Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Hardly.

Compare the Christian (and one assumes Judaic and thus Islamic) version of creation, and the now generally accepted Scientific answer.

One is based on something written in a book which we are asked to believe is the infallible word of God. The other however, has some evidence and theory behind, which is the best Science can manage.

The reason I embrace Science over Religion is simple. Science accepts it could be wrong on pretty much everything. A Theory is only valid until it is disproven, and the Scientific Community is forever applying different Theories to new research. Every once in a while, an anamoly rises up in a Theory, which causes it to be reviewed, improved, or discounted. Religion however, does not. It sticks to it's guns in the face of fairly overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

QFT. Religion is screaming till you are blue in the face that you are right. Science is about trying to prove what you know wrong so you come up with the right answer.

youngblood wrote:Agreed dogma. I've met very polarized versions of agnosticism.

It amuses me to no end how aggressive agnostics can be when defending their definition of the word. Its as if they missed the point of stating the nonsensical nature of spiritual knowledge.

Gwar! wrote:Religion is screaming till you are blue in the face that you are right.

Coming from a religious person, I generally agree with this statement. I feel like I'm constantly telling myself to chill out and examine myself before I get in someone else's face.

In the words of Sam Beauregarde: Violet! You're turning violet, Violet!

Gwar! wrote:
The reason I embrace Science over Religion is simple. Science accepts it could be wrong on pretty much everything. A Theory is only valid until it is disproven, and the Scientific Community is forever applying different Theories to new research. Every once in a while, an anamoly rises up in a Theory, which causes it to be reviewed, improved, or discounted. Religion however, does not. It sticks to it's guns in the face of fairly overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The problem is that science is rarely taught that way in school. Most institutions simply relate facts, without getting into the process that is actually the backbone of the discipline.

Incidentally, most religions don't operate in the way your describing. There's usually a small set of core assumptions which define a religion, and then a long list of variant theologies based on those assumptions. These theologies will fall in and out of popularity over time, while going through their own form of progressive evolution.

Science in British Schools is ultimately about hard facts. The Heart exists to pump blood about the body. Blood carries oxygen around the body. Stuff we are 100% sure of. The theoretical stuff is more about using Physics and Chemistry to promote theories, and about Scientific Method.

Can't really say for the States as I wasn't educated there!

And I think they do operate as above (was me that said it. Gwar! quoted it). After all, we are told that the Bible is the Word of God. Because the Bible says it's the Word of God. This is an exceptionally wonky logic which prevents me from taking any Judaic based Religion seriously. You cannot justify the holiness of a text on something written in that text. It's just a ludicrious, illogical stand point.

However, that is not to say that some bits of the Bible aren't valid. The stuff about not being a spanker to other people is worth reading and taking note of in particular. But to suggest that this is proof of a higher being is utterly nonsensical*


*Before anyone mentions, I am aware my view on this is of course a product of centuries of indoctrination. Had the Bible said 'If you don't like someone, chop his face off' it's entirely possible that I would agree. A little bit of Hypocricy, however unavoidable is always present in most Religious discussions

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And I think they do operate as above (was me that said it. Gwar! quoted it). After all, we are told that the Bible is the Word of God. Because the Bible says it's the Word of God. This is an exceptionally wonky logic which prevents me from taking any Judaic based Religion seriously. You cannot justify the holiness of a text on something written in that text. It's just a ludicrious, illogical stand point.

Yes it is, and it isn't a fundamental tenet of the Christian religion. You're making the same mistake Dawkins does in using some particularly odd examples of religion to characterize the entire body of it.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
However, that is not to say that some bits of the Bible aren't valid. The stuff about not being a spanker to other people is worth reading and taking note of in particular. But to suggest that this is proof of a higher being is utterly nonsensical*

*Before anyone mentions, I am aware my view on this is of course a product of centuries of indoctrination. Had the Bible said 'If you don't like someone, chop his face off' it's entirely possible that I would agree. A little bit of Hypocricy, however unavoidable is always present in most Religious discussions

It isn't necessarily the product of indoctrination. The Big 5 are surprisingly similar when it comes to basic morality.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


The reason I embrace Science over Religion is simple. Science accepts it could be wrong on pretty much everything.

Except they teach science in school as though it were indisputable fact, when it is, in fact, based on disputable assumptions.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
A Theory is only valid until it is disproven, and the Scientific Community is forever applying different Theories to new research. Every once in a while, an anamoly rises up in a Theory, which causes it to be reviewed, improved, or discounted. Religion however, does not. It sticks to it's guns in the face of fairly overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Again your overwhelming evidence is based on underwhelming assumptions.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Now don't get me wrong, I do have utmost respect for the views of others, but when it comes to Religion, I feel people really need to be challenged heavily, as their views are based on things unprovable, unknowable, and are often embraced without question. Thankfully though, we as a people seem to be moving away from the dangers of blind faith, toward a more enlightened world where people explore their Religion properly, rather than just accept the Dogma passed down over the years.

Now on the last point (except for the unprovable, unknowable parts) I agree with you MDG.

I also want to say that I have utmost respect for people that don't believe in God, are athiests, agnostic etc. and am all for open dialog, being challenged heavily, as long it is done with respect and with a sincere desire for mutual enlightenment.

Sadly the internet is rife with people on both sides of the debate who don't "get it".

GG

Hope Ive not fallen into that category GG!

generalgrog wrote:
Again your overwhelming evidence is based on underwhelming assumptions.

That the world now is comparable to the world 2000 years ago, and will be comparable to the world in another 2000 years? That's hardly an earth shattering assumption. In fact, its the basic assumption involved in waking up every day.

generalgrog wrote:Except they teach science in school as though it were indisputable fact, when it is, in fact, based on disputable assumptions.

The problem is, all facts require some assumptions. Even mathematical facts require postulates.

It's not so much a question of "is an assumption being made?" as it is "what assumptions are being made and how reasonable is it to assume these things?".

So, the probability of a scientific theory being true is more important than absolute, 100.0000000000000% truth (which is going to be nearly impossible to attain).

Complex Ideas require a longer period of study, trial and error to prove.

For example, the theory of Gravity. Thus far, in the written and recorded experience of mankind, if I drop an object, it will fall to the ground. Now it could well happen that tomorrow I go throw my cigarette butt out the window, and rather than follow the trajectory of the drop, it just floats in mid air. At that point, Science will asses and explain it as best it can. This might take some time.

And as Dogma said, we can measure various things on Earth and use their status and changes as markers to make predictions.

I think it was yourself who stated you believe in the literal creation, that the Earth is 6,000(ish) years old, and if things appear older, it is because God intended them to. I hate to say it, but this is a pretty weak standpoint, with it's only strength being that inorder to disprove it, I have to disprove God.

And this is what irks me about some Religions (taking on board what peeps have said to me about the Tar Brush!) is that rather than take the evidence offered up by Science, and incorporate it into the framework of their own Religion, they just stick their fingers in the ears and do their best ignore it, or worse, debunk it with ludicrous counter theories.

For example, the Theory of Evolution. This can still work in the framework of Creationism, in so far as God did indeed create all life on Earth, but he did so by creating an extremely simplistic, but adaptive organism, and has been observing ever since.

generalgrog wrote:Except they teach science in school as though it were indisputable fact, when it is, in fact, based on disputable assumptions.

Science itself, and those who postulate and test and experiment to find the rules and nature of our existence, acknowledges that whatever they come up with is a highly-tested guess. Thus, the word "theory", instead of "fact" or "truth". Now, you may have had poor teachers who went the easy, sloppy route and just slapped the determinations of science down like facts, but that has as much to do with the actual science as those whackjobs who protest military funerals have to do with other churches.

Another point: religion, specificly Christianity, has been particularly bad about making the exact mistake you claim that the teachers have made, but on an institutional level - claiming to have a lock on the "truth" based on a very disputable set of data and assertions. Science can adapt to new data and new methods of acquiring information, and has on a number of theories. Can its detractors say the same?

Gwar! wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Hardly.

Compare the Christian (and one assumes Judaic and thus Islamic) version of creation, and the now generally accepted Scientific answer.

One is based on something written in a book which we are asked to believe is the infallible word of God. The other however, has some evidence and theory behind, which is the best Science can manage.

The reason I embrace Science over Religion is simple. Science accepts it could be wrong on pretty much everything. A Theory is only valid until it is disproven, and the Scientific Community is forever applying different Theories to new research. Every once in a while, an anamoly rises up in a Theory, which causes it to be reviewed, improved, or discounted. Religion however, does not. It sticks to it's guns in the face of fairly overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

QFT. Religion is screaming till you are blue in the face that you are right. Science is about trying to prove what you know wrong so you come up with the right answer.

A good point of why science is more believable than religion.

*sigh* Gwar, AND MAD DOC GROTSNIK, are right.

rubiksnoob wrote:A good point of why science is more believable than religion.

*sigh* Gwar, AND MAD DOC GROTSNIK, are right.

Nah, science has a method for reviewing the observable world. It relies on building models with predictive power and then testing those models. Religion is a search for truth in the supernatural world. It relies on non-observable, personal beliefs that cannot be empirically tested.

Now, when religion starts stepping on the toes of science (such as with creationism) then the limits of religion are greatly exposed. But its also true that when science starts stepping on the toes of religion (such as with Dawkins & co) then the limits of science are greatly exposed.

Both are at their best when they stick to what they're supposed to do. It is not an either/or thing.

I've read the assumption argument against science a number of times now, and it's starting to get a bit stale. Scientists KNOW they make assumptiosmn left right and center. If they diddn't then they couldn't test anything. The fact is that the assumptions they make are one of 2 things: An assumption that is very safe to make (Let go of a rock in the air, it's probably going to collide with the earth, or whatever is between it and the earth), or an assumption that is being tested (this chemical added to that chemical will go boom!). The flaw with that argument in that religion makes just as many assumptions (that to a science-oriented person often seems to be a very unlikely assumption). In taking the words from the bible of the word of god you have assumed at least 3 major things. 1: There is a god (Of which there appears to be little proof when examined). 2: God wrote the bible. 3: The bible has been 100% faithfully transcripted with no changes whatsoever. My problem with this is that I've yet to see any evidence supporting any of these assumptions (save for the third one... sorta. There does seem to be some evidence that the "current edition" is close enough to the original to be called a faithful copy).

But this is all moot when you look at the big picture. If god is as loving and awesome as all the religions claim he/she/it is, why would they care if you followed a set of guidelines that, really, *could* just be made up by other humans. As long as you live your life as a good person, god probably will be good you to after you die.

@spartanghost:

Your second point was that God wrote the Bible, but I don't think anyone thinks that that is the case.

In Christianity and Judaism the religious texts are not thought to be written by God, but by people who were inspired by him. And it is not clear who was or wasn't inspired, apparently. At one point a Christian group sat down and picked out pieces of scripture to turn into cannon. There are pieces of scripture called the apocrypha that some Christian groups believed were to be included in the bible that were ommitted by other groups.

In Islam it is largely accepted that the Qu'ran is the perfect unchanging word of God, told to Mohammed. Having a perfect memory, Mohammad spread his message, which was recorded on scraps of paper and compiled years later. Interestingly, very early versions of the Qu'ran and accompanying islamic texts were discovered to be written in Arabic with some of the little dots missing. Placement of these dots can greatly alter the meaning of a sentance. That bit you've heard about 72 virgins in the afterlife becomes being fed grapes by angels in the afterlife; which doesn't contradict the other statements in the Qu'ran of an eternity of contentment with one's spouse.


So no, I don't think anyone believes that God wrote the Bible, but many seem to believe that he dictated some religious texts

Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but that is my humble understanding of it.

Gwar! wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:A young girl (8) is taken from her family in an unkown country. She and her sisters are forced by guerillas to speed across a grest distance barefoot. When one the the little girls begs to stop and rest she is taken to a tree and shot. Another girl tries to run away and is chased down. The other children are then forced to kill thier own sister at the order of the soldiers at gunpoint.

When they get to the hidden camp. The boys are made into Child Soldiers and the girls are given as gifts. Sex-slaves to the older soldiers.

Is this wrong? Do you really think that such things are anything but evil?

Nope. It is no more "Evil" than anything else in the world.

Gwar, that comment sickened me. That was a true story you $£%&er. Tell that to the girl. Hell if someone raped you up the ass then I think you might define it as evil. Or at the very LEAST, wrong.

This kind of stuff is happening right now in Uganda. I heard about this particular situation from a missionary who was working with the orphans. The girl got pregnant at 11, had the baby and managed to escape. He also told me several other horror stories. I won't "bore" you with them all, Gwar, but one involved a 7 year old boy being forced at gunpoint to shoot his parents as a test, and to dehumanise him.

If you don't call this stuff evil, or injust, or at least WRONG, Then you can rot you sick bastard!

Good and Evil are just concepts, the same as morality, created by humans. Animals constantly do things which would be considered evil if a human did it without any guilt or sense that it is wrong. These things are only evil because someone thinks they are. Whilst I am not defending the actions you described, I have to say Gwar!'s opinion is perfectly valid, and one I happen to share.

OT, (Had to remind myself what it was) I want to live to at least 108 so I've been in 3 centuries. After death, I'll take what I can get. Concsioussness, in any circumstance, is preferable to oblivion.

How about UNNATURAL then?
Surely stuff like that can be SUPPOSED to happen.

I don't see a problem with good and evil being "just concepts".

They are helpful for guiding people to live together happily.

"Just concepts" as in they are Just?
Or they are simply just "concepts?

Things being supposed to happen implies intelligent design. If it's not "supposed to happen" then they are simply acting with the free will God gave them, so you can't stop them but God will turn them into charcoal. However, if there is no intelligent design nothing is "supposed" to happen and everything is a freak coincidence, the guerillas need soldiers to survive, and to get them resort to conscription. Survival of the least inhibited. They do what they feel is necessary to survive. Either way it's perfectly natural. (perfect may not be the best word)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not just as in righteous, just as in only.

I cannot, and will not accept anyone who says that what those bastards did to that child as NATURAL. For gods sake, Shinigami, if you had seen the pictures. She told the guy how they had gang raped her, begging and crying, at 8! She was beaten and cut, and forever scarred by what happened, both physically and mentallty.

I felt such rage at the girls (now 12) pain, it scared me. If you had left me alone in a room with a knife and just ONE of those guys, then God help me for what I would do.

It truly saddens me that people accept these horrible, horrible things as a natural part of the world. These people, and wrongdoings must be confronted and stopped at every opportuninty.

Natural =//= right, ok, acceptable. I don't condone any of it, and I would happily join your knife party. Such deeds should indeed be punished, I didn't mean this stuff is right, only that "evil" is just a point of view. In this case it is undoubtably everyone's point of view. I think you misunderstood me. I was questioning the nature of good and evil not whether or not childrape is ok.

So if something is not okay, then is it evil?
Is evil just a way of saying something is REALLY not okay? What is the big difference?

Personally, If forced to put a value on evil, (which it seems I am) I would say that "Evil" is doing something which is generally accepted as being not ok unprovoked and with no worthwhile benefit to anyone. Under this definition, the above rapes are "evil", press ganging is "not ok".

So there is a difference? (serious)

If there IS right and wrong. (which I believe there is):
Are there degrees of right and wrong?
Or is it just one line you cross an you've done it?

Yes, I think there is a difference. The word evil is thrown around too much. Holocaust = evil, Stealing = not ok. I know you didn't mention either but whatever, they're just examples.
Society creates Right and Wrong, and as such there are degrees as Paedophiles are considered worse than most other criminals, murder is worse than assault etc.
It is the circumstances and intent which decree whether or not it is evil.

k, I get it.
I know there may not be a "pure evil force" (aka satan) but surely there are acts in the world that can only be considered evil?

I wouldn't say only, as it depends on your point of view, but some acts are committed in such a way that general consensus is that it is evil, but as always there will be some holocaust denier types to get in the way of your perfect world. And no matter who says these things are evil they will keep on happening, unfortunately.