surely. Or is it just these extremists who get all the press?

ISIL kill people for no valid reason.

Dawkins does not.

Why assume that both are insane?

[Robittybob1]

ISIL kill people for no valid reason.

Dawkins does not.

Why assume that both are insane?

He didn't say that really.

[dimreepr]

He didn't say that really.

 

 

He did:

 

“There must be some sane ground between Richard Dawkins and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi”

 

 

 

Edit/ It doesn’t just imply insanity; it establishes the parameters of sanity.

Edited February 28, 2015 by dimreepr

[Robittybob1]

 

 

He did:

 

“There must be some sane ground between Richard Dawkins and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi”

 

 

 

Edit/ It doesn’t just imply insanity; it establishes the parameters of insanity.

I read that as they might be the extremes of sanity, but is there sane ground in between?

[dimreepr]

I read that as they might be the extremes of sanity, but is there sane ground in between?

 

 

 

Sorry, that was meant to read “it establishes the parameters of sanity” (since rectified) but either way the implication is clear since Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi clearly displays “a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioural patterns.”

[Robittybob1]

 

 

 

Sorry, that was meant to read “it establishes the parameters of sanity” (since rectified) but either way the implication is clear since Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi clearly displays “a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioural patterns.”

Why do you think Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi "clearly displays" insanity? Did your link prove that connection?