Hey Bill O! The REAL War on Christmas was waged and won a long time ago.

[LMNO]

There's nothing wrong with wearing a religious symbol. Religion is a creation of man so that the unexplained may have answers, and it gives the mind hope of salvation and the comfort of faith.

But... The answers tend to be wrong. 

I don't mean to sound like a shrieking atheist, but religion doesn't give us correct information; so why should we put faith in falshoods?

[Suu]

Are you talking about scientific fact or reasoning? Then yes, then there are "wrong" answers, mostly because at the time the religions were formed, they didn't have the technology and the ways of thinking as we do today.

They aren't WRONG, they are OUTDATED. It's up to the followers of the said religion to accept the change in times and accept new technologies as they see fit.

For example...Creationism is bullshit. We know this. This was proven 200 years ago. And that argument about evolution being "just a theory", more bullshit. A theory scientifically speaking is something that has yet to be disproven, not just "an idea".

However, if a Christian says to me, "I believe the God created the Universe, and then set evolution in motion, thus giving us the scientific proof." Then I'm down with that because they don't sound as crazy. You can still be progressive and religious, but those are the folks that don't seem to bitch as much, because they know better. There are many scientists and professors out there that are quite devout in their faiths. General Stuart, for example, is an anthropologist that practices archaeology, and he's a born and raised [Northern] Baptist. He's not out there searching just for holy relics, and he knows a substantial amount of information on human evolution. He knows where the line is between God and science, and that's that.

Even in some Hellenistic cults, the universe was created by Chaos, so even as Discordians, we're not far off...

[Phox]

Are you talking about scientific fact or reasoning? Then yes, then there are "wrong" answers, mostly because at the time the religions were formed, they didn't have the technology and the ways of thinking as we do today.

They aren't WRONG, they are OUTDATED. It's up to the followers of the said religion to accept the change in times and accept new technologies as they see fit.

For example...Creationism is bullshit. We know this. This was proven 200 years ago. And that argument about evolution being "just a theory", more bullshit. A theory scientifically speaking is something that has yet to be disproven, not just "an idea".

However, if a Christian says to me, "I believe the God created the Universe, and then set evolution in motion, thus giving us the scientific proof." Then I'm down with that because they don't sound as crazy. You can still be progressive and religious, but those are the folks that don't seem to bitch as much, because they know better. There are many scientists and professors out there that are quite devout in their faiths. General Stuart, for example, is an anthropologist that practices archaeology, and he's a born and raised [Northern] Baptist. He's not out there searching just for holy relics, and he knows a substantial amount of information on human evolution. He knows where the line is between God and science, and that's that.

Even in some Hellenistic cults, the universe was created by Chaos, so even as Discordians, we're not far off...

I agree with this. I would add that from a moral perspective, such as it is, religions are generally as "right" as possible. There are very few religions that don't teach some form of "don't be a douche bag to other people", though sometimes, often even, this is followed by an "unless they are different". That is where the problem arises, but again I'm drifting into another discussion, so I'll leave it there.

[Cain]

It's up to the followers of the said religion to accept the change in times and accept new technologies as they see fit.

Well, good luck with that and all...

[LMNO]

But isn't that just the God of the Gaps schtick?  

"God made the rock fall."
"Actually, we can prove that gravity makes things fall."
"God made gravity."
"Um... Mass warps space-time which is observed as gravitational pull."
"God is anything you haven't discovered yet."
"Just give us time..."


They way you said it, "so the unexplained may have answers", it probably what triggered me.  If something is unexplained, don't make up a story for it, figure it out.  And as far as "salvation" and "faith" is concerned, what am I being saved from, and why should I put my faith in outdated stories stemming from deprived technologies?


Ok, I do realize where this conversation is now going.  I was not raised in a religious family, and I do not have emotional or social attachments to any particular religion.  I tend to see adherence to a religion in psychological, biological, and sociological terms, which can really make me sound like a prick at times.

I also know that:
1) This debate has occured many times here, between many people, and the dance has become very familiar, and
2) I'm just as likely to change your opinion as you are to change mine.

I'm willing to drop it and shake hands, if this is gonna lead to shouting.  On the other hand, if you want to get more in depth, I'm ok with that as well.

[Suu]

It's up to the followers of the said religion to accept the change in times and accept new technologies as they see fit.

Well, good luck with that and all...

In a perfect world, anyway.

[Phox]

But isn't that just the God of the Gaps schtick?  

"God made the rock fall."
"Actually, we can prove that gravity makes things fall."
"God made gravity."
"Um... Mass warps space-time which is observed as gravitational pull."
"God is anything you haven't discovered yet."
"Just give us time..."


They way you said it, "so the unexplained may have answers", it probably what triggered me.  If something is unexplained, don't make up a story for it, figure it out.  And as far as "salvation" and "faith" is concerned, what am I being saved from, and why should I put my faith in outdated stories stemming from deprived technologies?


Ok, I do realize where this conversation is now going.  I was not raised in a religious family, and I do not have emotional or social attachments to any particular religion.  I tend to see adherence to a religion in psychological, biological, and sociological terms, which can really make me sound like a prick at times.

I also know that:
1) This debate has occured many times here, between many people, and the dance has become very familiar, and
2) I'm just as likely to change your opinion as you are to change mine.

I'm willing to drop it and shake hands, if this is gonna lead to shouting.  On the other hand, if you want to get more in depth, I'm ok with that as well.

For my part in this debate (small though it is): I agree with just about everything you just said, LMNO. I was raised religious, and I do have certain attachments to the rituals and iconography, but that does not equate to belief in the precepts. I have also studied religions of various stripes for many years now, and I realize that they serve a certain function in a society, but at this stage of development, they have mostly out lived their usefulness, except to scare people who would otherwise be irredeemable shitnecks into being slight less contemptible. They don't generally do a good job of it though.

[Suu]

But isn't that just the God of the Gaps schtick?  

"God made the rock fall."
"Actually, we can prove that gravity makes things fall."
"God made gravity."
"Um... Mass warps space-time which is observed as gravitational pull."
"God is anything you haven't discovered yet."
"Just give us time..."


They way you said it, "so the unexplained may have answers", it probably what triggered me.  If something is unexplained, don't make up a story for it, figure it out.  And as far as "salvation" and "faith" is concerned, what am I being saved from, and why should I put my faith in outdated stories stemming from deprived technologies?


Ok, I do realize where this conversation is now going.  I was not raised in a religious family, and I do not have emotional or social attachments to any particular religion.  I tend to see adherence to a religion in psychological, biological, and sociological terms, which can really make me sound like a prick at times.

I also know that:
1) This debate has occured many times here, between many people, and the dance has become very familiar, and
2) I'm just as likely to change your opinion as you are to change mine.

I'm willing to drop it and shake hands, if this is gonna lead to shouting.  On the other hand, if you want to get more in depth, I'm ok with that as well.

I don't want this to evolve into shouting...simply because that's just juvenile and there's no reason why it SHOULD...But then again, someone is bound to come in here and ruin it for us anyway, even if we try.

The fact that you didn't grow up in a religious environment probably makes it harder for you to kinda grasp what I'm saying, and that's cool, because even though I grew up in a household that was Catholic, but not overly so (We went to church, I went to Catholic school...but we rarely said grace except for Thanksgiving...), there's still probably a huge amount of different mental...I guess you could say, "conditioning" that happened. I was exposed to things that you were not, and vice versa.

So it's not so much as who's right and wrong, because there is no definitive answer, nor there ever will be, but it's a matter of accepting the existence of different points of view.

And that...is pretty much why the world sucks. Right there I think...Getting two people to concede is one thing, but getting entire groups of millions of people on the other hand is a bit different.

[Cain]

I still think scientific rituals are the way to go.  The Donning of the Protective Vestments, the Lighting of the Bunsen Burner....

[hooplala]

So it's not so much as who's right and wrong, because there is no definitive answer, nor there ever will be, but it's a matter of accepting the existence of different points of view.

If you're referring to your earlier point that religion isn't so much wrong as outdated, yes I would agree with you.  That was people doing the best that they could at the time to figure things out... much like alchemy at the time it was created wasn't really wrong either, it was the best they could do... but alchemy eventually evolved, some of it became aspects of chemistry and other aspects simply fell away when they were demonstrated not to be true.  This hasn't really happened with religion, and as religion is set up, it really can't.  I mean, yes, there has been some evolvement in churches, its certainly not how it was in the Middle Ages, but its still basically Q: "Why does it thunder?" A: "Because God is angry" when it comes down to it.

We can't see electricity, but we can demonstrate it exists... until someone can demonstrate ANY evidence in the existence of a god, I don't see why an intelligent person would waste their time with it.

[Suu]

I still think scientific rituals are the way to go.  The Donning of the Protective Vestments, the Lighting of the Bunsen Burner....

I can see this now.

"Children, gather around! Quickly! Tell Dioxyribo Claus what you want for Darwinmas!"




...I should totally celebrate Darwinmas.

[Phox]

I still think scientific rituals are the way to go.  The Donning of the Protective Vestments, the Lighting of the Bunsen Burner....

I can see this now.

"Children, gather around! Quickly! Tell Dioxyribo Claus what you want for Darwinmas!"




...I should totally celebrate Darwinmas.

Yes.

[LMNO]

I still think scientific rituals are the way to go.  The Donning of the Protective Vestments, the Lighting of the Bunsen Burner....

I just read that sequence last night... "Welcome to the Bayesean Conspiracy."  Heh.

So it's not so much as who's right and wrong, because there is no definitive answer, nor there ever will be, but it's a matter of accepting the existence of different points of view.

And that...is pretty much why the world sucks. Right there I think...Getting two people to concede is one thing, but getting entire groups of millions of people on the other hand is a bit different.

I suppose I could be pragmatic about the whole thing.  "What works for you?"  If we're talking about everyday existence, getting through your day, getting out of be in the morning, not being a shit to your fellow humans... If a religion can help a person out with that, who am I to say they shouldn't use it?*  I do get worried when the issues and questions go beyond the everyday, however... Most people want to draw a continuous line between what they believe in a day-to-day context and what they believe in moments of crucial, experiential universe-affecting decision making.

I contend that it would be better to have a series of beliefs that can be scaled to whatever size of a decision you want to make, rather than have a low-level system of religious beliefs to help you get through your day, and then abruptly shifting to a higher level of rationality when dealing with larger issues.  











*Incidentally, that's the line of thinking I use concerning my brother's acceptance of Scientology.  He is demostrably a happier and nicer person than he used to be.  I think his belief system is utter bullshit, but (for now) it's completely working for him and has improved his life.

[Suu]

So it's not so much as who's right and wrong, because there is no definitive answer, nor there ever will be, but it's a matter of accepting the existence of different points of view.

If you're referring to your earlier point that religion isn't so much wrong as outdated, yes I would agree with you.  That was people doing the best that they could at the time to figure things out... much like alchemy at the time it was created wasn't really wrong either, it was the best they could do... but alchemy eventually evolved, some of it became aspects of chemistry and other aspects simply fell away when they were demonstrated not to be true.  This hasn't really happened with religion, and as religion is set up, it really can't.  I mean, yes, there has been some evolvement in churches, its certainly not how it was in the Middle Ages, but its still basically Q: "Why does it thunder?" A: "Because God is angry" when it comes down to it.

We can't see electricity, but we can demonstrate it exists... until someone can demonstrate ANY evidence in the existence of a god, I don't see why an intelligent person would waste their time with it.

By saying what you did, you basically said that every scientist ever who may have believed in some sort of god, and did amazing things to better the scientific world, faith aside, is less intelligent than you, because you DON'T believe that a god exists without proof. That just seems arrogant, imo. God EXISTS in the mind and heart of the believer, and as long as there are followers, then there is faith. That's what I
"believe" and that's how I typically end the argument at hand. It's also what I'm kinda sorta writing about in my graphic novel.

Personally, I could give two fucking shits what people believe at the end of my day as long as the world keeps turning and they don't interfere with my daily life. I don't like being preached to. I have this thing about religion being personal...


BTW: Nothing in this thread is changing my opinion on any of you, I just want to get that out.

[AFK]

Well, this thread turned out differently than I expected.