[Clumsy_Chemist]

(Original post by QuantumOverlord)
Humanism to me seems a much better stance than thiestic religion on moral values, in any case morality is completely subjective so it is up to the individual and society to decide what is morally right. What happens after death is a matter for science (psycology, biology, chemistry) just like any other question on how reality works.

I'm not saying that religion is the only source of moral debate - of course it's not, it's just one place people get morals from and I'm just saying it's not for us to attack it and call religious people stupid. It's a personal decision.

I should clarify, I mean the idea of a "conscience" or "soul" or something going somewhere or doing something after death. This is obviously not something you can give evidence of, so it has nothing to do with science. Just because you can document the biochemical changes that occur after death, doesn't mean you can dismiss a massive area of philosophical/theological thought.

[da_nolo]

(Original post by Darkphilosopher)
Absolute nonsense.
Religion is scrutinized by Atheists because it actively promotes the dumbing down of scientific knowledge at all levels of education. (Especially when it comes to evolution)
Such behavior is highly damaging to the advancement of scientific knowledge and our understanding of the universe and our place in it.

Their "lifestyle" consists of raising children and forcing into them the fear of hellfire and damnation, whilst teaching them that acceptance of a god will save them from eternal punishment.
Any of the "good" morals that religion claims to own exclusively can be held by any non-religious person.

Your lost. I went to a Catholic High School. they taught evolution exact same as any public or even atheistic institution.

We are not against evolution nor science. we have established many schools and among the first to do so.

Religion is that of its description/definition. A person(s) actions and belief follows their environment & influence. it is different per individual. you can not combine them into one to satisfy your prejudice. . . its actually rather illogical.

I can't believe that the BBC published such tosh. Our standard of living now is so much better than it was in the times that religion ruled, we have medicine, clean water, long life expectancies, methods of traveling across and even outside of our own planet! Yet this person has the audacity to claim that science cannot achieve a better world?!

Science is neutral and carries no bases to being good or bad. therefore it can not produce a better world. the world is better only by the actions of people; no matter how long they may live, clean the water is, or methods of traveling. those things are useless; you will still die, you will still get to your destination [QUOTE](The road of life twists and turns and no two directions are ever the same. Yet our lessons come from the journey, not the destination.”
Don Williams, Jr. (American Novelist and Poet, b.1968)[/QUOT].

especially when "traveling across & outside our planet" among other scientific findings were draped in military conquest. congratulations, you have discovered nuclear power & its ability to destroy our life. that surely isn't any clear achievement towards a better world. science is simply a form of obtaining knowledge, and knowledge doesn't mean jack squat until you use it. these 'benefits' we have experienced due to science is because someone did something good with them. still someone has done several bad things too. so once more; science is neutral and does not create a good or bad.

And believing in a magic man in the sky can? Despite religion being at the roots of the vast majority of violence in human history? i.e."You don't believe in my imaginary friend so we're going to commit genocide upon your people"

Real quick; soviet Russia - atheist- murdered more people than hitler. communist China has been blamed for genocide as well. so obviously religion is not the cause.

If we are animals, there be no god(s), or what ever...than all we do is in human character and will continue to happen no matter what. Religion is just an excuse like money, land, resources, pride, etc. . .

The real reason to such bigotry and sorrow is sin.

[da_nolo]

(Original post by Clumsy_Chemist)
I think religion and science should be able to coexist. Religion has no right to intervene in the proper teaching of science education and scientific research; conversely, passionate atheists should not impede religious peoples' freedom to practice religion or to be influenced by theology as well as science. Science comes up with new technologies and discoveries and it's up to society to decide whether to adopt and accept them; people have their own private beliefs and it's up to societies to decide what influence they want religion to have, ie theocratic vs 100% secular.

I take issue with anyone who opposes individual choice in science vs religion, such as the extreme Christians in the US who seem to want to strip people of the choice of an abortion or interfere with science teaching. If both sides were more accomodating this argument would be pointless. Religion is about personal belief, social practices and big, philosophical questions. Most of science is concerned with explaining empirically the real physical and living world - the two needn't overlap in such an emotional way.

Two issues arise in your statement. first paragraph you declare that no person may dictate what the other believes. while in the later you describe societies have ability to be either theocratic vs secular. however, doesn't either of the two decline the other? true secularism restricts expression of religion and a person's activity/involvement in the such if not refraining completely.

In the second paragraph you describe the removal of abortion intrudes with science teaching. Abortion does nothing towards teaching or instructing any portion of science. it does - however- impede on the teaching of science. Biology recognizes that life begins at conception. many pro-abortionists refute this.

That is the only section the matter abortion may influence.

[da_nolo]

(Original post by imperial maniac)
You've said it all my friend, I completely agree with everything you've said.

The BBC shouldn't be allowed to publish this crap.

And yet when some prick marches for the disband of religion its freedom of speech

that's called hypocrisy

[da_nolo]

(Original post by Monterey)
It was a terrible article that was as quick at claiming atheists for being ignorant as it was ignorant itself. He treated Science like it was an opposing religion to him, when in reality it's just an epistemologically justified method of extracting knowledge from the vast natural world we share with one another. It's a matter of finding truth instead of hiding behind a book that openly condones rape, murder and slavery on multiple occasions. Then to put a cherry on top of it, he claims that religion creates a way of life that is positive. What a load of nonsense, since when was atheism synonymous with an inability to lead a good and just lifestyle?

take another look, it describes how atheists and others treat science consciously & subconsciously.


the article in itself is good.

[imperial maniac]

(Original post by Clumsy_Chemist)
Arguably religion and science answer different questions. The questions of what is morally right or what happens after death are for religion to attempt to provide an answer to. Scientists (or rather aggressive atheists) shouldn't mock any attempt to answer these questions, and in return religion should not refute scientific evidence on more practical questions.



Saying there's nothing to learn from religion is no better than saying there's nothing to learn from science.

I've been over this a thousands times on these forums, and tbh, if you want to be ignorant, I'm too lazy to try and educate you today because I only had like 2 hours sleep last night and did quite a bit of drinking.

[Clumsy_Chemist]

(Original post by da_nolo)
Two issues arise in your statement. first paragraph you declare that no person may dictate what the other believes. while in the later you describe societies have ability to be either theocratic vs secular. however, doesn't either of the two decline the other? true secularism restricts expression of religion and a person's activity/involvement in the such if not refraining completely.

In the second paragraph you describe the removal of abortion intrudes with science teaching. Abortion does nothing towards teaching or instructing any portion of science. it does - however- impede on the teaching of science. Biology recognizes that life begins at conception. many pro-abortionists refute this.

That is the only section the matter abortion may influence.

Theocracy doesn't have to impede science and secularism doesn't need to prevent religious expression. Theocracy and secularism are about religion's role in politics and law, nothing to do with science.

I never said abortion and science teaching were related at all, I said they were two separate examples of the extreme Christians interfering in America.

[The Cornerstone]

As usual, people didn't read the entire thing and criticise first. The person didn't support religion over science. He's not even supporting religion.

(Original post by BBC)
We'd all be better off if we stopped believing in belief. Not everyone needs a religion. But if you do, you shouldn't be bothered about finding arguments for joining or practising one. Just go into the church, synagogue, mosque or temple and take it from there.

What we believe doesn't in the end matter very much. What matters is how we live.

Although I admit, this article didn't make much sense.

[Darkphilosopher]

(Original post by da_nolo)
Your lost.

And you've been lied to.

I went to a Catholic High School. they taught evolution exact same as any public or even atheistic institution.

Without any mention of god/"the other side of the argument"?

We are not against evolution nor science. we have established many schools and among the first to do so.

Religion is that of its description/definition. A person(s) actions and belief follows their environment & influence. it is different per individual. you can not combine them into one to satisfy your prejudice. . . its actually rather illogical.

Somewhat of a hypocritical statement there, just because your denomination may not be against evolution, it doesn't mean that there aren't countless others out there that actively try to stop the teaching of evolution.
Example: http://www.intelligentdesign.org/ (An example quote from the website)

But most pro-ID organizations think evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned.

Science is neutral and carries no bases to being good or bad. therefore it can not produce a better world. the world is better only by the actions of people; no matter how long they may live, clean the water is, or methods of traveling. those things are useless; you will still die, you will still get to your destination.

If you don't believe in an afterlife / life after death then you are much more appreciative of the things that have been made available to you in life. I take pride in being able to enjoy the things available in life, even if it is only a short one.

...especially when "traveling across & outside our planet" among other scientific findings were draped in military conquest. congratulations, you have discovered nuclear power & its ability to destroy our life. that surely isn't any clear achievement towards a better world.

Despite nuclear physics also being used to try and understand the fundamental properties of the universe and providing humanity with a much cleaner power source than fossil fuels.

science is simply a form of obtaining knowledge, and knowledge doesn't mean jack squat until you use it. these 'benefits' we have experienced due to science is because someone did something good with them. still someone has done several bad things too. so once more; science is neutral and does not create a good or bad.

The vast majority of scientists in the modern world partake in their studies for the soul purpose of helping and bettering the lives of others. They don't try to develop cures for deadly diseases just for the sake of obtaining knowledge.

I would rather we have scientists who are actively trying to fix problems rather than have religious fanatics who condemn the afflicted claiming that they are being punished by god.

Real quick; soviet Russia - atheist- murdered more people than hitler. communist China has been blamed for genocide as well. so obviously religion is not the cause.

The holy crusades, the witch hunts, mass human sacrifice etc. all done in the name of god
Did soviet Russia and communist China commit murder in the name of a lack of god?

If we are animals, there be no god(s), or what ever...than all we do is in human character and will continue to happen no matter what. Religion is just an excuse like money, land, resources, pride, etc. . .

Humans don't have a predefined set of characteristics (with exceptions). Each persons psyche is effected by their upbringing and environment.
Telling children that they will burn and be tortured for eternity unless they repent and worship god can have pretty damming effects on them.

The real reason to such bigotry and sorrow is sin.

The real reason for such naivety and appreciation is an upbringing based on lies and deception.

[da_nolo]

(Original post by Clumsy_Chemist)
Theocracy doesn't have to impede science and secularism doesn't need to prevent religious expression. Theocracy and secularism are about religion's role in politics and law, nothing to do with science.

I never said abortion and science teaching were related at all, I said they were two separate examples of the extreme Christians interfering in America.

first note; if theocracy and secularism is about religions role in politics & law, does this not dictate religious & non-religious influence in politics & law?

after all secularism still impedes the expression of religion within law - the people involved w/ law. in regards to politicians, it forces them to act outside themselves. if a person is truly religious and expresses as such, than any expression there of while on the job would be in violation to secular law. hence a restriction of expression. right?

how could extreme Christians be interfering in America if the anti-abortion view is held by more than just Christians? how could it even be any indication of interfering if govt. is supposed to run by the people and laws may always change?

[Clumsy_Chemist]

(Original post by da_nolo)
first note; if theocracy and secularism is about religions role in politics & law, does this not dictate religious & non-religious influence in politics & law?

after all secularism still impedes the expression of religion within law - the people involved w/ law. in regards to politicians, it forces them to act outside themselves. if a person is truly religious and expresses as such, than any expression there of while on the job would be in violation to secular law. hence a restriction of expression. right?

how could extreme Christians be interfering in America if the anti-abortion view is held by more than just Christians? how could it even be any indication of interfering if govt. is supposed to run by the people and laws may always change?

I didn't understand most of that but I'll try to reply. I think anyone that wants creationism to be taught in science lessons is interfering in science teaching - that applies to Christians and non-Christians equally, though obviously it's highly likely that proponents of such an idea are going to be Christian. I'm not saying religious people should have no say in politics, of course they are entitled to their vote. Secularism is about removing any special priveleges for religion, such as the Bishops in the House of Lords. If religious ideas are to be used in politics, they must be the policies of elected politicians, not built into the constitution as they are in Iran. That's what secularism means - religion isn't in charge of everything.

To be clear, a Christian politician in a secular system can put forward religious-derived policies. But Christianity must not be the prerequisite for political office; the Church must not be above the law; and people's right not to be Christian must be upheld.

[da_nolo]

(Original post by Darkphilosopher)
And you've been lied to.

only by the lost

Without any mention of god/"the other side of the argument"?

What argument? w/ C school there is not argument. If you're trying to ask if there was some connection or constant announce of the presence of God or creationism. no. We had religion classes to discuss God and all questions to and from. Creationism was still not a subject carefully covered, and only talked once or twice about it; and not in favor to it. the official stance from the C. Church is rather long, but i can summarize it. "The Universe is one big clock; and God made it."

http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam..._Evolution.asp

an interesting perspective:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0811fea4.asp

oh and science courses were among my favorite.

Somewhat of a hypocritical statement there, just because your denomination may not be against evolution, it doesn't mean that there aren't countless others out there that actively try to stop the teaching of evolution.
Example: http://www.intelligentdesign.org/ (An example quote from the website)

How is it hypocritical? I merely stated that my religion (Catholic) does not hold any prejudice effort against science, and I do my best to do the same (regardless of history).

My following paragraph (with quote) acknowledges that other individuals who may claim to be Christian or even Catholic may state otherwise. However, this is not hypocritical but a simple difference in opinion.

my main point, however is that opinions are different. when stating "religion" you are grouping every single religion with different and/or even opposing views together. If you have a complaint about a person(s), do you really include their entire family, neighborhood, or city?

If you don't believe in an afterlife / life after death then you are much more appreciative of the things that have been made available to you in life. I take pride in being able to enjoy the things available in life, even if it is only a short one.

that's right, you put more weight on things. i put more weight on people/experience. doesn't mean i don't appreciate modern science/technology. My grandmother just had surgery on some arteries, she's now has feeling in her leg again. an aunt is looking into scorpion poison to be used to treat cancer. pretty cool.

Despite nuclear physics also being used to try and understand the fundamental properties of the universe and providing humanity with a much cleaner power source than fossil fuels.

The vast majority of scientists in the modern world partake in their studies for the soul purpose of helping and bettering the lives of others. They don't try to develop cures for deadly diseases just for the sake of obtaining knowledge.

Exactly! a person having the purpose of helping and bettering lives! that purpose is desire; a human emotion/ability. if a person has the drive to do good, they can; and discover the cure for disease, help prevent famine, etc. however, if their desires is something else, say ... finding a way to kill an enemy...well than you follow the lines of gun powder/dynamite, nuclear power, and others. with out that person...that human influence to determine the outcome, then there is no outcome. neutral.

science by itself is just information/neutral. it takes human interaction to develop what is good or bad.

I would rather we have scientists who are actively trying to fix problems rather than have religious fanatics who condemn the afflicted claiming that they are being punished by god.

as would I. which is why i normally debate those who believe in the such and try to get them to see a different perspective. either way, one may still be a scientist and religious all in one.

The holy crusades, the witch hunts, mass human sacrifice etc. all done in the name of god
Did soviet Russia and communist China commit murder in the name of a lack of god?

YES-in a manner of speaking. the communist party declares war on all religions. in the U.S.S.R. many that oppose the ban on religion by holding secret meetings. often seen as a way to object govt. any lift on the ban shows weakness in influence and rule over. such citizens were often imprisoned and left to die, or simply shot and left in a hole in the ground.

however, look at the intent of all incidents:
ussr = keep power (greed/selfish, wrath/kill)
crusades = besides 'freeing' Holy Land, control trade in the area -which was huge at the time (greed/selfish, wrath/kill, pride)
human sacrifice= obtain powers or well being (greed/selfishness, envy,wrath/kill)
witch hunts = neighbors turned on neighbors as people blame those of whom they had dispute with. we talked about this in class and even watched a movie or two about it. supposedly many claims were from people that had previous disputes or dislikes about those blamed. (envy, wrath/kill)

you can do the same with most historical accounts about wars/disputes. usually about land, riches, religion, etc...but camouflage to the actual intent/purpose; greed, pride, wrath, envy, etc. all listed as sins within the Church

Humans don't have a predefined set of characteristics (with exceptions). Each persons psyche is effected by their upbringing and environment.
Telling children that they will burn and be tortured for eternity unless they repent and worship god can have pretty damming effects on them.

The real reason for such naivety and appreciation is an upbringing based on lies and deception.

this is where I appreciate my upbringing. once more you group everyone together. I am actually in agreement, but in some manner the subject must be explained.

I was never talked to as you mention. i wasn't even explained or told about hell until i was -maybe- 8 or 9. even then it was not in the manner you speak. i was carefully explained that there was a heaven and a hell (and a purgatory of coarse ); in one place you were with God, loved ones, etc. in the other you were not.

I was explained the condition of hell -maybe 10 or 11 (I don't exactly know how old I was- only grade...I was two ages in every grade). even then it was explained that the examples of hell were not physical but spiritual. such examples were used to describe what spiritual torment there may be outside of Grace/heaven. Kind of like angering or causing harm to someone you love, and not being with them anymore because of it.

[da_nolo]

(Original post by Clumsy_Chemist)
I didn't understand most of that but I'll try to reply. I think anyone that wants creationism to be taught in science lessons is interfering in science teaching - that applies to Christians and non-Christians equally, though obviously it's highly likely that proponents of such an idea are going to be Christian. I'm not saying religious people should have no say in politics, of course they are entitled to their vote. Secularism is about removing any special priveleges for religion, such as the Bishops in the House of Lords. If religious ideas are to be used in politics, they must be the policies of elected politicians, not built into the constitution as they are in Iran. That's what secularism means - religion isn't in charge of everything.

To be clear, a Christian politician in a secular system can put forward religious-derived policies. But Christianity must not be the prerequisite for political office; the Church must not be above the law; and people's right not to be Christian must be upheld.

I must disagree. once that law is passed, it would express a support for that religious idea, ergo support a single religion....to be claimed as unconstitutional in violation of rights.

the only true expression of equality and govt. openness (for lack of a better word) is to allow expression of religion. even in the bill that a politician promotes will be attacked for leaning over that segregating line between expression and non-expression. either way that politician when in the office may not express his/her religion by maintaining religious artifacts or even committing to prayer. that is secularism. to exclude the true expression of a religion.

Or what I speak is a corrupted ideal about secularism by those who have personal prejudice against religion or some ill thought ideal of their own.