He wasn't doing his job as a result of his beliefs, so they decided it wouldn't
be good to have him on the project. If someone refuses to do their job, they can
be fired for that. It's like hiring a history teacher who refuses to teach about
the Holocaust at all, but will teach anything else, because they believe the
Holocaust never happened. If this guy did his job regardless of his beliefs, he
wouldn't have had to stop working there just as a history teacher who doesn't
believe in the Holocaust could keep teaching history if they did their job in
full anyway.
Quote by ZGMF-XScience and religion
actually complement each other as their are areas in science where we just can't
find a reason for except attributing it to some kind of almighty power out
there. So they're both just as important.
Or, you know, if we just don't know something we can admit we don't know instead
of attributing everything we don't know (yet) to some sort of god(s). People
three thousand years ago couldn't explain things like volcano eruptions any way
other than it being the wrath of their god who wanted humans sacrifices or
something, for example. By your logic, that belief was justified as we didn't
have any idea how volcanoes worked and the only explanation seemed to be the
intervention of some sort of god.
Quote by mountainOne of the major
problems is that fact that many people are just taught/
brainwashed in school that evolution is a fact when it is
not.
So teaching people about the scientific evidence that has accumulated for
decades that supports evolution is brainwashing, but having parents take vows to
raise their children with a belief system that encourages unquestioning
obedience and faith towards an entity whose even existence is dubious at best
isn't?
Quote by priincesso. 0 wut r u guys
talkin about..
Quote: I think science beacuse it
is based on logic and other science stuff i dont understand
yeah science is important for the scientists n religion is important for someone
who believe in God. but God only asking for ur faith in ur life, n He'll choose
us based from how big our faith is. the result is important but the most
important is the proccess.
Dan Barker said it best: "Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can
accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken
on its own merits."
Kingray100, you seem to have issues with Wikipedia and I don't know why. If
there's a specific, relevant example in any of the articles from Wikipedia I've
posted that you dispute the accuracy of, please tell me. Wikipedia's article,
especially the very popular ones like the one on Earth or the American
Revolution, tend to be very, very accurate from my experience. While it is
generally a bad idea to cite it in school assignment as teachers tend to look
for scholarly sources, this isn't a school assignment and as long as it has
(mostly, if not entirely) valid information, I don't see why you'd object other
than because you're annoying.
Quote by kingray100what i think is sad
is how you waste time insulting me and not talking about the point of the
thread.wise up and tell me your side of the argument,unless you've spent all of
your resources.
Spent my resources? Huh? It's just that you seem so incapable of understanding
anything that I've pretty much given up. For example, you made the mistake
(again) of claiming a group isn't Christian when any fair definition of
Christianity would include them. Catholicism has been the most dominant branch
of Christianity for hundreds of years, so it's pretty inconceivable that you
could say it isn't a part of Christianity. While I won't say that non-Christians
understand things better than Christians, I will say you've got some issues when
it comes to the idea of sets and subsets.
Wikipedia has a good article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset
I don't expect you to read all of it. Looking at that picture on the right of
the page should be enough. If B represents Catholics and A represents
Christians, then Catholics are Christians and Catholics. However, Christians
aren't necessarily Catholics as there are Christians both in and not in
B.
merged: 10-21-2007 ~ 02:35pm
Now that I've said that, I agree. Let's get back on topic.
Just to start off, what contributions has religion made that have contributed to
the human condition that could not have plausibly been achieved through other
means? I can think of many scientific things, but nothing religious comes to
mind other than people who try to encourage equality and human rights as a
result of their religious beliefs (hence "could not have plausibly been
achieved through other means").
Quote by moonlight-27Ok i deff pick
Religion over Science without god there would b nothing that means we wouldnt
have technonology and i wanna see it more advanced but its also kinda ruined
this world i blame the freaking devil for gambling, ciggerates, alcohol, mis-use
of sex and more because all that has lead to millions of families being messed
up with affairs and that kind of stuff but heck i shouldnt b talking ive done
lots of bad/wrong stuff myself that im not proud of and no one is perfect i just
wish there werent wars and the stuff i said cuz then people would b nicer and
technonology/science has helped alot but so can god if u beileve in
him
That was the third or fourth strangest post I've seen all day. Maybe you should
look it over to see what's wrong with it. Thanks.
Quote by EternalParadoxI had
originally wrote my first Catholicism post without denoting it as satire. This
being the internet, however, prudence led me to exercise caution. Clearly, even
such efforts is not enough at times.
Maybe you should have put a hyperlink to the entry on Dictionary.com or
something so Kingray100 wouldn't even have to look up the word satire himself,
which he shouldn't have to in the first place. It's not like the word is that
uncommon.
Quote by kiopiUnless Mary is capable of
asexual reproduction like a frog, the human body is not capable of reproduction
without the contribution of genes from the other sex. Claims of giving birth
without having any sex would be mere groundless claims at most as nature's law
of birth for humans holds true for all living beings and no one is exempted from
it.
That is if you discount human-amphibian humanoid hybrid (i.e.
mutants)
The Holy Ghost impregnated Mary, so technically she's not a virgin and neither
is God I guess. I wonder if that counts as adultery too...
I've noticed something interesting. Kingray100 was not able to understand the
purpose of a hypothetical situation that I posted earlier on and now he is
unable to understand that something is satire, even when it is explicitly stated
as such (which shouldn't even be necessary). That's kind of sad.
Quote by priincessREAD FIRST, n u'll
understand, dont complain..u're just too lazy to read
Instead of telling people to read hundreds of pages for no good reason, you may
want to explain what about the Bible is convincing.
Quote by priincessit wasnt me who
though bout america n chinese, but Socrates did. he said that if u want to know
bout knowledges,system, data/files, etc... u can go to America, spirits n faith
in chinese, n perfection in swiss, genova.
Let's just make this clear: Are you saying that Socrates said that if you want
to learn, you can go to America?
Quote: Feelings is directly from
the brain...not heart....
if u were hurted by someone, u'll feel the pain inside ur heart, not brain.
So, because you feel pain in your heart (never mind the validity of that
statement), the heart causes your feelings? You really need to learn a bit about
how humans function.
Quote: And you think how are the
animals are guided by god?
did i think bout that...?
Quote: if everybody had the belief
that fortune and economic success was based on "faith", we'd all be
bankrupt.
actually u know nothing bout faith. faith is
belief, example: if a man goes to work by car, n he believes that he'll arrive
in his office ontime, it means he has a faith of it.
The way "faith" was being used was to mean "a belief that does
not rely on evidence." If a Christian acknowledged there was no evidence
for their beliefs, they would probably not reject them. If the man going to work
acknowledged there was no evidence to believe that by using his car, he'd be
able to get to his office on time, he probably would not believe it until he
either got to work on time or did not get to work on time. English words can
have different meanings depending on the context.
Quote by priincessGod's there but u
dont believe that He's exist. He gave the clues-bible- but u dont want to
understand. it's our job too-believers to make trust God. soon u'll find Him^^
it'll take long time but we know our work arent useless.
That's nice, but other religions that encourage evangelism have followers who
believe the same things you do. Christianity is only so large because Christians
have slaughtered thousands, if not millions, in order to force their beliefs on
others. Not only that, they know how to raise children in such a way so that
they do not question the religion their parents raise them with. They accept
Christianity as some sort of unquestionable belief that can't be wrong, no
matter what. They train themselves not to think critically, at least in regard
to their own beliefs.
Quote by royaldarkness*salutes
Sulibres' post*
Really priincess, I never thought that you'd post something like that. Don't you
even think twice before posting something? O.o
I won't bother to repeat what DarkRose, Onyhow and Sulibres said, so all I have
to say is...I agree with the three of them.
hehe...religion
clearly has its strong supporters and the new supporters....what princess said
about chinese and american or whatever was a little weird...if she offended
anyone,i apologize for her actions....she knows her scripture,but still needs to
learn how to communicate among haters and
nonbelievers.(atheists)
I think you mean to say other human beings. Communcating with people who don't
share your beliefs should be the same as communicating with those who do share
your beliefs, unless by "communicating" you mean "employing petty
evangelical techniques, misinterpreting others, and being as irrational as
possible."
Quote by royaldarknessBtw, I've
read the link you gave alexjohn, and I'll admit that although I don't fully
understand everything (bleh, I suck at science ), I
definitely understand more about evolution now, so umh, excuse my earlier posts
It's no problem, as Espada said. I myself don't know much about evolution other
than the little I've read. Can we get back on topic though?
Quote by kingray100i encourage people
to ignore most of the information sent by this crazy site.Can we even be sure
that the author of this page is of any scientific relevance?probably
not.
Whereas the author of your site, whose homepage is that of a CHRISTIAN MINISTRY,
is so obviously a scientific professional?
I thought I'd also note this: "Talk.Origins archive (www.talkorigins.org).
This wonderfully thorough online resource compiles useful essays and
commentaries that have appeared in Usenet discussions about creationism and
evolution. It offers detailed discussions (some of which may be too
sophisticated for casual readers) and bibliographies relating to virtually any
objection to evolution that creationists might raise."
-Scientific
American
Not only is it recommended by Scientific American and other well-known
scientific entities, it's also written by many excellent scientists.
On the other hand, the site you referenced seems to be some sort of strange
personal webpage by some guy who wants to convert poor people to a
fundamentalist form of Christianity. Kingray100, you are so hypocritical it
still amazes me, even after I've read so
many of your posts, which seem to have no thought put into them at all.
Quote by kingray100oh come
on....anyone can make a site like this....for god's sake,if a true transitional
fossil was found,it would have been heard world wide.this site is just taking
small steps away from actual information and making it into what they want to
hear...and it also states that God believers don't mention evolution which is a
very big lie.
Parts of evolution are falling apart,scientists are moving away from this
theory,many contradicting claims have been made and some even proven.You act as
if evolution is right,and thats that.wrong.
i encourage people to ignore most of the information sent by this crazy site.Can
we even be sure that the author of this page is of any scientific
relevance?probably not.
I know you're a bit slow, but let's try this again:
Quote by alexjohnc3Now no more about
evolution unless it's relevant please.
If you can tell me how it's relevant to this, feel free to. Otherwise, please PM
me (or someone else if you wish) if you want to talk about evolution. I'm a
sophomore in high school and I've only had about two weeks of my biology AE
(accelerated/enriched) course thus far, but I've read enough that I'll probably
be able to explain at least some of what you don't understand.
Quote by royaldarknessLol, indeed
we can, but since we haven't actually seen it happen, it still ends up being
sort of a theory...well you get the idea. We can only observe for now, and to
truly understand it and actually give some actual prove would take
years.
I'm guessing we're talking about the Abrahamic god. I used to think God was
neuter, but I'm not so sure now since in holy texts God is often referred to
with "he". It depends on what defines God. If the Bible is the
authority on God and it is accurate, then I'd say God is male.
Quote by crsgIt's not a matter of you or
other Wiccans saying that we don't worship the Devil, because according to
classical Christian doctrine, ANY other religion other than Christianity is not
the right one - whether that's Wiccan, Buddhist or Hinduism, etc.
How could it be otherwise? If Hinduism was true, Christianity would be untrue,
so it's basically necessary for Christians (and other non-Wiccans) to deny the
validity of Wicca. That doesn't make it evil though.
Quote by kingray100haha....look,,,if
your asking what philosophy is...then you dont belong in this
conversation....
onyhow was obviously asking to see how you would answer that question. Next
time, try answering it.
Quote by kingray100i dont want to fall
into the age of tolerance thing,because it stops everyone from speaking out for
themselves.
No it doesn't. When people talk about tolerance they don't mean refraining from
criticizing others' views. They mean that they tolerate the fact that others hold those views, i.e., they don't
dislike people just because they hold a certain view. For example, I'm tolerant
of Christians and the majority of my friends are Christians. On the other hand,
I'm not tolerant of of racists and sexists, and I have a strong tendency to
dislike them. In the case of religions, people can interpret their holy texts
many different ways, and while I'm not willing to be tolerant of those
Christians who interpret the Bible in such a way as to mean they should kill
others, I'm willing to be--and I should be--tolerant of the people who ignore
the evil parts (or are just unaware of them). The point I'm trying to make is
that there are some cases where one should not be tolerant of others, and, when
it comes to religion, in the majority of cases tolerance is a good
thing.
Quote by kingray100I dont know where
you guys live but i live in america where i can point out the wrong doings in
anything i want,including my own government.
I live in the United States and so do most people here. For other people, most
live in places where that's allowed too, for example Canada or Japan. Pointing
out that something is wrong with a view is perfectly fine and no one is saying
you shouldn't do that. In fact, it's good to do that.
Quote by kingray100and what is this,a
sad poem written by some atheist?It simply points out the misunderstandings of
atheists saying that everything that happens on earth that is bad is God's
fault....
Consider the context of the post and you might be able to understand.
I'll split my vote in half and vote half for melymay's and half for
yothsothgoth's first one. If this is not allowed, you can discount my vote as I
can't decide between the two.
Quote by priincessit's bcoz we cant
know Him n love Him more if we already have evrything we need. By our sadness n
angryness in lifes, we can open our minds to get closer to Him. many people find
their true ways after those misfortunes- like me n my
friends, n other people i know who believe Him
Quote by aexielAlso Buddhists are not
completely atheists... As most(or some) are believers of a god as their practice
dictates, they are free to choose since Buddhism is more likely a practice
rather than a religion.
I know, I made the chart quick. If you read my earlier post, I was more accurate
I think. I should have put "(some)" after Buddhism. Technically, you
can be a Christian atheist, a Jewish atheist, a Muslim atheist, etc. too. Those
people usually adhere to some part of the religion, but don't accept the belief
in any gods. Of course, they're in a very small minority.
Quote by aexielYou can consider witches
and/or wiccans(maybe not) as atheist as they worship nature. People who can care
less for a religion or worship anything but a god can also be considered
atheists.
Actually Wiccans believe in two gods. They believe in a God and a Goddess.
He wasn't doing his job as a result of his beliefs, so they decided it wouldn't be good to have him on the project. If someone refuses to do their job, they can be fired for that. It's like hiring a history teacher who refuses to teach about the Holocaust at all, but will teach anything else, because they believe the Holocaust never happened. If this guy did his job regardless of his beliefs, he wouldn't have had to stop working there just as a history teacher who doesn't believe in the Holocaust could keep teaching history if they did their job in full anyway.
Or, you know, if we just don't know something we can admit we don't know instead of attributing everything we don't know (yet) to some sort of god(s). People three thousand years ago couldn't explain things like volcano eruptions any way other than it being the wrath of their god who wanted humans sacrifices or something, for example. By your logic, that belief was justified as we didn't have any idea how volcanoes worked and the only explanation seemed to be the intervention of some sort of god.
So teaching people about the scientific evidence that has accumulated for decades that supports evolution is brainwashing, but having parents take vows to raise their children with a belief system that encourages unquestioning obedience and faith towards an entity whose even existence is dubious at best isn't?
What are you guys talking about? The world ended back in the year 2000.
Dan Barker said it best: "Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits."
Kingray100, you seem to have issues with Wikipedia and I don't know why. If there's a specific, relevant example in any of the articles from Wikipedia I've posted that you dispute the accuracy of, please tell me. Wikipedia's article, especially the very popular ones like the one on Earth or the American Revolution, tend to be very, very accurate from my experience. While it is generally a bad idea to cite it in school assignment as teachers tend to look for scholarly sources, this isn't a school assignment and as long as it has (mostly, if not entirely) valid information, I don't see why you'd object other than because you're annoying.
Spent my resources? Huh? It's just that you seem so incapable of understanding anything that I've pretty much given up. For example, you made the mistake (again) of claiming a group isn't Christian when any fair definition of Christianity would include them. Catholicism has been the most dominant branch of Christianity for hundreds of years, so it's pretty inconceivable that you could say it isn't a part of Christianity. While I won't say that non-Christians understand things better than Christians, I will say you've got some issues when it comes to the idea of sets and subsets.
Wikipedia has a good article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset
I don't expect you to read all of it. Looking at that picture on the right of the page should be enough. If B represents Catholics and A represents Christians, then Catholics are Christians and Catholics. However, Christians aren't necessarily Catholics as there are Christians both in and not in B.
merged: 10-21-2007 ~ 02:35pm
Now that I've said that, I agree. Let's get back on topic.
Just to start off, what contributions has religion made that have contributed to the human condition that could not have plausibly been achieved through other means? I can think of many scientific things, but nothing religious comes to mind other than people who try to encourage equality and human rights as a result of their religious beliefs (hence "could not have plausibly been achieved through other means").
That was the third or fourth strangest post I've seen all day. Maybe you should look it over to see what's wrong with it. Thanks.
Maybe you should have put a hyperlink to the entry on Dictionary.com or something so Kingray100 wouldn't even have to look up the word satire himself, which he shouldn't have to in the first place. It's not like the word is that uncommon.
The Holy Ghost impregnated Mary, so technically she's not a virgin and neither is God I guess. I wonder if that counts as adultery too...
I've noticed something interesting. Kingray100 was not able to understand the purpose of a hypothetical situation that I posted earlier on and now he is unable to understand that something is satire, even when it is explicitly stated as such (which shouldn't even be necessary). That's kind of sad.
Instead of telling people to read hundreds of pages for no good reason, you may want to explain what about the Bible is convincing.
Let's just make this clear: Are you saying that Socrates said that if you want to learn, you can go to America?
So, because you feel pain in your heart (never mind the validity of that statement), the heart causes your feelings? You really need to learn a bit about how humans function.
The way "faith" was being used was to mean "a belief that does not rely on evidence." If a Christian acknowledged there was no evidence for their beliefs, they would probably not reject them. If the man going to work acknowledged there was no evidence to believe that by using his car, he'd be able to get to his office on time, he probably would not believe it until he either got to work on time or did not get to work on time. English words can have different meanings depending on the context.
That's nice, but other religions that encourage evangelism have followers who believe the same things you do. Christianity is only so large because Christians have slaughtered thousands, if not millions, in order to force their beliefs on others. Not only that, they know how to raise children in such a way so that they do not question the religion their parents raise them with. They accept Christianity as some sort of unquestionable belief that can't be wrong, no matter what. They train themselves not to think critically, at least in regard to their own beliefs.
I think you mean to say other human beings. Communcating with people who don't share your beliefs should be the same as communicating with those who do share your beliefs, unless by "communicating" you mean "employing petty evangelical techniques, misinterpreting others, and being as irrational as possible."
It's no problem, as Espada said. I myself don't know much about evolution other than the little I've read. Can we get back on topic though?
merged: 09-17-2007 ~ 12:50am
I thought I'd also note this: "Talk.Origins archive (www.talkorigins.org). This wonderfully thorough online resource compiles useful essays and commentaries that have appeared in Usenet discussions about creationism and evolution. It offers detailed discussions (some of which may be too sophisticated for casual readers) and bibliographies relating to virtually any objection to evolution that creationists might raise."
-Scientific American
Not only is it recommended by Scientific American and other well-known scientific entities, it's also written by many excellent scientists.
On the other hand, the site you referenced seems to be some sort of strange personal webpage by some guy who wants to convert poor people to a fundamentalist form of Christianity. Kingray100, you are so hypocritical it still amazes me, even after I've read so many of your posts, which seem to have no thought put into them at all.
I know you're a bit slow, but let's try this again:
If you can tell me how it's relevant to this, feel free to. Otherwise, please PM me (or someone else if you wish) if you want to talk about evolution. I'm a sophomore in high school and I've only had about two weeks of my biology AE (accelerated/enriched) course thus far, but I've read enough that I'll probably be able to explain at least some of what you don't understand.
I suggest you either take a biology class or you read a bit on evolution.
Several misconceptions you've made are addressed here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
Now no more about evolution unless it's relevant please.
I'm guessing we're talking about the Abrahamic god. I used to think God was neuter, but I'm not so sure now since in holy texts God is often referred to with "he". It depends on what defines God. If the Bible is the authority on God and it is accurate, then I'd say God is male.
It looks like it was pretty close. :P
How could it be otherwise? If Hinduism was true, Christianity would be untrue, so it's basically necessary for Christians (and other non-Wiccans) to deny the validity of Wicca. That doesn't make it evil though.
onyhow was obviously asking to see how you would answer that question. Next time, try answering it.
No it doesn't. When people talk about tolerance they don't mean refraining from criticizing others' views. They mean that they tolerate the fact that others hold those views, i.e., they don't dislike people just because they hold a certain view. For example, I'm tolerant of Christians and the majority of my friends are Christians. On the other hand, I'm not tolerant of of racists and sexists, and I have a strong tendency to dislike them. In the case of religions, people can interpret their holy texts many different ways, and while I'm not willing to be tolerant of those Christians who interpret the Bible in such a way as to mean they should kill others, I'm willing to be--and I should be--tolerant of the people who ignore the evil parts (or are just unaware of them). The point I'm trying to make is that there are some cases where one should not be tolerant of others, and, when it comes to religion, in the majority of cases tolerance is a good thing.
I live in the United States and so do most people here. For other people, most live in places where that's allowed too, for example Canada or Japan. Pointing out that something is wrong with a view is perfectly fine and no one is saying you shouldn't do that. In fact, it's good to do that.
Consider the context of the post and you might be able to understand.
When do you want to stop the voting?
I'll split my vote in half and vote half for melymay's and half for yothsothgoth's first one. If this is not allowed, you can discount my vote as I can't decide between the two.
What about it is unnatural?
I've tried it, but I couldn't bother to spend much time on it. I should try it again some time...
Or like Seung-Hui Cho and this lady!
I know, I made the chart quick. If you read my earlier post, I was more accurate I think. I should have put "(some)" after Buddhism. Technically, you can be a Christian atheist, a Jewish atheist, a Muslim atheist, etc. too. Those people usually adhere to some part of the religion, but don't accept the belief in any gods. Of course, they're in a very small minority.
Actually Wiccans believe in two gods. They believe in a God and a Goddess.