DiabloFans

Quote from LinkX

Quote from AnathemicOne

As for religion halting scientific pursuit, well I'll bring Christianity into this. It is true that this religion and its followers have done grievances in the past, but that's over. If you pay attention to current events the Vatican is actually in league with scientific pursuit, allowing to have an open mind with them.

Alright, give some proof. What has the Vatican done to push forward science and knowledge? If I remember correctly, It was the Catholics who were the most upset about the Large Hadron Collider, and about CERN in general. Granted, it was the Vatican that stated the Earth was flat, the Sun revolves around the Earth, and in fact the entire world revolves around the Earth, which science later disproved. So, if you have something the Vatican has done to help Science instead of Hindering it, please, I want to know.

Quote from AnathemicOne

Yes it is true that some people follow Christianity fanatically, but like all religions it is subject to change and evolution, the problem we are facing is the transition to change (look at the response we had for health-care in America) and not only that but anti-religious folk attack Christianity for past wrongs, which is like someone attacking modern Britain for unreasonable taxes on the original 13 colonies.

Well, I do agree. If Christian X and Christian Y did not perpetrate the crimes of Christian Z, then Christian X and Christian Y should not be held accountable. However, if it is in the holy book, the religion should be held accountable.(Not saying the people, but the religion.) Thus, if you take beating disobedient children, promoting slavery, stoning those of other faiths as well as those who are homosexual, then yes, it should be held accountable for those beliefs. Just because current day Christians don't follow the Bible (Which is a good thing) doesn't mean the Bible is not bad.

Quote from Umpa65

It doesn't matter what I THINK because you clearly already KNOW the truth. Which is quite remarkable.

It's not a matter of knowing or not knowing the truth. It's about putting a bandage over the gaps in the knowledge and pretending like it's the truth. You can believe whatever you want, but don't stop science because of a belief in ghosts.


One last thing, to nobody imparticular, I want to say that I am glad that there are people that actually understand what the word Discriminate means. When people use it wrong, like it was used in this thread, it isn't just an insult to me, but also an insult to people who actually work hard every day to be a discriminating douche bag.

Okay here you go, take note that nowhere in that address is there a bash of scientific pursuit.

As for the use of discriminatory, I've fairly sure I'm correct on its usage

------

dis·crim·i·na·to·ry
   /dɪˈskrɪmənəˌtɔri, -ˌtoʊri/ Show Spelled[dih-skrim-uh-nuh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee]
–adjective
1. characterized by or showing prejudicial treatment, esp. as an indication of racial, religious, or sexual bias: discriminatory practices in housing; a discriminatory tax.

-quoted from Dictionary.com

------

By saying said quote

Quote from LinkX

Certain religions can coexist with science, but certain religions cannot. As per your request, I cannot say what religions can and what religions cannot, because, well, I don't know why we are not allowed.

I see a prejudicial treatment on said religions that can't coexist with science, there's not even an "I think" in there, no it's thrown out as cold hard fact.

But now one is probably (maybe you) going to scorn me for the term 'prejudicial' but I've come prepared for that too.

------

prej·u·di·cial
   /ˌprɛdʒəˈdɪʃəl/ Show Spelled[prej-uh-dish-uhl]
–adjective
causing prejudice or disadvantage; detrimental.

-quoted from Dictionary.com

------

Clearly the original quote from you speaks disadvantage how? Because it's stated that certain religions cannot coexist with science, which clearly emphasizes the underhandedness that you proposed on said certain religions.

Now normally, I don't bother to bring in definitions from outside sources into an argument, but trying to destabilize my credibility based on the mediocre attack on my word usage, is a bit silly, don't you think?

@ Magistrate

It is true that the film trilogy is different in its own respect to the book(s) but personally I feel the film trilogy succeeds in what the book(s) can never achieve: Music. Howard Shore is just genius.

@ ScyberDragon

No offense taken, I too don't have the luxury of reading and most books I've read (aside from Lord of the Rings) are less than 20, most of them consisting of the Warcraft franchise.

I'm a male and I'll be playing a female character :sorcerer:

Just read through this thread, I love how easily it was changed from
debate>heated argument>porn>more porn>polygamy>debate again
XD, well I'll put my view on here in response to the OP.

I was Baptized/Raised/Confirmed Catholic but I always beleive myself a Deist with a bit of Pantheism involved. I do believe in a Grand Architect of the Universe or 'God', however as with the Deist ideology I do not believe in holy books/scriptures/passages/writings, those are done by humanity's need of order.

Now for my actually belief in Deism, I beleive that there is a 'God' but this 'God' will not intervene with mortal affairs and I see for him/her/it no reason to do so. 'God' wanted creation, he/she/it created universe, be it the Big Bang, 7 days, or a large bathroom break, everything as we know it was made.

Now putting Pantheism into the picture, I also believe that 'God' created the universe but also is the universe, or at least controls every aspect of it. Why do atoms attract in the first place, why does matter exist, why does space/time exist, because it was set in place by who? The Grand Architect, or 'God'.

The thing I love about Deism, that it allows Religion and Rational thinking coexist with one another. It fulfills spiritual need and at the same time allows rational thinking of math/science/logic/etc.

Quote from PhrozenDragon

Quote from Nekrodrac

Your whole premise is flawed since you never considered the purpose. Why did God create man as man presently is? That is the real question.

No, all-caring was included in the argument, and that would lead to a purpose. If that's so, then God would want to spare us needless suffering. Which he has not done.

Eh no. Man was created and he leads his life as he wishes. Suffering is the consequence of man's actions. That's all there is to really, at least in my opinion. You'll understand better when I explain further.

Quote from PhrozenDragon

If he is not all-good but all-powerful, then he created the whole world knowing we and all forms of life in it would suffer greatly (murder, war, betrayal, physical pain, etc.) when he could have avoided it entirely.
Since he is all-powerful, what purpose could he possibly give us? A test doesn't make any sense, since he will know from the start whether we (his creations) can complete the test or not. Anything that depends on us doing something for him cannot be the reason we exist, since he, as the all-powerful creator, will know from the start whether we can perform said task or not.

Religion is not about what makes God happy or not. I thought I already made myself clear on that. It's a way of life- a discipline. A test(or game as I would rather call it) makes all the sense in the world if you consider free will. Some may reach the goal faster than others and there are many paths to reach that goal.
What you are referring as an all-powerful creator, I call it the Source whereby all life forms have originated. The presence of man on Earth is his own choice and he has simply forgotten how to get back to the Source. You get beings throughout our history that know where they've come from and seek to remind us of our origin and that's what we've come to call as gods. That's also how there happens to be so many religions with varying approaches.
Worship of that god or Source would presumably help us find our way back.
God created man because man wanted to.
That's my take on the matter anyway.

Quote from PhrozenDragon

If he is all-good but not all-powerful, then he cannot have created us. True, he could still be here and try to make our lives better, and since he's not all-powerful he might be restricted in great ways with what he can do. What what kind of God is he then?

If he's neither, then he might well have created us, but there would be no difference between him and an alien with immense technological capabilities.

But alright, suppose the purpose we were created for is some nebulous concept that cannot be grasped by a human mind. Even if such a purpose exist, it is a purpose for God, not for us. How does the theoretical existance of such a purpose provide any basis for human worship?

In all of these cases in fact, the questions is what basis this provides for a religion, and for practiced worship of the deity.

The basis of religion is to provide a discipline to reach the goal. But like I said there are many paths to that.

Quote from PhrozenDragon

Quote from Nekrodrac

You forgot the pie. I'll take it you didn't get the idea. At all.

I believe I did.

In this case, mom is god, and the pie could be considered the world I guess, or anything a human desires.

Your argument is that the mother cannot be held responsible for the actions of her child, since she specifically told him not to eat more than one piece of the pie. Which seems reasonable enough.

The problem with the analogy, which is why I also didn't mention the pie, is that the mother is not perfect, and did not create her child in the same sense that God would create man. She raises her child under imperfect circumstances and with imperfect knowledge. The child is also an entity of it's own, which is why the blame here can be placed on the child.

Consider then a computer program. If you create a computer program, and it doesn't do what you've designed it to, then it is entirely your fault and not the program. Free will is the counter-argument to this, which brings us back to the point I made above about god being either all-powerful or all-good.

You've added too much to my simple analogy. The knowledge that the mother based her advice on was perfect. She knows how much the child should eat and how much the brat shouldn't.
Whatever ensued is nobody but the child's fault since the choice was his. You could blame the pie for making you sick (people readily attributing everything to uncontrollable desires) or you could blame the mother for cooking the pie in the first place (blaming the Source for creating something you might have used well).
Simple as that.
All-powerful and all-good god has been explained above.

Quote from PhrozenDragon

Quote from Nekrodrac

How did you get to the last part? About religion helping to fool people? Because God doesn't exist or is imperfect? What if He/She exists then?

You stated that the purpose of religion was to guide and help people. Traditionally, this is supported by "God decrees it". Since you stated that religion was just a tool that could be used right however, I assumed that God was not a necessary part of it: If God does exist, fine. If he doesn't, we can spread the teachings of the religion anyway, since it's a good message. If this is the case, then it's really the message in itself that's good, and God just a story used to convince people of the usefulness of the teachings. Whether he exists or not becomes irrelevant.

Religion without god or gods is no religion at all. Your assumption was unfounded since I specifically said that the goal of religion is God or the Source.
Religion is a tool because I don't think it is the only way back, plus there are numerous examples of how much shit religions around the world had direct implications in because some dumbasses wrongly used it; further impressing on the concept of it being a tool or means to achieve something.
That's about it.