Religion, Scripture and logical thinking

originally posted by: Seed76

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Seed76

You don't even know what the rulings were about or said. Try learning what they were about before inserting your foot in mouth.

And maybe you should learn not to be aggressive and rude to others that have different opinions. Anyway..Still doesnt change the fact that the Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for purposes of the First Amendment.

Whether or not someone interprets the said ruling as Atheism is a religion, its up to the person it self.

Peace

You are welcome to your opinion, but you opened yourself up when you tried to authoritatively assert that atheism is a religion based off of rulings that said no such thing.

As I said before if atheism is a religion then Christians must have several religions. One would be the belief in their deity and the other would be the lack of belief in other deities.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Seed76

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Seed76

You don't even know what the rulings were about or said. Try learning what they were about before inserting your foot in mouth.

And maybe you should learn not to be aggressive and rude to others that have different opinions. Anyway..Still doesnt change the fact that the Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for purposes of the First Amendment.

Whether or not someone interprets the said ruling as Atheism is a religion, its up to the person it self.

Peace

You are welcome to your opinion, but you opened yourself up when you tried to authoritatively assert that atheism is a religion based off of rulings that said no such thing.

As I said before if atheism is a religion then Christians must have several religions. One would be the belief in their deity and the other would be the lack of belief in other deities.

and that means that everyone who doesnt believe in zeus should get their own church. and everyone who doesnt believe in odin. and everyone who doesnt believe in osiris. and everyone who doesnt believe in vishnu. complete with the conventional tax reductions and/or exceptions. and the privilege of wearing silly pretentious garb. and taking sick days in honor of bogus historical events.

gee, we have all been missing out on the "its my religion" wagon.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Which you are apparently unaware of since you are pushing this falsehood. The Big Bang NEVER at ANY point says that something came from nothing. Before the Big Bang happened, the universe was compressed into a a singularity, meaning that it was everything. All the Big Bang is is a changing of states of the universe.

and how did that come about? again look at you , stating it as fact when you dont know that it is fact...and trying to talk down to me.....

Yes, strawmans do go against science. Care to talk about real science now and what the Big Bang Theory really says?

its not a straw man, the fact is whether you want to call it a singularity or whatever, where did IT COME FROM.....and how did it get to be there?

But please continue to talk down to me , I think its interesting to listen to people who talk about those who believe in religion, but then fail to see their own hypocrisy in how nasty they get with people who challenge THEIR own system of beliefs......

Irony

You brought up the Big Bang Theory and you were incorrect in what the theory actually states.

Krazysh0t corrected your false assumptions by saying that the BBT actually does not account for the origin of matter, it only accounts for the conversion of that matter into the universe as we currently know it.

This is the definition of a straw man argument:

A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument.[1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

Your argument was the literal definition of a straw man.

.........................................................................


Now that Krazysh0t corrected your assumptions about the BBT, you have clung to your original misinterpretation to say that if the BBT has no explanation for the origin of all matter in the universe, then god must have done it.

This is known as the "God of the Gaps" argument:

God-of-the-gaps arguments use gaps in scientific explanation as indicators, or even proof, of God's action and therefore of God's existence. Such arguments propose divine acts in place of natural, scientific causes for phenomena that science cannot yet explain.

Your proposal is that if science has not explained the origin of the matter composing the universe, then it must have come from god because "something can not come from nothing." The irony of your argument is that the same principle must then be applied to god as "he" surely could not have come from nothing. This leads us to an infinite loop of questions regarding the origins of things.

The biggest difference between science and religion is that science does not claim to have all the answers or demand that people follow its teachings to avoid eternal punishment. Science presents evidence for logical thinkers to digest and leaves open the possibility that future discoveries will alter currently held beliefs, as has happened numerous times throughout history. Scientists are hard at work every day to shatter what we think we know about nature.

Religion claims to be infallible and demands that people take it at its word without questioning the many logical inconsistencies. Science does not.

originally posted by: Answer

The biggest difference between science and religion is that science does not claim to have all the answers or demand that people follow its teachings to avoid eternal punishment. Science presents evidence for logical thinkers to digest and leaves open the possibility that future discoveries will alter currently held beliefs, as has happened numerous times throughout history. Scientists are hard at work every day to shatter what we think we know about nature.

Religion claims to be infallible and demands that people take it at its word without questioning the many logical inconsistencies. Science does not.

I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as "science" or "religion," as you are using them. There are theological systems, the scientific method, and scientists and religious people and theologians, but "science" is a discipline and "religion" is a category. They are both inanimate and say nothing. Religious people and scientists say things.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: Answer

The biggest difference between science and religion is that science does not claim to have all the answers or demand that people follow its teachings to avoid eternal punishment. Science presents evidence for logical thinkers to digest and leaves open the possibility that future discoveries will alter currently held beliefs, as has happened numerous times throughout history. Scientists are hard at work every day to shatter what we think we know about nature.

Religion claims to be infallible and demands that people take it at its word without questioning the many logical inconsistencies. Science does not.

I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as "science" or "religion," as you are using them. There are theological systems, the scientific method, and scientists and religious people and theologians, but "science" is a discipline and "religion" is a category. They are both inanimate and say nothing. Religious people and scientists say things.

Or one could simply say I was simplifying the concepts for the sake of easier reading instead of picking nits.

If that's genuinely the only argument you can make about my points, it's very telling.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Seed76

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Seed76

You don't even know what the rulings were about or said. Try learning what they were about before inserting your foot in mouth.

And maybe you should learn not to be aggressive and rude to others that have different opinions. Anyway..Still doesnt change the fact that the Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for purposes of the First Amendment.

Whether or not someone interprets the said ruling as Atheism is a religion, its up to the person it self.

Peace

You are welcome to your opinion, but you opened yourself up when you tried to authoritatively assert that atheism is a religion based off of rulings that said no such thing.

As I said before if atheism is a religion then Christians must have several religions. One would be the belief in their deity and the other would be the lack of belief in other deities.

and that means that everyone who doesnt believe in zeus should get their own church. and everyone who doesnt believe in odin. and everyone who doesnt believe in osiris. and everyone who doesnt believe in vishnu. complete with the conventional tax reductions and/or exceptions. and the privilege of wearing silly pretentious garb. and taking sick days in honor of bogus historical events.

gee, we have all been missing out on the "its my religion" wagon.

If the pastors of those churches are paid as handsomely as the Christian mega-church pastors in my area, I know my new career path.

a reply to: Answer

It doesnt matter how you look at it.........

How did it GET THERE.........how did it come ABOUT.......everything must have a source

the THEORY of the big bang is just that a THEORY........

So many theories touted as fact, and every year somethign comes out that says its wrong........

The only FACT is , science doesnt have all the answers people like to think it does........

I believe in science , of course.........

But I also am aware like many other intelligent people out there, that science cannot account for everything........at least not yet

So people sitting around poo pooing people of faith based on their faith in science are hypocrites

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Answer

It doesnt matter how you look at it.........

How did it GET THERE.........how did it come ABOUT.......everything must have a source

i suppose you will have to wait for the answer along with us...as well as the people who are paid to find it.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Answer

It doesnt matter how you look at it.........

How did it GET THERE.........how did it come ABOUT.......everything must have a source

i suppose you will have to wait for the answer along with us...as well as the people who are paid to find it.

probably wont come about in my life time, but its a mystery that will be awesome to have an answer to!

Since you ignored my follow up post, I'll just respond to the poster who also addressed your comments to me.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Answer

It doesnt matter how you look at it.........

How did it GET THERE.........how did it come ABOUT.......everything must have a source

You don't know that. It could have existed forever for all you know.

the THEORY of the big bang is just that a THEORY........

Wow... Did you really just go there? Theory (Scientific vs layman’s definition)

Do you even care about denying ignorance?

So many theories touted as fact, and every year somethign comes out that says its wrong........

Every year theories are disproven? Where are your sources for this? Every year certainly things in the theories may be tweaked and changed but there hasn't been a single VALID Scientific theory that has been debunked in a LONG time.

The only FACT is , science doesnt have all the answers people like to think it does........

No one thinks it has all the answer. It only has the answers to things it can answer with the given evidence. YOU are the one trying to demand additional answers out of the theories with your questions like, "What was before the Big Bang?" "How did it start?" etc.

I believe in science , of course.........

But I also am aware like many other intelligent people out there, that science cannot account for everything........at least not yet

The things it can't account for we say "I don't know". We don't make up guesses (like religion) for those blanks. In other words, agnosticism (not atheism).

So people sitting around poo pooing people of faith based on their faith in science are hypocrites

Yeah no, not even a close comparison. By the way, your usage of ellipses is annoying. It is supposed to only be three periods and you aren't supposed to end every paragraph with one.

originally posted by: Answer

Or one could simply say I was simplifying the concepts for the sake of easier reading instead of picking nits.

If that's genuinely the only argument you can make about my points, it's very telling.

I haven't even been following the argument train, to be honest

I just dislike it when people make such broad, generalizing points that obscure their real arguments (or, more likely, lack thereof) by boxing all of one type of people into one box and then appealing to a nonexistent authority (in this case, "science") to back up their claims. This is done all the time, by people on all sides, and I'm sure I've done it myself.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Answer

It doesnt matter how you look at it.........

How did it GET THERE.........how did it come ABOUT.......everything must have a source

the THEORY of the big bang is just that a THEORY........

So many theories touted as fact, and every year somethign comes out that says its wrong........

The only FACT is , science doesnt have all the answers people like to think it does........

I believe in science , of course.........

But I also am aware like many other intelligent people out there, that science cannot account for everything........at least not yet

So people sitting around poo pooing people of faith based on their faith in science are hypocrites

Everything that you just said was addressed in my post. No one thinks that science has all the answers... the only people making that claim are religious folks in their arguments against it. You're guilty of another straw man.

I also addressed your claim that "everything must have a source." What, then, is the source of god?

You also go on to present yet another straw man argument against scientific theory... one that has been done to death by religious folks in their attempt to discredit science. This, as defined in my previous post, is a straw man because you do not understand the definition of a scientific theory but you use your own misunderstanding to discredit it. Scientific theory:

According to the National Academies of Sciences, "some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena".

People who don't understand this distinction sometimes dismiss ideas saying "it's just a theory" (this is very commonly used to suggest that evolution is just speculation, for example). But, when scientists speak of the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution, they don't mean that these are random untested ideas that someone came up with after too many beers.

The AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science), the world's largest scientific society, has this explanation of what scientists mean when they use the word "theory":
" A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

You are doing yourself a disservice by continuously posting straw man arguments and exposing how little you understand about the points being made by others. No one here is trying to explain the source of all matter in the universe but you continue to attack that angle as though someone is using the Big Bang Theory to disprove god.

Scientists do not seek to disprove god. Scientists seek to understand nature. It's only coincidence that every new scientific discovery chips away at the mystery of the universe that some use as justification for a divine creator. This is why the "God of the Gaps" argument is a terrible way to justify the existence of a god. Every new discovery discredits your belief when it's based on something so fragile.

originally posted by: Answer

The biggest difference between science and religion is that science does not claim to have all the answers or demand that people follow its teachings to avoid eternal punishment. Science presents evidence for logical thinkers to digest and leaves open the possibility that future discoveries will alter currently held beliefs, as has happened numerous times throughout history. Scientists are hard at work every day to shatter what we think we know about nature.

If that were true, then science wouldn't stagnate under taboo... until funerals allow it to advance. But it does.

Religion claims to be infallible and demands that people take it at its word without questioning the many logical inconsistencies. Science does not.

If that were true, then world religion and myth wouldn't evolve over time, but it does. It's a single unit. Like an organism changing shape.

Religions are informed by mysticism, and many or most mystics will tell you not to take without questioning. On the contrary, you can test the empirical claims of mystics by practicing your own discipline of meditation. Sam Harris calls it, 'building your own telescope'.

Or one could simply say I was simplifying the concepts for the sake of easier reading instead of picking nits.

What if those concepts meet in the middle? Or *gasp* overlap..?

👣

originally posted by: BlueMule

Religion claims to be infallible and demands that people take it at its word without questioning the many logical inconsistencies. Science does not.

If that were true, then world religion and myth wouldn't evolve over time, but it does. It's a single unit. Like an organism changing shape.

Religions are informed by mysticism, and many or most mystics will tell you not to take without questioning. On the contrary, you can test the empirical claims of mystics by practicing your own discipline of meditation. Sam Harris calls it, 'building your own telescope'.

Or one could simply say I was simplifying the concepts for the sake of easier reading instead of picking nits.

What if those concepts meet in the middle? Or *gasp* overlap..?

👣

We are referring to different sects of religion.

You and I both know that the majority of religious followers are not influenced by mysticism. Your statements are certainly true of Hindu and Buddhist followers... two religions that I have immense respect for because followers are encouraged to seek their own answers. The followers of those religions also do not typically have a negative view of scientific research.

I meditate and seek my own answers about the spiritual world. I let scientists and logic explain the rest.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Seed76

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Seed76

You don't even know what the rulings were about or said. Try learning what they were about before inserting your foot in mouth.

And maybe you should learn not to be aggressive and rude to others that have different opinions. Anyway..Still doesnt change the fact that the Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for purposes of the First Amendment.

Whether or not someone interprets the said ruling as Atheism is a religion, its up to the person it self.

Peace

You are welcome to your opinion, but you opened yourself up when you tried to authoritatively assert that atheism is a religion based off of rulings that said no such thing.

As I said before if atheism is a religion then Christians must have several religions. One would be the belief in their deity and the other would be the lack of belief in other deities.

and that means that everyone who doesnt believe in zeus should get their own church. and everyone who doesnt believe in odin. and everyone who doesnt believe in osiris. and everyone who doesnt believe in vishnu. complete with the conventional tax reductions and/or exceptions. and the privilege of wearing silly pretentious garb. and taking sick days in honor of bogus historical events.


gee, we have all been missing out on the "its my religion" wagon.

To be a religion there isn't a requirement for a church and just because a group has a church doesn't make it a religion or else cults wouldn't be cults instead they would be bonifide religions. Any group of people with like beliefs can form a church so if a group wanted to they could form a church based on the non-belief in Vishnu, Osiris, Odin or Zeus.

I know, I find it funny as well.

a reply to: BlueMule

meditation is not nearly as reliable as scientific investigation.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: BlueMule

meditation is not nearly as reliable as scientific investigation.

In defense of BlueMule, I believe he is referring to the use of meditation to seek answers about the spiritual world.

originally posted by: Answer

We are referring to different sects of religion.

You and I both know that the majority of religious followers are not influenced by mysticism.

Yes they are, whether they realize it or not. For example, the story of Jesus is the story of every mystic achieving unity with the Divine. The skeletal structure of that process can be found throughout world religion and myth. It just changes skin as culture changes. And hopefully, more transparent to the transcendent than earlier iterations.

Your statements are certainly true of Hindu and Buddhist followers... two religions that I have immense respect for because followers are encouraged to seek their own answers. The followers of those religions also do not typically have a negative view of scientific research.

Yeah, but science is stagnating under a taboo against parapsychology. So it can't accept the very simple fact that meditative disciplines augment our innate psychic ability. It can't handle the fact that the monks, such as the Dalai Lama, are psychic because their mystical disciplines have made their minds strong.

The kind of parapsychological effects I'm talking about is the very "Other" that forms the backdrop against which science paints its very identity. In bright shining lights and glory.

When the evidence for psi becomes so overwhelming that science must examine its own identity, what will happen? A scientific revolution.

👣

originally posted by: BlueMule


Yeah, but science is stagnating under a taboo against parapsychology. So it can't accept the very simple fact that meditative disciplines augment our innate psychic ability. It can't handle the fact that the monks, such as the Dalai Lama, are psychic because their mystical disciplines have made their minds strong.

The kind of parapsychological effects I'm talking about is the very "Other" that forms the backdrop against which science paints its very identity. In bright shining lights and glory.

When the evidence for psi becomes so overwhelming that science must examine its own identity, what will happen? A scientific revolution.

👣

I look forward to that scientific revolution because I do believe in much of what you're saying and have experienced it myself. The biggest problem is presenting those things in an observable, repeatable, testable manner that is acceptable for scientific research.

There are many steps being made in the right direction with the study of the brain, consciousness, interconnectedness, etc. but the research is in its infancy.

Eventually, the study of consciousness and the field of quantum physics will begin to overlap and some very interesting theories will emerge.

originally posted by: Akragon
Well... only Christians call Atheism a religion... even though its obviously not...

I think they only do it as an attempt at insulting Atheists though

I'm a Christian and I don't.

You shouldn't paint with such a huge brush my friend.