Quote from: SeriousGinger isnt a race...

neither is black/ white etc..

though if people want to categorize themselves then it is equally valid for ginger people to consider themselves an ethnic group as much as it is for black people

Nice sig.  Yep, theyd probably be too busy kidnapping & raping baby girls, or shooting up colleges while their kids do drugs and stab each other for being in the wrong gang. Like we do.

Oh wait, we dont all do that. Silly me, there I was trying to tar millions of people with the same brush. How embarrassing.

people will always stick to the social controls of old.
it was good for us as a society back in the middle ages but tbh this has to stop.

Quote from: maximusotterI just have a problem with any religion that:

1. Claims moral superiority over others for any reason whatsoever.
2. Denies scientific fact.
3. Believes that their particular holy book is the inerrant word of their invisible sky god.
4. Cannot play well with others.

Sorry - I joined this late but its a long time since Ive seen Max post something in Speakers Corner that I agree with so I thought Id take a moment to quote and agree

The rest of the thread went down hill a bit but agree with the above totally.

As I said earlier, scientific morons are equally as bad as religious morons.

Quote from: SeriousAs I said earlier, scientific morons are equally as bad as religious morons.

Yeah I read your post but it seemed a little naive and digging for the same old conversation so I let it slide  To do it quickly tho...  You applied the 4 rules to science and said theyre as bad.  To break them down.

Quote1. Claims moral superiority over others for any reason whatsoever.

The key word in that sentance is moral.  Science is not a question of morality and does not in any way preclude or support any religion.  It does disagree with the literal interpretation of some of the bits of some of the books but it generally accepts there are some big questions were a long way from being able to answer.  Many scientists are religious but many of the day to day  things around us can be tested - thats what science does.  Nothing more, nothing less.  When Jesus says I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch of mine that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. he didnt mean it literally and a scientist stood around at the time could probably have run some tests and come to the conclusion Jesus was in fact not a vine.  The lack of grapes is usually a good first check.  Thats what science does - anyone from that point running round saying we shouldnt trim grape vines because Jesus was a vine would then probably be shunned by scientists because it was tested and found to be untrue.

Quote2. Denies scientific fact.

Science doesnt deny scientific fact, in fact science has very few facts. In order for something to become fact or proved it is actually done by mathematics.  Im not even sure science can actually prove anything.  Maths can prove something but thats not the role of science.  Science simply tests theories and applies them as best they can until someone disproves them or finds another model that fits measurements better.  When the theory is simple enough maths attempts to prove/disprove it.

Quote3. Believes that their particular holy book is the inerrant word of their invisible sky god.

No scientist believes in any one book.  They find the very idea of a single theory that is not allowed to be questioned as abhorrent.  In fact science is taught from the very beginning by getting people to test everything.  When you were taught physics you were asked to drop a ball, record what happened and then see if you got the same result as other people or something different happened.  They didnt ask you to do that because your teacher didnt know what would happen - they did it to get you to question everything and check what youre told for yourself.

The entire nature of science is to get you to think about and question everything.  The questioning and getting there for yourself is its entire purpose of doing it.  Also, in contrast to some religions - when a test is done (and confirmed) that disagrees with the old theory, the old theory is either modified to fit better or totally discarded.

Quote4. Cannot play well with others.

Science in no way precludes religion - there are a great many prominant religious scientists.  It plays well with other academic subjects too since it relies on mathematics for proofs and feeds into our day to day lives through engineers and theologists.



So by your metric - none of the 4 things you quoted really apply.  The core difference is simple.  Some religions (particularly fundamentalist forms of them) believe in one thing that is not to be questioned and should be followed and interpreted as an absolute.  Science actually wishes every single person could question everything, test it all and throw out all the stuff that was wrong in the pursuit of the truth/right answer.  The goal is to find someone who can ask a harder question which is why people with particularly high IQs like Gallileo, Newton, Einstein, Hawking, etc come along occasionally and undermine the whole system.  When this happens, scientists get excited as theyre going to have to find a new answer which is closer to the truth than the last one.  Religions have a nasty habit of killing those same people for saying the same.

Science is searching for the answers, religions believe they already have them and we shouldnt question them anymore.

Quote from: SteveF

Quote from: SeriousAs I said earlier, scientific morons are equally as bad as religious morons.

Yeah I read your post but it seemed a little naive and digging for the same old conversation so I let it slide  To do it quickly tho...  You applied the 4 rules to science and said theyre as bad.  To break them down.

Quote1. Claims moral superiority over others for any reason whatsoever.

The key word in that sentance is moral.  Science is not a question of morality and does not in any way preclude or support any religion.  It does disagree with the literal interpretation of some of the bits of some of the books but it generally accepts there are some big questions were a long way from being able to answer.  Many scientists are religious but many of the day to day  things around us can be tested - thats what science does.  Nothing more, nothing less.  When Jesus says I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch of mine that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. he didnt mean it literally and a scientist stood around at the time could probably have run some tests and come to the conclusion Jesus was in fact not a vine.  The lack of grapes is usually a good first check.  Thats what science does - anyone from that point running round saying we shouldnt trim grape vines because Jesus was a vine would then probably be shunned by scientists because it was tested and found to be untrue.

Just keep believing it, they will do anything to protect their pet theory. You quote a parable, which gives an example, any scientist stupid enough to believe it is a statement of reality would need some extra brain cells implanted. Luckily most people would realise he isnt sayng he is a vine but comparing himself to one.

Quote

Quote2. Denies scientific fact.

Science doesnt deny scientific fact, in fact science has very few facts. In order for something to become fact or proved it is actually done by mathematics.  Im not even sure science can actually prove anything.  Maths can prove something but thats not the role of science.  Science simply tests theories and applies them as best they can until someone disproves them or finds another model that fits measurements better.  When the theory is simple enough maths attempts to prove/disprove it.

Just what is scientific fact? its all theory! Lots of it has problems too.

Quote

Quote3. Believes that their particular holy book is the inerrant word of their invisible sky god.

No scientist believes in any one book.  They find the very idea of a single theory that is not allowed to be questioned as abhorrent.  In fact science is taught from the very beginning by getting people to test everything.  When you were taught physics you were asked to drop a ball, record what happened and then see if you got the same result as other people or something different happened.  They didnt ask you to do that because your teacher didnt know what would happen - they did it to get you to question everything and check what youre told for yourself.

The entire nature of science is to get you to think about and question everything.  The questioning and getting there for yourself is its entire purpose of doing it.  Also, in contrast to some religions - when a test is done (and confirmed) that disagrees with the old theory, the old theory is either modified to fit better or totally discarded.

Unless it is their theory and then its sacrosanct. You would be shocked how often scientists try any method of preserving their pet theory against all evidence of it being a dead parrot. The bible is a collection of books, not just one, I thought you would have realised that by now. Plenty of external writings also apply.

Quote

Quote4. Cannot play well with others.

Science in no way precludes religion - there are a great many prominant religious scientists.  It plays well with other academic subjects too since it relies on mathematics for proofs and feeds into our day to day lives through engineers and theologists.

Exactly, so why do so many scientists say that god does not exist? Im not saying *every* scientist, just the moronic ones. I also introduce the usual statement that you wouldnt understand it, condescending b*stards.

QuoteSo by your metric - none of the 4 things you quoted really apply.  The core difference is simple.  Some religions (particularly fundamentalist forms of them) believe in one thing that is not to be questioned and should be followed and interpreted as an absolute.  Science actually wishes every single person could question everything, test it all and throw out all the stuff that was wrong in the pursuit of the truth/right answer.  The goal is to find someone who can ask a harder question which is why people with particularly high IQs like Gallileo, Newton, Einstein, Hawking, etc come along occasionally and undermine the whole system.  When this happens, scientists get excited as theyre going to have to find a new answer which is closer to the truth than the last one.  Religions have a nasty habit of killing those same people for saying the same.

They all apply, its just you are looking at the problem from the inside and cant see them.

QuoteScience is searching for the answers, religions believe they already have them and we shouldnt question them anymore.

There you go slandering all the religious people with the same brush again,  you said there was some scientists who believed in a god so you have just tarred them as well.

Problem is you make huge generalisations without thinking about it. You try to defend the indefensible.

BTW I made sure the argument was loaded against you before you started

Thats precious.

Quote from: DaveIt isnt so much Islam IMO but local interpretations/adherence to it mixed with tribal bullsh*t and customs that date back hundreds of years.

Very true, especially in this stoning. Customs, traditions and male rule not
so much religion.

Quote from: SeriousBTW I made sure the argument was loaded against you before you started

I knew you did which is why I ignored it the first time  Fortunately you loaded it badly which is why it was no problem to pick it up when you pressed the point again.


You seem to believe scientists cling to their pet theory forever.  In most cases they dont but theres an element of human pride.  Thats why there isnt one scientist who makes is measurements and tells us the answer.  The fact there are competing groups is what distinguishes it from religion and drives towards the truth.  At the end of the day most scientists wont ever even try and publish what they believe unless they have some supporting evidence in the first place.  When theyre wrong - they as an individual may cling to their idea but the community moves beyond it.

The parable about the vine was a joke - Im glad it didnt go over your head...

QuoteJust what is scientific fact? its all theory! Lots of it has problems too.

Without attempting to sound too condescending.  This is exactly what I said several times in the diatribe.  Science isnt a subject of facts.  Maths is.  Its a distinction that most people know.  Scientists usually dont claim any fact unless its been proved mathematically.  Its only you who claim science fact in every post on this topic you make.  Its everyone else who tells you there isnt one.

QuoteThe bible is a collection of books, not just one, I thought you would have realised that by now. Plenty of external writings also apply.

If youd like to compare our knowledges on the bible, its structure, history and formation Im more than happy to.  Ive studied it for a few years and know it pretty damn well.  The external writings you refer to are what?  So far I know the dead sea scrolls as the only original documents that apply but theyre largely rejected by the Christian church as extremist Jewish texts.

QuoteExactly, so why do so many scientists say that god does not exist? Im not saying *every* scientist, just the moronic ones. I also introduce the usual statement that you wouldnt understand it, condescending b*stards.

It depends how you phrase the question tbh.  Scientists can dismiss the existance of some of various gods actions through testing.  Very few would dismiss a god of any form since they cant.  Theres nothing turned up in science so far that says a god is needed but that doesnt preclude one.  Youd have to provide more info on this cause I speak to scientists every day and Ive never heard one of them say there definitely isnt a god and provide reasons.  A few (myself included) would say the christian interpretation of god is wrong but thats about it.  Youre clearly speaking to scientists who say this stuff so I guess you have to tell us who they are and what they said.  Ive not heard people say it.

QuoteThey all apply, its just you are looking at the problem from the inside and cant see them.

Yup, Im looking at it from the inside of it as a scientist.  Im also looking at it from the inside of religion too since Im going out with a devout christian who works in a church and believes the bible is literally true.  She works in a baptist church every day of the week, goes voluntarily on a weekend twice a day and most of her friends are the same way inclined.  Their church is trying to save me so had this conversation with people a lot recently, whore significantly better at this than you  Lets just say Im pretty up to speed on the Christian church now at least.

I still think none of those things you quoted apply.  If you can explain why then go for it.

QuoteProblem is you make huge generalisations without thinking about it. You try to defend the indefensible.

In case you hadnt realised we are speaking in generalisations.  Youre comparing religion to science.  One would hate to point out theyre huge areas and consist of people with a wide spectrum of beliefs in both areas.  Other than generalising you cannot have the conversation.  The core of science is everyone should try and find their own truth and question everything.  Religions defines the truth before you ask questions.  Yeah its a generalisation but can you fault it?

A bit out of topic but why are christians not christians ?
I believe a christian should skip The Old testament and follow the teaching of Jesus and not go for all tose old testament laws and regulations when trying to prove something is against God. In many cases I feel that christians forget what Jesus taught, so why call themselves
christians when they should be called neojudaists or something ?

I think the problem with that for Christians is Luke chapter 4 - Jesus quotes the old testament as justification for his actions when being persecuted by the devil.

The New testament is meant to be the word of God (as guided by the holy spirit) and since Jesus quoted the old testament in the new, it cant just be dismissed.

They do however get round big chunks of the Old testament by saying its part of the Mosaic dietary law and became redundant when Jesus arrived and introduced the new covenant.  This meant someone came up with the idea of the old testament having ceremonial laws which you can ignore and life laws which you cant - without them its as bad to eat shellfish as it is to be a homosexual in the old testament (both are described as an abomination) and that doesnt fit with the message they want anymore.  The stuff like stoning to death for working on the sabbath, eating shellfish, camels, insects, birds, selling daughters into slavery, not touching the skin of a dead pig, wearing clothes made of two different threads, planting different crops side by side, drinking in a tent, etc etc. are all now included as ceremonial laws so they just get ignored by many groups.


In reality many Christians simply ignore the old testament anyway and take the new testament as a guide for life (with the ten commandments reduced to love God, do not kill, do not steal and do unto others as you would have them do unto you).  Its just the official line of the churches they belong to that are different.

Quote from: SteveFYou seem to believe scientists cling to their pet theory forever.  In most cases they dont but theres an element of human pride.

In a lot of cases this is due to death of the believers in a theory, eventually there is nobody with an interest in a theory. Many go their whole lives without changing their opinions. For many who have a vested interest its very difficult to abandon your beliefs, this applies to scientists as well as religious people and computer geeks too.

QuoteThats why there isnt one scientist who makes is measurements and tells us the answer.  The fact there are competing groups is what distinguishes it from religion and drives towards the truth.  At the end of the day most scientists wont ever even try and publish what they believe unless they have some supporting evidence in the first place.  When theyre wrong - they as an individual may cling to their idea but the community moves beyond it.

Yep, its rather like competing religious groups saying my religion is the only true one or console owners claiming that theirs is the best.

QuoteThe parable about the vine was a joke - Im glad it didnt go over your head...

It didnt, it was just too big a target not to take a poke at

Quote

QuoteJust what is scientific fact? its all theory! Lots of it has problems too.

Without attempting to sound too condescending.  This is exactly what I said several times in the diatribe.  Science isnt a subject of facts.  Maths is.  Its a distinction that most people know.  Scientists usually dont claim any fact unless its been proved mathematically.  Its only you who claim science fact in every post on this topic you make.  Its everyone else who tells you there isnt one.

I would counter that, its a series of beliefs, these beliefs try to explain what we see and experience. In the end its a model that may or may not be right.

Quote

QuoteThe bible is a collection of books, not just one, I thought you would have realised that by now. Plenty of external writings also apply.

If youd like to compare our knowledges on the bible, its structure, history and formation Im more than happy to.  Ive studied it for a few years and know it pretty damn well.  The external writings you refer to are what?  So far I know the dead sea scrolls as the only original documents that apply but theyre largely rejected by the Christian church as extremist Jewish texts.

There was originally at least 30 apocalyptic books that were similar to Revelations, which nearly didnt make it into the final selection. There are loads of gospels such as those according to Mary, James, Judas, Peter, Thomas and many others. Most Christians dont realise that originally the church should have been, and was, led by Jesus brother. Look up the Nag Hammadi library too. Not all of these exist and in some cases all we have are fragments or mentions in other texts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospeljudas.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas

Quote

QuoteExactly, so why do so many scientists say that god does not exist? Im not saying *every* scientist, just the moronic ones. I also introduce the usual statement that you wouldnt understand it, condescending b*stards.

It depends how you phrase the question tbh.  Scientists can dismiss the existance of some of various gods actions through testing.  Very few would dismiss a god of any form since they cant.  Theres nothing turned up in science so far that says a god is needed but that doesnt preclude one.  Youd have to provide more info on this cause I speak to scientists every day and Ive never heard one of them say there definitely isnt a god and provide reasons.  A few (myself included) would say the christian interpretation of god is wrong but thats about it.  Youre clearly speaking to scientists who say this stuff so I guess you have to tell us who they are and what they said.  Ive not heard people say it.

Plenty of scientists dont believe in a god, it isnt a problem as plenty of Joe Bloggs in the street dont either. The point is that they tend to end up polarised against those in religion.

QuoteI still think none of those things you quoted apply.  If you can explain why then go for it.

I didnt say they applied to every scientist, just those who act like morons

Quote

QuoteProblem is you make huge generalisations without thinking about it. You try to defend the indefensible.

In case you hadnt realised we are speaking in generalisations.  Youre comparing religion to science.  One would hate to point out theyre huge areas and consist of people with a wide spectrum of beliefs in both areas.  Other than generalising you cannot have the conversation.  The core of science is everyone should try and find their own truth and question everything.  Religions defines the truth before you ask questions.  Yeah its a generalisation but can you fault it?

I gave a limitation to mine by saying some or those who are morons, that cuts it down from being a generalisation. If you read my posts I never say all.