knowledge vs. religion?
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: knowledge vs. religion?

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    16

    Post knowledge vs. religion?

    is it just me or has there been an uprising of a new religion lately? starting back away, in the day of copernicus and galileo. heck, it started even way before that. it started when man (and woman) stopped accepting things based on faith, and asked why? people stopped turning to religion to answering questions, and deided to do their own research. this has been around for a while, but i see more and more of it appearing in recent times. i dont know if its because the faiths no longer punish the practice as heresy punishable by death, or if mankind has become more questioning. is it science that is the new religion? i couldnt say, but i will say that a lot of people are believing nowadays in what has been proven through science. is it mankind's drive to quest for knowledge (more apparent in some than others) that has driven us away from religion? is the scientist the new preacher? or is it all a big conspiracy planted by the government? (who knows?)

    in this post, i am not saying religion is a bad thing, or that it is obsolete, or anything negative about it, so please dont get after me for an objective post. i think that all things are good taken in moderation, including religion, so dont make a big deal of one lousy post.
    after all, Voltaire said "If there were no god, then it would be necessary to invent him."
    Mark was here

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    62
    there is no conflict between religion and knowledge. its between science and religion. about the same time as the reformation of the chruch, and perhaps becasue of it, there was a split in thinking. not only did they moderate ane extremeist groups fraction off from the church, but a group also rose up that swore off all religion. religion and science should complement each other. as htey do for the most part. religion refers to things outside the natral order of things. science by definition, can not explian, confirm or deny religion. however around the 1800's that changed. for some reason, "all" the scientist suddenly declared that becasue science can not prove god exist, therfore he does not exist, and there starts the war. science has done nothing to disprove religion, or god. all u get misinforamtion that each sides love to produce and throw and few if any know enough to actully debate it, but all try. so u wind up each side getting frustrated by the sheer "stupidity" of the other and things degrade.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night.
    Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

  3. #3
    well that is case in meny ways..... But by this you can find which religinos are better than others....

    look

    man discovered that the universe is spiral! right???
    long after meny scripts (Bibel and Quran) said that it is spiral.... People then simply didnot agree with those stuff and conflict used to arise. They used to belive that the earth was flat.

    haha

    if people then used those informations they cauldhave been further away......

    I somethimes think they were aware of those facts and we just discovering some stuff that they had already discovered.

    i might also be possible.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    135
    I agree with you Worm Wood. Science and religion are two separate entities, and should remain so. One deals with the natural, and looks for evidence. The other deals with the supernatural, and relies on faith.

    However, while both sides spew propoganda, it is the religious side that really contains the hatred. Most scientists could not care less about convincing people one way or the other. However, as our knowledge grows, man has less and less need for religion. Example: we no longer pray for health, we go see a doctor. We don't pray for a good harvest, we try to ensure it as much as possible through good farming techniques. This scares the religious people who possess little faith, and they feel the need to convince everyone to come back and see things their way. The people of great faith aren't worried, but those people are few and far between.

    If you are religious and you feel the need to combat knowledge, reason your faith, and use scientific evidence to bolster your belief, then you probably need to re-examine your position.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    62
    i disagree with ure assertion that the most hatred is on the religious side. no one is more fanatical than an atheist who knows hes right. well except for maybe mac users. next would have to be the southern baptist.

    i agree that religions tend to be more vocal about things, but one thing u must relize, america is very anti religious. or rather its ok to be religious, but god forbid u try to express it in public. i mean, if church groups protest anything in public they are painted as fanatical. if anyone protests something a church does they are seen as concerned citizens trying to protect themselves from fanantics attempting to upsurp the constatution. it has toned down a lot recently...but i still remember the protest from the SYATP program when it first came out. ive seen picket lines infront of church camps, just becasue it was a church group that rented some camp grounds at a public forest. i know this is a minority of the people, but by the same token its is by the minority of extremeist in the religious side that we are judged by.

    and yes both sides "spew" propaganda mainly because its all they know.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night.
    Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    135
    Maybe I adhere to my views because I live in Oklahoma, which is populated mainly by those Southern Baptists that you speak of...not too many mac users though

    As for the atheists, I agree with you. Anyone who does not even acknowledge that other opinions exist is someone who really has not been able to form one of their own (IMO) Just because I might disagree with someone does not diminish their possibility of being correct; it's just that I think they might be full of it. I respect everyone's right to assert a point; I just might disagree. Unfortunately, many people on both sides of this issue just can't stand for someone else to disagree with them...I guess they just aren't as enlightened as us

    Like I said, it's probably because of where I live that the majority of the fanaticists seem to be on the religious right...it also disgusts me when atheists (or others) infringe on religious peoples' rights to practice their faith...as long as it's not forced upon someone

    BTW, what is the SYATP?

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    62
    See You At The Pole.


    its a program started years ago. it just encouraged ppl to gather at the schools flagpole beofore school on a certain date and pray. no one had to show up, and no one was banned, and it was non denomanational, and was taking place before school started. the first copule of years several groups actully got picketed and the groups were sued to stop it. they lost of course, but occasoinly ppl still file petitions to get it banned or stopped.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night.
    Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    135
    I know that program...I actually even participated a couple of times when I was in high school. It's a shame that kids would get picketed just for gathering before school and praying. Wonderful way to teach them about the first ammendment, huh?

    I wouldn't exactly say non-denominational though. That makes it sound like they would have taken all comers..they sure wouldn't have taken buddhists or muslims..just protestants, and maybe a Catholic or two.

    Not trying to pick a fight, I just think that sometimes in similair cases (school prayer, etc.) that defenders of the right (and I do believe they have that right) assert that it's not just a Christain gathering, but one in which anyone could participate. Like the moment of silence in Oklahoma schools every morning. If you think kids with non-WASP religious beliefs would not be ridiculed, harassed, or worse, your kidding yourself.

    Just a thought...Thanks for the posts...this has been fun

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    16
    ive seen the see you at the pole take place before, and i dont think that it was in any way harmful to people of other religions, i think that any religion should be able to gather in a public place (you know, like they say in the constitution) as long as theyre not offending others.
    Mark was here

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    62
    dont knwo if you all relized this but see you at the pole was a world wide affair. and its not exactly oraganized, and all our welcome, or are supposed to be. now if some shows up with cow bells to pray of an animal to sacrafice thast different. but i know that at some of these some muslims did show up. i mean for the most part is was silent prayer, with a few speakers praying outloud. and if u refuse to display ure religion in public for fear of being heckled over it, u cant really be that faithful now can you? im not saying its right, but at the same time, u cant use it as a reason not to do something. and in all honesty it dosent matter if it offends others. there is no ammendment that sas u have a right to never be offended. all we did was gather around a flagpole and pray.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night.
    Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •