knowledge vs. religion? - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: knowledge vs. religion?

  1. #11
    Super Moderator
    Know-it-All Master Beaver

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,914
    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)
    As Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." You're comment is stereotypical to say the least. What you just said can be applied to any religion. Atheism is nothing more than a religion (never say that to an Atheist tho). It's a religion that doesn't accept a god. I spent the majority of my life as an Atheist, I've heard all the arguments and I've argued all the points. Atheists acknowledge others opinions better than any religion out there. Try giving another opinion to a Catholic or a Baptist (since those are the most hardcore of the religions), or a Witness. You'll never convince them of other opinions. They are right and that's all that matters, you're wrong so you are going to hell... unless you are Catholic and repent on your death bed . I spent my childhood as a Catholic, my teen years as an Atheist, aside from a two year period where i dabled in Daoism (Taoism) and Buddhism, and recently I've been studying Christianity, attempting to move towards it. There are obviously your hardcore religious nuts out there, and that's fine... they're happy how they are. However, even if you aren't a hardcore religious nut, you need faith.

    "You can do very little with faith, but you can do nothing without it" (Samuel Butler).

    Religion VS Science is a horrible term. Religion is a form of faith, it's faith in what you believe is there - maybe what is really there, or maybe what you want to be there. Science is just another form of faith. It's faith in what you can prove, in what you can see. Atheism, it's faith again, faith that there is no higher power. They have said for 100s of years, that man needs religion. This isn't true. Man needs faith and Faith is what is important. Who cares what you have faith in. Be it faith in God, Jesus Christ, Jehoviah, Allah, Buddha, Satan, Zeus, Thor, Jupiter, Mars, Science, the lack of a god, or even in yourself. You need faith. If you have faith in something, anything. It will give you the strength to get threw the hardest times, which is why religion is so important to so many people.

    In tradition with WWJD (What Would Jesus Do).. there's a new slogan out. PUSH (Pray Until Something Happens) and if that's what you have to do, but it gives strength and helps you carry on do it. Instead of contrasting these things, we should be comparing our beliefs and our faith, we'd have less wars and less problems.

  2. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    62
    lol arguing atheism is a religion is a good way to get banned from a board, cuz i promise you will say something that pisses off a mod.
    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. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    135
    You're comment is stereotypical to say the least. What you just said can be applied to any religion.
    EXACTLY I meant it just as I said it. The idea that one cannot discount someone else's opinion as being less than their own just because they disagree with it is exactly what I meant. I'm not sure if you disagree with that point or are supporting it.

    "You can do very little with faith, but you can do nothing without it" (Samuel Butler).
    So, exactly how much more than nothing is a little? And how would that little amount make it such an important thing?

    Religion VS Science is a horrible term. Religion is a form of faith, it's faith in what you believe is there - maybe what is really there, or maybe what you want to be there. Science is just another form of faith.
    and then
    Instead of contrasting these things, we should be comparing our beliefs and our faith, we'd have less wars and less problems.
    If religion and science are faiths, and religion vs. science is bad, then how is faith vs. faith okay?

    Lastly, I disagree that science is a form of faith. Science is interested in the study of tangible, explainable, reproducable results. Religion (and faith) has nothing to do with any of these. That is why they are called faiths .

    I'm glad to see you are exploring many of the religions out there. Exploration leads to knowledge and knowledge (even when misused) is never a bad thing. I also enjoy the interaction, and if I misunderstood what you were trying to say, maybe you could explain it for me.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    425
    Science in its true form is not a religion. It is simply a search for knowledge and understanding through experimentation and observation.

    Unfortunately, the "science" that people often refer to today is not true science. I'll pick on evolution this time around, simply because I know that'll get people's dandruff up quickly, but there are plenty or targets in modern "science". The THEORY of evolution is a prime example of faith based science. You can't measure it, you can't experiment with it, and you can't observe it. So, you're forced to make observations over a very short time period and form hypotheses and theories about longer time spans. No one has ever found any (real) missing links, no one has ever seen any species change into a new species (adaptation is not evolution) and there really isn't any hard evidence for evolution. The universe obviously had to come from somewhere, and people in general dislike the idea that God created it (because that means they're accountable to a higher being), so they had to figure out how else the universe could have gotten here. Enter the big bang theory, evolution, and a horde of other theories. Unfortunately, they can't prove any of these theories. So what are you left with? You either choose a "religion" or you choose evolution. It's faith either way you look at it, it's just that some people just don't realize that their belief in evolution is indeed faith. So I'm going to have to agree with HTRegz that modern science is indeed a religion.

  5. #15
    Super Moderator
    Know-it-All Master Beaver

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,914
    KeyserSoze:

    I'm glad you used disagree instead of you're wrong, shows a lot of intelligence.

    Anyways..

    To address those issues.

    1) I agree with:
    Anyone who does not even acknowledge that other opinions exist is someone who really has not been able to form one of their own
    However I disagree with the fact that you mentioned Atheists immediately before it. It's like saying that statement applies only to Atheists, and yes their are a long of teenagers out there who claim they are Atheists and that there is/are no God(s), but they have no idea what Atheism is. Atheism is no different than any other belief. If anyone is bad for not acknowledging other opinions, it is Catholics and Baptists. Anyways, I hope that clears that up a bit.

    2) I personally believe that faith can make a huge difference, even if it is a little bit. I've seen so many people, myself included, that have completelely lost faith in everything and they tend to be really down or depressed, but usually given something to have faith in or to believe in helps you out, it gives you something to look towards.

    3) Faith VS Faith isn't ok either. When I think vs I think against each other, and nothing should go against something else because the clash is bad. However, we should compare our faiths and see the similarities. That isn't putting them against eachother it's putting them together, with each other.

    I hope this helps.

    [EDIT]
    Thanks str34m3r, I forgot to mention that in my post, and was just about to go back and add it when I noticed yours, that is exactly what I was refering to.
    [/EDIT]

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    135
    Firstly, I never meant to insinuate that atheists are usually the ones who are most intolerant. Look at some of my earlier posts in this thread and I think you'll see that. (Living in Oklahoma, most of the intolerance I experience comes from the "religious right")

    However, I am glad that str34m3r brought up the notion of evoluationary theory being a religion. As a science teacher, this is something I hear from people alot, usually because they want me to teach creation along with evolution. Evolution is very different from religion because of the following:

    1. Evolutionary theory follows the scientific method and reasoning. It's true, not all of the facts are in yet. Any good scientist will tell you that theories usually change, and true scientists are not against that. Scientists pursue the truth based on what they can see and observe. Based on what we can see and observe, the theory of evolution provides the best answers.

    2. You seem to emphasize that the theory of evolution is somehow less valid because it is termed a "theory". This is an argument of semantics. In science, many ideas we hold as true are called theories for a long time, because of the change mentioned above. Example--Theories you probably accept w/o protest: Theory of relativity, Theories of gravity (both Newton's and Einstein's), Cell theory, these are all just theories in the view of science.

    Now, about evolution in general...(and please forgive the simplicity employed)

    1. Adaptation is evolution. Adaptation laid the whole groundwork for Darwin's theory. Adaptation leads to natural selection. Natural selection leads to advantageous traits. When one species acquires enough advantageous traits, it might differ significantly from its original brethren. When this happens, a new species arises, and evolution has occured.

    2. The fossil record is continually revealing itself. Lots of "missing links" have been and are still being found. However, the Earth is a mighty big place and we have only been looking for 100 years. It won't happen overnight.

    3. Many experiments are done with organisms that have short generation times, i.e. bacteria and the like. They have supported the theory.

    Will evolution still be the prevailing theory on the origin of species and the differences between them in 100 more years? Who knows, but hopefully there will be people of integrity looking for answers. I believe that is all those people are doing now, and just because those answers are grounded in observation and reason does not mean that they are trying to duck accountability to a higher power.

    P.S. It is an awful big stretch of philosophy to begin with the assumption that the universe had to arise from something, let alone someone. Following that logic, who/what created God?

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    425
    We seem to be running off on a tangent from the original post, but I'll reply one more time before heading off to bed and letting the thread return to its original course. First I'd like to point out that in my first post, I did mention that not all people who believe in evolution are using it as a religion. There are some who truly understand that the theory of evolution is a work in progress, but few teachers teach it as such. Several high school teachers I have observed and all of the college teachers I have observed basically teach it as if it's fact. I believe that in those cases, it is roughly equivalent to teaching a religion.

    Evolutionary theory follows the scientific method and reasoning. It's true, not all of the facts are in yet. Any good scientist will tell you that theories usually change, and true scientists are not against that. Scientists pursue the truth based on what they can see and observe. Based on what we can see and observe, the theory of evolution provides the best answers.
    I'd like to hear your explanation of why evolution follows the scientific method better than creation does.

    You seem to emphasize that the theory of evolution is somehow less valid because it is termed a "theory". This is an argument of semantics. In science, many ideas we hold as true are called theories for a long time, because of the change mentioned above. Example--Theories you probably accept w/o protest: Theory of relativity, Theories of gravity (both Newton's and Einstein's), Cell theory, these are all just theories in the view of science.
    Actually, the verdict on both the theory or relativity and the theory of gravity are still up in the air due to the fact that they haven't figured out a way to prove them. Several experiments in recent years have cast doubt on the validity of the theory of relativity. I'll try to dig through my old magazines to see if I can find some references. The difference is that when I was going through school (past elementary school), they were very careful to note that these were indeed theories and that alternate theories existed. This was not the case for evolution.

    Adaptation is evolution. Adaptation laid the whole groundwork for Darwin's theory. Adaptation leads to natural selection. Natural selection leads to advantageous traits. When one species acquires enough advantageous traits, it might differ significantly from its original brethren. When this happens, a new species arises, and evolution has occured.
    I'm sorry, but I don't think that adaptation is evolution. I'll use cars as an illustration since I'm tired and can't figure out a better one. The evolution process is equivalent to a tricycle spontaneously becoming a dragster. Adaptations are slight modifications such as changing the shape of the spoiler to increase aerodynamics. There's a large difference.

    The fossil record is continually revealing itself. Lots of "missing links" have been and are still being found. However, the Earth is a mighty big place and we have only been looking for 100 years. It won't happen overnight.
    I haven't heard of any of these "missing links" being found except the fake ones. Would you mind pointing me towards some references for these? I'd be interested to read them.

    Many experiments are done with organisms that have short generation times, i.e. bacteria and the like. They have supported the theory.
    The only ones of these I'm familiar with are slight adaptations which I covered above. Viruses are probably the closest thing to the textbook definition of evolution, but it's still a large stretch. Again, references would be appreciated.

    Will evolution still be the prevailing theory on the origin of species and the differences between them in 100 more years? Who knows, but hopefully there will be people of integrity looking for answers.
    I certainly hope so.

  8. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    62
    im not going to fuel this debate, seeing that it is off topic, but i have to add, several of these groundbreaking finds are blown out of porportion, i mean on one of the species that is an "ancestor of man", all they have found is three teeth and part of the lower jaw bone. from that they drew a pic and claimed that it walked upright and was capable of communicating vocaly.
    how do they come to these conclusions, they looked at evolution and said that it would have to to fit into the place they had for it. they put the cart before the horse. they are filling in gaps with what they need to be there. the problem with accepting theories that cant be tested is that u begain to make assumptions based upon them that can lead you down the wrong path. and its one thing to say that an animal can adapt to meet its enviroment. its another to say that an animal can change its DNA and morph into another creature. adn thats what it does. lates take on evolution is that it idles along balanced out until somethin gupsets the balance, then it goes into overdrive, and almost all the creatures around have been replaced with new ones, then it stops.
    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
  •  

 Security News

     Patches

       Security Trends

         How-To

           Buying Guides